# When is music "art"?



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

There was a time, when some of our most beloved music was written, that music wasn't considered "art." There seems to have been little difference in attitudes toward composers and craftsmen such as silversmiths, jewelers, and makers of fine china. At some point, though, the best composers became "artists" in the minds of the musical public and even in their own minds.

Is the distinction between "art" and "craftsmanship" meaningful or useful? Or is "art" merely a word we use to make ourselves feel superior to others?


----------



## SottoVoce (Jul 29, 2011)

This is a great question. Aristotle and Plato, when talking about art, thought art as a craft; something like a product that is supposed to satisfy a certain demand, as something you can do "right" and "wrong" in order to a arouse a general emotion. Basically, it was like a movie night out; you go to a concert, you feel enjoyment, and then you come back and don't think about it. Aristotle and Plato just didn't have the conception of art as we do now as self-contemplation; at most, it was to give you pleasure and that's that. This idea was scratched in the 18th century, when a conception of the fine arts was beginning to be developed, and the Enlightenment put art as one of the highest pedestals of human inquiry (although Hegel and many other aestheticians, including Danto, are saying that we're beginning to see the end of that societal respect for the high arts).

So it really depends on how you define it. To say that some music that was intended to be craft not to be art would to take out Bach, because his time still saw music as a craft. Obviously there's a difference in intention. We take art much more seriously than the past eras did; Mozart was seated next to the cooks, for example. There's also an intention of art as self-contemplation that we don't find in entertainment (which would be, in Collingwood's eyes, to represent a craft). The old notion of art as craft implies in craft a sense of a product, like a shoemaker makes a show, or a shipbuilder makes a ship; this are certainly not arts because you would never see a unintelligent person make a masterpiece in music, but you can see a stupid person just learn how to make a cabinet or make a ship, because there's a defined set of rules and a blueprint (planning->execution) involved in those crafts.

There's a lot more information here;Collingwood's Aesthetics


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

I don't know if this defines art, but it seems like a necessary condition for what we, today, consider art. This condition is that the work must have certain kind of _intellectual charge_ on it. By _intellectual charge_ I mean something capable of exciting the mind of the listener. It can be an emotional excitation or purely intellectual, or both, etc. Said that, I think that works which have a great complexity and capable of a strong intellectual excitation in both terms (emotional and purely intellectual) will be considered _fine art_ instead of simply art.
Also, this excitation must be reproduced in a group of several people, not only one person.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

When the artist declares the piece as his/her artistic creation, it is art. Simple as that.

But whether it is great art or just any ... art, that is a totally different question altogether.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

The question, as I read it, was when (historically) did the work of music begin to be seen as a work of ART and the composer an ARTIST and not merely a craftsman? In the visual arts there were a number of sculptors that were highly revered... but whether they were seen as "Artists" in the modern sense is questionable. Prior to the Renaissance, the very notion of taking credit oneself for creative efforts was thought of as almost blasphemous. Only God could create. The human artisan/craftsman was but the conduit through which the inspiration of God worked. With the Renaissance, a good number of "artists" strove to be recognized as something more than skilled craftsmen: Brunelleschi, Leonardo, Donatello, Alberti, Michelangelo, Raphael, etc... This involved the "artist" breaking away from the limits of the artist's guild and focusing upon a single craft (painting, wood carving, stone carving, engraving, etc...) and developing into the ideal of the "Renaissance Man" who was not merely a master of a single craft... but well read, often a skilled writer, knowledgeable of the latest theories, etc... The Dutch Baroque era... the period of Rembrandt and Vermeer... pushed this notion of Art backwards as the middleman/dealer entered on the scene and paintings and sculpture became little more than luxury items to hawked to upwardly mobile collectors no differently than fine furniture. It was really the era of Romanticism that led to the Modern notion of the "Artist" (for better or worse) in the visual arts... and I suspect this is equally true in the realm of music. Painters and composers no longer saw their efforts as merely luxury products to entertain the wealthy... even if that's still essentially what the wealthy collectors/patrons saw it as.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

One of the defining characteristics of art is that the qualities at its essence are "useless" in a utilitarian sense; those qualities enable it transcend those utilitarian purposes, and to become an_"object of sublime contemplation"_ (a form of awe formerly reserved for religion).

