# What is more important? Art or folk music?



## Edward Elgar (Mar 22, 2006)

A simple question for you. Please justify your choice. It may be hard to do so given that both musics are so essential to culture, but I want to hear your opinions if you have any (the stronger the better!).


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

I voted art music as being more important to _me_ because that's what I listen to generally. However, that's not to say folk music (I presume you mean folk music = non-art music/everything else) is not important to society because we certainly need music in one way or another. And I won't get into a definiton fight as to what's art and folk music, other than to assume art music means the kind of music that we generally discuss here.

Historically, and I'm sure currently too, folk music has also inspired art music in one way or another. For example, Haydn's final symphonic masterpiece, no.104's fourth movement has been recognised as thematically linked to Croatian folk music. You can find/quote numerous other examples throughout time/composers etc. Using this example, we are listening to _both_ folk and art music concurrently!

So while I voted art music, in a general sense of the word used to describe the music that I listen to, I certainly do not discount folk music in any way. I have Medieval folk music on recording (HIP, believe it or not). Very interesting stuff.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Can you define the two categories, as my views on what constitute each are probably vastly different to yours.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

Both. Art is not a quality label since there is both good and bad art. Besides, folk music is art too. If a machine that (literally) produces turds is art I don't see why folk music wouldn't be - or if it isn't why folk music (or any other type of music for that matter) should necessarily be inferior to art music.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Historically speaking, folk music has had an influence on people for a very long time. Therefore, it is more significant than art music.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Lukecash12 said:


> Historically speaking, folk music has had an influence on people for a very long time. Therefore, it is more significant than art music.


Yep. When caveman started to hit rocks/wooden sticks together in a concerted effort, they created music and what was arguably the first/earliest intelligent form of communication. That was a long time ago, indeed.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

First of all, Sir Elgar, what makes you ask this question?

As for historical arguments - nope! Is little plant more important than grown tree? Without plant there would be no tree, but it is tree that really matters for the world. Every plant's quest is to become a tree, just like quest of every historical music was to become art music which is OCH ACH LIKE A TREE <ROMANTIC ELEVATION> <FAINTS>


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I reluctantly chose art music.

Classical music has often used folk music as a springboard, so for me this is a little like asking, "Which is more important, bread or flour?" Though I cannot eat flour, I do occasionally listen to folk music.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

This thread is even more bizarre than the Mozart vs. Sibelius thread. I just can't take it anymore.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Art music is about constant changes and development. Folk music as seen by those who like it is normally looked at from a purist angle and so as something unchanging and more like a museum piece. So I would vote for art music. Art music and popular music can of course take elements of folk music and integrate them into their fabric, but not sure it works the other way round (for the reason I gave above).


----------



## Edward Elgar (Mar 22, 2006)

Argus said:


> Can you define the two categories, as my views on what constitute each are probably vastly different to yours.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_music

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folk_music

Art music has a composer and is performed in formal environments. Art music has the potential to become immortal and perceived as the pinnacle of human expression.

Folk music has no composer and is highly representative of an individual culture. Variations of this music come and go as cultures rise and fall.

These are the main differences in my opinion, and raise important questions about music in general. They make me ask:

Should music have a composer?

Who is the audience of music and what is the best way to speak to them?

Is music more precious if it has a life span/expectancy?

Is Beethoven an achievement of Austro-Germany or of humanity?


----------



## Edward Elgar (Mar 22, 2006)

Lukecash12 said:


> Historically speaking, folk music has had an influence on people for a very long time. Therefore, it is more significant than art music.


On which people? And how has it influenced those people; musically or extra-musically?


----------



## Edward Elgar (Mar 22, 2006)

Aramis said:


> First of all, Sir Elgar, what makes you ask this question?
> 
> As for historical arguments - nope! Is little plant more important than grown tree? Without plant there would be no tree, but it is tree that really matters for the world. Every plant's quest is to become a tree, just like quest of every historical music was to become art music which is OCH ACH LIKE A TREE <ROMANTIC ELEVATION> <FAINTS>


1 - Curiosity. And because I've not fully made my mind up about the subject. Even though I enjoy art music infinitely more, it's unclear to me as to which music is the most important.