The object in question can be utilitarian to begin with, or even mundane, but is transformed in some manner, maybe only conceptually, to become _more_ than merely utilitarian, and it becomes an object for "sublime contemplation."

Examples which anger people and raise questions:

*Andy Warhol* declares mundane Campbell's Soup cans to be "objects of sublime contemplation" and paints them. They are now worth millions.

*Marcel Duchamp's "Urinal."* His other "found objects" included a bicycle wheel mounted on a stool, a bottle-rack, and a snow shovel.

*John Cage's 4'33",* in which the sounds happening within that duration are declared to be music, because John Cage said it was, and he owns the publishing rights.

Pop musicians like *The Beatles* are said by many to have "transcended" their pop origins to become "art."

It is not necessary that art have non-utilitarian intentions, but if it is created with "pure" non-utilitarian intent from its inception, it becomes art immediately, with no impediments.

Sometimes _whole areas_ of utilitarian culture or _whole mediums_ of utilitarian consumer products can produce art, such as cinema, illustrated magazine covers, comic book art, animation cels, Pez dispensers. This is a *"fringe"* area, but given sufficient time, such objects can increase in value. This area is *fringe,* because the objects become historical artifacts or collectibles via a change in perspective, so its "intent" as art was never part of the objects except as a change of context. These are "objects without an artist," unlike Duchamp's lucky Urinal.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> The object in question can be utilitarian to begin with, or even mundane, but is transformed in some manner, maybe only conceptually, to become _more_ than merely utilitarian, and it becomes an object for "sublime contemplation."


In other words, as the French say of wine: "It's used to wash down meat; the rest is imagination."


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

I suspect most have an art threshold, IOW where art begins. It could range from Bang On A Can to Schnittke (**), or Black Velvet to Oils. (BO).

Talent, presentation, clever, different, composition, color, are some of the key words for me, whether the art is visual or aural.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Music becomes art when the person who makes the music intends for it to be art, and makes those intentions evident. Art is a concept, really, that man can manipulate the things around him in order to express himself. It's a communication tool, via culture, as opposed to more concrete means of communication. It relies on accepted understandings. What makes any music art is that we are people, and we share in appreciation of the music.

I guess the reason that lots of people don't want to call popular modern music art, is that it is art that often doesn't seem to express anything valuable, creative, intelligent, cerebral. It doesn't pay a compliment to the mind of man. We ask what the noise is on account of. But it's art nonetheless.


----------



## EricABQ (Jul 10, 2012)

It's all art, just like everything edible is food. 

Some of it is a 7-11 hotdog and some of it is Le Bernardin*


*No, I've never eaten there.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

*At which degree is the weather hot? Cold?
*
Let's excise "hot" and "cold" from our vocabularies, they're so imprecise. Better yet, let's call the winters in Siberia "hot" and the summers of Hawaii "cold".


----------



## LordBlackudder (Nov 13, 2010)

all music is the arrangement of nature. so its all art.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

SottoVoce said:


> This is a great question. Aristotle and Plato, when talking about art, thought art as a craft; something like a product that is supposed to satisfy a certain demand, as something you can do "right" and "wrong" in order to a arouse a general emotion. Basically, it was like a movie night out; you go to a concert, you feel enjoyment, and then you come back and don't think about it. Aristotle and Plato just didn't have the conception of art as we do now as self-contemplation; at most, it was to give you pleasure and that's that. This idea was scratched in the 18th century, when a conception of the fine arts was beginning to be developed, and the Enlightenment put art as one of the highest pedestals of human inquiry (although Hegel and many other aestheticians, including Danto, are saying that we're beginning to see the end of that societal respect for the high arts).
> 
> So it really depends on how you define it. To say that some music that was intended to be craft not to be art would to take out Bach, because his time still saw music as a craft. Obviously there's a difference in intention. We take art much more seriously than the past eras did; Mozart was seated next to the cooks, for example. There's also an intention of art as self-contemplation that we don't find in entertainment (which would be, in Collingwood's eyes, to represent a craft). The old notion of art as craft implies in craft a sense of a product, like a shoemaker makes a show, or a shipbuilder makes a ship; this are certainly not arts because you would never see a unintelligent person make a masterpiece in music, but you can see a stupid person just learn how to make a cabinet or make a ship, because there's a defined set of rules and a blueprint (planning->execution) involved in those crafts.
> 
> There's a lot more information here;Collingwood's Aesthetics