2 - Is art and folk music as closely connected as your metaphor? Just think how much the two genres have in common and you'll realise they are quite independent of each other.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Yep. When caveman started to hit rocks/wooden sticks together in a concerted effort, they created music and what was arguably the first/earliest intelligent form of communication. That was a long time ago, indeed.


And what is your point? Before music was entirely an intellectual pursuit, it was a social interaction. There is no reason in resenting the facts. Greek, Hebrew, Egyptian, Moorish, and various European folk influences are the backdrop for the entire realm of Western Classical music. Both Indian and Chinese classical music started out as folk music, and in them the line s very fine between the two. Also, folk music is still very much an intellectual pursuit; For example: there are still people who major in performance with the Kinnor, Egyptian lute, Tetrachord, and various, age old wind instruments.

Try going through Greece and making that contention. Also, for clarity, I wasn't offended by your statement, as it didn't seem all that direct. I simply wanted to give a more concise explanation.


----------



## Edward Elgar (Mar 22, 2006)

Lukecash12 said:


> Before music was entirely an intellectual pursuit, it was a social interaction. There is no reason in resenting the facts.


Does that make folk music more important or even better? Is art music not simply a more sophisticated social interaction? An evolution, if you will, on undisciplined peasant music?

It may be true that art music came from folk music, but wasn't that leap forward the most important advancement for all music? I'm beginning to think it was. How else could we have got the great pinnacles of human achievement that are the works of Mozart Haydn and Beethoven?


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Edward Elgar said:


> Does that make folk music more important or even better? Is art music not simply a more sophisticated social interaction? An evolution, if you will, on undisciplined peasant music?
> 
> It may be true that art music came from folk music, but wasn't that leap forward the most important advancement for all music? I'm beginning to think it was. How else could we have got the great pinnacles of human achievement that are the works of Mozart Haydn and Beethoven?


And was it any more an achievement, intellectually or socially, than it was for the amazing, yet forgotten people who arranged and composed pieces that became traditional for the harp, Kinnor, Guitar, and various folk instruments and genres? To expressively and masterfully play the Kinnor is a monumental, emotionally charged task by any standards.

Therefore, because I consider them equals content-wise, I also see that folk music is far more historically involved, and time tested, so I consider it more central to the world we live in today. People in Portugal, France, Dutch countries, Italy, Russia, Spain, China, Japan, Tibet, Berma, Mongolia, Israel, India, Pakistan: they go about humming and playing folk tunes far more often than Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata or Mozart's Jupiter Symphony.


----------



## Jaime77 (Jun 29, 2009)

both western classical and western folk music are art and important in different ways


----------



## graaf (Dec 12, 2009)

Well, more important to whom? On desert island I would definitely rather bring Beethoven than folk music, but not sure about Noah's ark, yet I would not call that an objective opinion at all...

PS
After "great unwashed" and "underclass" we have here Elgar referring to "peasants" (surprise, surprise!). Just noticing...


----------



## TWhite (Feb 23, 2010)

Incredibly difficult question and IMO no easy answer. 
Consider the classical composers influenced by the folk music of their various regions. Do they actually quote folk music? Not always, but are they influenced by it? In certain cases, most definitely. 

The list of classical composers who have written compositions influenced by 'folk' tunes is almost too large to mention. Even Beethoven quotes an Irish folk-tune "The Low-Backed Cart" in his Sixth Symphony (wow, imagine that. German and Irish!) 

And we certainly don't need to go into Copland, who quoted both Mexican and American folk-tunes in works like "Billy The Kid", "Appalachian Spring", "Rodeo" and "El Salon Mexico", some of his most popular works. Charles Ives freely quoted American folk music in his works. 

Falla and Albeniz may not have quoted Spanish folk music in their compositions, but the 'idea' of Spanish music permeates their major compositions--especially Albeniz' monumental "Iberia" suite. 