I follow you pretty well here until you say that it doesn't take much intelligence to make a cabinet or a ship. Those are actually examples of pretty skilled labor, as opposed to pipe-fitting or laying tile.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Lukecash12 said:


> I follow you pretty well here until you say that it doesn't take much intelligence to make a cabinet or a ship. Those are actually examples of pretty skilled labor, as opposed to pipe-fitting or laying tile.


I suspect that even a pipefitter or a tile-layer (mason?) might argue that theirs are not "dumb" crafts.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

KenOC said:


> I suspect that even a pipefitter or a tile-layer (mason?) might argue that theirs are not "dumb" crafts.


Whatever they argue, all they are doing is laying tile or fitting pipes. The most complex task a pipe fitter might have to do is stick or maybe even arc welding. Big whoop. And when pipe fitters aren't laying pipe, they are usually digging ditches, using jackhammers, or cutting galvanized metal. And laying tile is pretty much impossible to talk up as a craft requiring intelligence. You simply determine how much grout to use in order to have level ground, cut some tile, and lay the tile. Average men can learn how to lay tile almost as good as a professional in a matter of days, given a little instruction, or even just trial and error (how I learned to lay tile). A carpenter has to know how to make joints, fittings, all kinds of angles, and how to properly use a variety of different power tools, from the radial arm saw, to the conveyor planar. And building a ship? Christ, is that a complicated task. It takes some real skill to make something seaworthy, whether you are riveting and doing a ton of different mechanical jobs, or you are ribbing wood and treating it.

So, let's see... It takes a half a month on the site for a man who knows his head from a hole in the ground in construction work to learn how to fit pipes, while carpenters take much longer to perfect their trade. Pipe fitters just get the job done. Carpenters expect perfection.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Music becomes art when the person who makes the music intends for it to be art, and makes those intentions evident.

The problem with this concept, is that a lot of what we consider "ART" was never created as "ART". I doubt that many medieval composers... perhaps even Bach and Handel... blues or jazz musicians... thought of their efforts as "Art". I know for a fact that the scribes illuminating medieval manuscripts...










medieval sculptors...










even more recent illustrators...



















early film-makers, etc... did not think of themselves as "Artists". Shakespeare never even thought of his efforts as a playwright as Art. He published his poems... but it was only after Jonson published his plays as literature... as literary "art" that Shakespeare's works were actually printed.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I follow you pretty well here until you say that it doesn't take much intelligence to make a cabinet or a ship. Those are actually examples of pretty skilled labor, as opposed to pipe-fitting or laying tile.

It is the sort of snobbishness that looks down upon manual dexterity demanded of the craftsman that has led to a lot of the modern conceptual art that places the idea over the object/image. Duchamp famously did not want to be thought of as being "dumb as a painter". Unfortunately I suspect "dumb" painters like Picasso and Matisse will be remembered long after he is but a historical footnote.


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

Music is art when it is performed, because it is by definition a performing art (this was not a complicated question).


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Music becomes art when the person who makes the music intends for it to be art, and makes those intentions evident.
> 
> The problem with this concept, is that a lot of what we consider "ART" was never created as "ART". I doubt that many medieval composers... perhaps even Bach and Handel... blues or jazz musicians... thought of their efforts as "Art". I know for a fact that the scribes illuminating medieval manuscripts...
> 
> ...


They may not have thought of their work with the word "art", but they adhered to cultural symbols to express ideas. That medieval manuscript was made the way it was, as opposed to any other way, because of the medieval aesthetic. The art on the book compliments the book. Medieval manuscripts of the bible contain illustrations that express religious ideas, such as a famous example from the Codex Gigas of Satan's terrible visage. According to my definition of art, at least, that is art. Maybe the artist didn't intend to be an artist, as in someone with that title, but the artist did express something. That is why the artist painting what he/she did, as opposed to something else. The artist had a particular idea.

And what of architects who view their work as art? Do you view them as artists? They seem like artists to me, considering that you can use the humanities to interpret their work.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

When I say it is.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

Music is art when it ceases to live. Paintings fossilized onto the walls of galleries and not adorning homes, objects trapping dust in museum cases and not being used. Don't kill music by calling it art.


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2012)

Foo - "art" is just one of many poorly defined memes. Nothing would be lost if the words "art" and "artist" disappeared.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

BPS said:


> Nothing would be lost if the words "art" and "artist" disappeared.


Some people's (including my) self-esteem might be...


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

This appears to be the definition:
Fine arts from the 17th century on,denote art form developed primarily for aesthetics and for concept,distinguishing them from applied arts that also had to serve some practical function.
Historically,the five great fine arts were painting,sculpture,architecture,music and poetry,with minor arts including drama and dancing'
I never really thought about it until now and will not again.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

moody said:


> This appears to be the definition:
> Fine arts from the 17th century on,denote art form developed primarily for aesthetics and for concept,distinguishing them from applied arts that also had to serve some practical function.


I feel a great sense of relief. Lady Gaga and many of my other idols are clearly in the mainstream of "art" music!


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

As far as I am concerned, art is not a sacred term, as much as I love art. I consider art in general to be ideas expressed through a craft of some sort, whether that craft be the writing or performing of music, or painting, or dancing, or writing a story, or even an essay, or programming. I think of art as being inclusive rather than exclusive. Beethoven's Ninth Symphony is art, and so is some cute but crude drawing that a young kid might do, or an Ed Wood film, or even a Lady Gaga song. So personally I think there is no such thing as music that isn't art. It's an artform, and a pop singer/songwriter is expressing just as a jazz trumpeter is expressing themselves just as Balanese Gamalan musician is expressing themselves just as some anonymous monk in the days of Medieval plainchant was expressing himself, and they are all artists.

Maybe I should clarify that when I say "expressing themselves", I mean that whether you're composing based on your personal feelings, or something you have read about or heard about or experienced, or on some abstract idea, no matter the instruments or the techniques you use to craft your piece (even in the use of chance or extremely strict procedures such as serialism), there is still something of you in the piece. It is coming from your perspective, from your point of view. How _you_ think something would or should sound best, or how to best express something specific with intent, the work is inevitably generated from within, and is thus self-expression.

If you think a piece of art is bad, that doesn't make it "not art". Its possible (and fairly common) for art to be bad, or at least just okay at best, but that doesn't mean its in some lower-class, excluded from some grand exalted status. It is still art.

I passionately reject "art music" as a term, partly because of its redundancy, and mostly because of its slimy pretentiousness, placing certain kinds of music in an elitist position, and insulting the artistic efforts and achievements of musicians and composers outside of that one tradition of making music (and many outside that tradition have influenced and been influenced by the tradition, and so its really not even that insular of a musical tradition). It is a snobby, ignorant term, and I think we're better off without such nonsense contaminating the greatness of music.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

mud said:


> Music is art when it is performed, because it is by definition a performing art (this was not a complicated question).


Well, some music is a performing art, but there is a fair amount of music since recording became a thing, that is fixed media, that isn't performed, just experienced by the audience. Sometimes this includes or is entirely something that was performed, or crafted from performed parts, but with recordings music comes alot closer to something like sculpture or painting than traditional music (which is more akin to writing the script for a work of theatre).