Vincent d'Indy wrote a whole piano concerto based on a French Mountain Air. We wouldn't even be familiar with the folk music of Central and Eastern Europe if it weren't for composers such as Dvorak, Bartok, Smetana, Enescu and others almagamating the flavor of it into their compositions.

And I won't even go into the English, Russian and Scandanavian composers--the list just gets too long.

So what's more important? Frankly, in my opinion, neither. They're both extremely equal. In a large degree, the influence of a people's 'native' music is what has always attracted the ear of a composer. A Bach Chorale based on a Lutheran Chorale which is based on a German folk song which is based on harmonies brought to Germany by Roman Catholic Priests which is based on Gregorian Chant which is based on Roman, Greek and Hebrew Chant which is based on--what? It all starts somewhere. Maybe back with ancient man yowling at the moon in fear that the night will never end. 

Hmm: Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring", maybe?

It's all relative.

Tom


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Edward Elgar said:


> On which people? And how has it influenced those people; musically or extra-musically?


There are alot of implicit assumptions made by those who specifically champion folk music which perhaps need questioning and some explanation. Why is it considered purer in some ways by some than other types of music. Why is it in some ways considered by some to be representative of the 'soul' of a 'people' (why? and what people anyway? people of a different time, society, political state?). What happened before a particular folk tune was composed, surely they didn't miss this tune not being in their life. A folk tune was composed by an individual just like any tune or piece is anyway, was it really meant to be anymore than any other music composed? In many ways alot of folk tunes just get forgotten except by those who specialize in them, they need to be reused in new forms and styles to make them live again with a new audience. This has happened throughout the ages, it is material for music just like any old melodies are. Some of it seems to be because it can be old it is thought to be important, is this really a good way to judge something?

And even the argument that is is somehow the foundation for classical music, is that relevant or even right? Classical music changes a huge amount and goes along many different paths adapting with new ideas and styles. The origins of classical music are probably varied anyway, from church music, ceremonial music, folk ballads. The emergence of the complexity of the classical style probably required a leap in musical thought at times as well. Folk music may be referenced at times but more as a style or an echo of a style, among many other styles. Sometimes it may not really be referenced at all.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

starry said:


> And even the argument that is is somehow the foundation for classical music, is that relevant or even right? Classical music changes a huge amount and goes along many different paths adapting with new ideas and styles. The origins of classical music are probably varied anyway, from church music, ceremonial music, folk ballads. The emergence of the complexity of the classical style probably required a leap in musical thought at times as well. Folk music may be referenced at times but more as a style or an echo of a style, among many other styles. Sometimes it may not really be referenced at all.


And leaps like that didn't occur in folk music? Does complexity make anything inherently more profound? Yes, of course classical music fed ravenously upon progress, but that isn't exactly grounds for outright superiority. While progress may be central to keeping music alive in the world, and at the forefront of culture, does the musical language somehow change what the composer is trying to illustrate?


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Lukecash12 said:


> And leaps like that didn't occur in folk music? Does complexity make anything inherently more profound? Yes, of course classical music fed ravenously upon progress, but that isn't exactly grounds for outright superiority. While progress may be central to keeping music alive in the world, and at the forefront of culture, does the musical language somehow change what the composer is trying to illustrate?


No, complexity doesn't make anything more profound I didn't say that. But has folk music continued to develop or has it just stood still? It lives on for most mainly through arrangements into classical or popular music from what I can see. The musical language itself does to an extent reflect the age in which the music is created perhaps. The strength of a style is what composers can make of it, how they develop it and extend it's longevity. Older styles can sometimes be brought back to add to a more modern style or if a composer tries to go completely retro. But the simplicity of folk I'm not sure bears direct relation to classical, it may be closer to popular music if anything. By it's nature it is a simpler more direct style of music, classical music developed away from that into a more intellectual and theoretical approach.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

starry said:


> No, complexity doesn't make anything more profound I didn't say that. But has folk music continued to develop or has it just stood still? It lives on for most mainly through arrangements into classical or popular music from what I can see. The musical language itself does to an extent reflect the age in which the music is created perhaps. The strength of a style is what composers can make of it, how they develop it and extend it's longevity. Older styles can sometimes be brought back to add to a more modern style or if a composer tries to go completely retro. But the simplicity of folk I'm not sure bears direct relation to classical, it may be closer to popular music if anything. By it's nature it is a simpler more direct style of music, classical music developed away from that into a more intellectual and theoretical approach.


More intellectual and theoretical? Does that make it superior?

And now, we notice a pattern once again. I guess it's time to make a proverb out of it: There is no such thing as a timely assumption.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Lukecash12 said:


> More intellectual and theoretical? Does that make it superior?
> 
> And now, we notice a pattern once again. I guess it's time to make a proverb out of it: There is no such thing as a timely assumption.


No it doesn't make it superior because it is more intellectual and I never said that, but it makes it very different and that is the point. I listen to plenty of popular music without feeling that I have to consider it inferior to classical, I just consider that it has different aims.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

starry said:


> No it doesn't make it superior because it is more intellectual and I never said that, but it makes it very different and that is the point. I listen to plenty of popular music without feeling that I have to consider it inferior to classical, I just consider that it has different aims.


Thank you for the clarification.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

_Art music_ .


----------



## Klassik (Mar 14, 2017)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> _Art music_ .


:scold: .


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Klassik said:


> :scold: .


Oh sorry I meant to say Ant Music


----------



## Prat (Jun 15, 2018)

Folk Music


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

*important*
ɪmˈpɔːt(ə)nt/Submit
adjective

1. of great significance or value.
"important habitats for wildlife"
synonyms:	main, chief, principal, key, major, salient, prime, dominant, foremost, supreme, predominant, paramount, overriding, cardinal, crucial, vital, indispensable, critical, essential, significant, urgent; More

2. (of a person) having high rank or status.
"an important senator"
synonyms:	powerful, influential, of influence, well-connected, high-ranking, high-level, top-level, controlling, dominant, formidable; More

3. (of an artist or artistic work) significantly original and influential.
"writers as important as Hopkins"
synonyms:	significant, consequential, momentous, of great moment, of import, of great import, of great consequence, far-reaching, major; critical, crucial, vital, pivotal, decisive, urgent, epoch-making, historic, seminal; serious, grave, substantial, weighty, signal, material
"an important meeting"

(definitions from Mr Google.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ergo, Art Music is 'more important' than folk music.

As regards which I like best - I love them both, as I would wildly-attractive twins, but Folk Music is the elder and has the edge (just slightly).

Sometimes they meet up, as in Early Music, and then I hold up my hands in admiration.


----------



## Forss (May 12, 2017)

This is once again a distinction between rural life and urban life, in my opinion, between natural life (in the countryside) and artificial life (in the city). Folk music is the fountainhead of rural, natural life and Art music merely its _ersatz_, so to speak. Spengler would probably say: Culture and Civilisation.

Adolf Loos puts it quite brilliantly in his famous essay, _Ornament and Crime_: "I can tolerate the ornaments [in our context: Folk music] of the ******, the Persian, the Slovak peasant woman, my shoemaker's ornaments, for they all have no other way of attaining the high points of their existence. _We_ [i.e. the urban population] have art, which has taken the place of ornament. After the toils and troubles of the day we go to Beethoven or to Tristan. This my shoemaker cannot do. I mustn't deprive him of his joy, since I have nothing else to put in its place. But anyone who goes to the _Ninth Symphony_ and then sits down and designs a wallpaper pattern is either a confidence trickster or a degenerate... We have grown finer, more subtle."


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Oh sorry I meant to say Ant Music


I vote for FANT Music (Frivolous Answers to Nutty Threads).


----------



## RogerExcellent (Jun 11, 2018)

Art music, because of Renee.


----------



## Klassik (Mar 14, 2017)

Tapkaara said:


> This thread is even more bizarre than the Mozart vs. Sibelius thread. I just can't take it anymore.