One could also argue that there is some art to the notation of music itself. There are composers who have created scores which have their own visual expression (such as George Crumb, and members of the Ars Nova) and John Cage's calligraphic writing for his scores, and even outside of such things, there are scores that are really striking to look at, and beautiful in a way :3


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2012)

brianwalker said:


> *At which degree is the weather hot? Cold?
> *
> Let's excise "hot" and "cold" from our vocabularies, they're so imprecise. Better yet, let's call the winters in Siberia "hot" and the summers of Hawaii "cold".


Ah, well, it's all very relative! :lol:


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

KenOC said:


> I feel a great sense of relief. Lady Gaga and many of my other idols are clearly in the mainstream of "art" music!


I wonder what this is supposed to mean. If Lady Gaga is aiming for aesthetics i'm surprised,to me she sounds like hysterical rubbish. So she's an idol of yours then?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

moody said:


> I wonder what this is supposed to mean. If Lady Gaga is aiming for aesthetics i'm surprised,to me she sounds like hysterical rubbish. So she's an idol of yours then?


It means that Lady Gaga's music meets quite nicely the definition of art that you offered. Whose aesthetics are you referring to? Is there some absolute standard of aesthetics I'm unfamiliar with? And -- she obviously doesn't sound like "hysterical rubbish" to a lot of people, far more than give a hoot in heck about the music we discuss here.

In fact, she sings cunningly wrought music in concerts intended to bring pleasure to many people. Is that different from Schubert? If so, how? I admit to not knowing her music well, but here's the Lady Gaga Fugue. Enjoy!


----------



## NightHawk (Nov 3, 2011)

just my unoriginal idea after years of thinking about it, discussing it with others, reading about it, looking at it, listening to it: art is a process..."the organization of materials" (Will Durant) - the product of art is the 'object of art', so in other words 'art' happens in the fashioning or making of the object whatever it might be, and also, very likely, why it is so closely considered as craft - it is probably why Stravinsky said these two things: 1)_'only when I know how long a work will take do I become interested in it_', and 2) _'after I have finished a work it no longer interests me' _. It seems to me that for Stravinsky what interest he found in art was in the process. I don't believe Nature is art, I believe that art imitates Nature through abstraction, and that all art is abstract...by its very nature.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

KenOC said:


> It means that Lady Gaga's music meets quite nicely the definition of art that you offered. Whose aesthetics are you referring to? Is there some absolute standard of aesthetics I'm unfamiliar with? And -- she obviously doesn't sound like "hysterical rubbish" to a lot of people, far more than give a hoot in heck about the music we discuss here.
> 
> In fact, she sings cunningly wrought music in concerts intended to bring pleasure to many people. Is that different from Schubert? If so, how? I admit to not knowing her music well, but here's the Lady Gaga Fugue. Enjoy!


Maybe I can express the sentiments of many people who prefer classical music along these lines:

It is not so much that Lada Gaga is terrible, or that people who listen to classical music are better. The reason that classical music reserves a more dignified position in our minds, is that pop music represents a degeneration culturally and intellectually. Our tradition of art takes up all kinds of themes, probes the mysteries of man's condition, defines aural aesthetics, stands as an tangible, emotional exhibit of history, literature, and the other humanities, while pop music, for the most part, merely sets out to entertain people. Both entertain people, and it's a good thing for people to entertain themselves, and to share music with one another as a useful social ritual, but one does just this, and the other does a whole slew of things to earn the glory we ascribe to it. Pop music may emulate some of the qualities of this tradition, but it doesn't actually follow in it. The goals just aren't the same.

That's why they really aren't the same. It's not just one or the other. Without trying to sound pompous at all, I would say that one is actually more valuable than the other, which has nothing to do with the quality or standing of the persons who participate in their respective genres. Because their goals aren't the same, the similarities are only passing. Is it so pompous to want a different title for music that probes the human soul, as opposed to the music we "get jiggy with it" to?