Ha. If you think this art music poll is bad, just wait until you see what's going to happen in the future!  Of course, that's probably why you aren't on TC anymore. :lol:


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

I do not know which is more important but I do prefer art music to folk music. Several of the musics I have posted examples of here on TC are such art musics: Flamenco, Gharnati, Malhun. These are musics performed often by paid professionals for aficionado audiences, or by highly involved amateurs who have mastered the genre. Identifying true folk music can be quite a challenge, as Béla Bartók reported on his own efforts to capture "authentic" folk tunes in Central Europe.


----------



## Nate Miller (Oct 24, 2016)

I like folk music, ....provided the folks are Bach, Beethoven or Brahms


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

I'm with Louis Armstrong - "All music is folk music. I ain't never heard a horse sing a song."


----------



## Guest (Jun 20, 2018)

Renee Fleming


----------



## Klassik (Mar 14, 2017)

Tulse said:


> Renee Fleming


...sounds like a horse, of course?


----------



## San Antone (Feb 15, 2018)

Strange Magic said:


> I do not know which is more important but I do prefer art music to folk music. Several of the musics I have posted examples of here on TC are such art musics: Flamenco, Gharnati, Malhun. These are musics performed often by paid professionals for aficionado audiences, or by highly involved amateurs who have mastered the genre. Identifying true folk music can be quite a challenge, as Béla Bartók reported on his own efforts to capture "authentic" folk tunes in Central Europe.


I don't like the term "folk music" since it is both too vague, as you point out, and also too narrow if it mainly conjures in the mind of the hearer the '60s folk revival in the US.

I prefer the term vernacular music, i.e. music which has been transmitted through an oral tradition, as opposed to art music which has a written tradition. I would consider Flamenco and the other genres you mention as vernacular music, as well as blues, old time (mountain) music, bluegrass, Tejano, Cajun, and many other styles.

There is plenty of vernacular music that is complex and sophisticated.


----------



## JeffD (May 8, 2017)

I am amazed. this thread is only three pages long after how eight years? Other equally provoking threads are 30 pages long in a week.

I have a leg planted in both worlds, art/classical and folk/traditional. (Meaning I dearly love both.) And most of the criticisms seem to occur when someone applies the criteria associated with one inappropriately onto the other. The conceit is that the criteria by which I judge the music I like is THE CRITERIA for judging all music. Both sides are guilty of this.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

San Antone said:


> There is plenty of vernacular music that is complex and sophisticated.


What does this have to do with its importance? Traditional music is significant because it informs all other music.


----------



## San Antone (Feb 15, 2018)

starthrower said:


> What does this have to do with its importance? Traditional music is significant because it informs all other music.


First of all, I agree with you, but you missed my point, because I did not express it well.

I made that comment because I have often heard it said that classical music is superior because of its complexity. But what I meant to say was alluded to earlier when someone said that comparing different genres by using the basis of one that is unimportant for the other will always produce biased results. The complexity I am thinking of in vernacular music is often produced from completely different elements than the complexity found in classical music.


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

Edward Elgar said:


> Does that make folk music more important or even better? Is art music not simply a more sophisticated social interaction? An evolution, if you will, on undisciplined peasant music?


Tell you what.....for your next compositional assignment, write a dozen original, simple peasant folk songs.....with the staying power of hundreds of years. And then I'll get back with you on the subject of human achievement!


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

I like to listen to Folk music in my Folkswagon


----------



## RogerExcellent (Jun 11, 2018)

Do you Eddie, how sweet. Is it one of those painted with flowers? I do love floral volks wagonz.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

RogerExcellent said:


> Do you Eddie, how sweet. Is it one of those painted with flowers? I do love floral volks wagonz.


Yeah, its a Kombi with peace symbols all over it


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

The vagueness of the question leaves some contemplation, but I believe art music is more important from an art perspective, which seems obvious. Art music is more powerful because it is a pure representation of the composer's metaphysical ideas, which I believe is very important. I'm not a fan of traditional folk music. I appreciate its importance on a grand scale, but I believe art music is more important from an artistic perspective.


----------