Maybe Lada Gaga is art. But Lada Gaga is not Beethoven. She doesn't take us on journeys through the woods, share with us her religious experience, she doesn't take us hunting, or enchant us with a waltz. She entertains people who are, for the most part, blind to how it is that music is made, not interested in literary references or mature themes, and generally only interested in using her music for a social purpose. Pop music has themes that revolve around infatuation, love, having fun, everyday stuff. Classical music is mainly more cerebral, more ambitious with it's themes, more in line with an actual tradition of philosophy, as opposed to the modern day themes which are often mellodramatic or irreverent. A ton of average people I've met even say that they don't pay attention to lyrics at all.

Granted, there are a ton of exceptions, and I listen to plenty of modern music.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Lukecash12 said:


> Without trying to sound pompous at all, I would say that one is actually more valuable than the other, which has nothing to do with the quality or standing of the persons who participate in their respective genres.


Again, valuable to whom? For example there are many people who prize the pop songs of the "golden era" quite highly (probably far more than listen to CM at all). In fact, I just listened to the Grateful Dead's _Workingman's Dead_. There are plenty of pieces of so-called "classical music" written at the same time that I'd sooner give up. As one of the Beatles said to Clang in _Help!, "_I don't subscribe to your religion."

I'm not sure what pointing out that Lady Gaga is no Beethoven (or maybe not even a Raff!) accomplishes. The question is, is this art?


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Lukecash12 said:


> Maybe I can express the sentiments of many people who prefer classical music along these lines:
> 
> It is not so much that Lada Gaga is terrible, or that people who listen to classical music are better. The reason that classical music reserves a more dignified position in our minds, is that pop music represents a degeneration culturally and intellectually. Our tradition of art takes up all kinds of themes, probes the mysteries of man's condition, defines aural aesthetics, stands as an tangible, emotional exhibit of history, literature, and the other humanities, while pop music, for the most part, merely sets out to entertain people. Both entertain people, and it's a good thing for people to entertain themselves, and to share music with one another as a useful social ritual, but one does just this, and the other does a whole slew of things to earn the glory we ascribe to it. Pop music may emulate some of the qualities of this tradition, but it doesn't actually follow in it. The goals just aren't the same.
> 
> ...


There is SOOOOOO MUCH classical music that was just for entertainment. Really we only see alot of compositions/composers where we can know pretty well the depth of their artistic intent from the Romantic period onward, but even then, a ton of the music really was written to entertain, when you get right down to it. There's tons of pop music that is filled with the musings and contemplations and expressive ideas of its composers, just as in classical or jazz or whatever. There's a fair amount of insipid stuff too, but please don't put forth this dichotomy of classical as "deep, probing art" and pop as just "entertainment" because its simply not true.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

More on same: _Workingman's Dead _was 1970, Shostakovich's 15th Symphony was 1971. I said there were plenty of classical music works of that time I'd give up before the Grateful Dead, but in this case...please PLEASE don't make me choose!


----------



## Guest (Oct 27, 2012)

Lukecash12 said:


> The reason that classical music reserves a more dignified position in our minds, is that pop music represents a degeneration culturally and intellectually. Our tradition of art takes up all kinds of themes, probes the mysteries of man's condition, defines aural aesthetics, stands as an tangible, emotional exhibit of history, literature, and the other humanities, while pop music, for the most part, merely sets out to entertain people. Both entertain people, and it's a good thing for people to entertain themselves, and to share music with one another as a useful social ritual, but one does just this, and the other does a whole slew of things to earn the glory we ascribe to it. Pop music may emulate some of the qualities of this tradition, but it doesn't actually follow in it. The goals just aren't the same.
> 
> That's why they really aren't the same. It's not just one or the other. Without trying to sound pompous at all, I would say that one is actually more valuable than the other, which has nothing to do with the quality or standing of the persons who participate in their respective genres. Because their goals aren't the same, the similarities are only passing. Is it so pompous to want a different title for music that probes the human soul, as opposed to the music we "get jiggy with it" to?
> 
> ...


A few questions for you...(I'm not holding my breath: you didn't respond to the last post I wrote in reply to your explicit questions).

First, why is the goal of 'entertaining' such a minimal (even miserable) goal? What is wrong with music that 'merely' entertains'. Come to think of it, what do you mean by 'entertains'?

Second, what do you mean by "pop music represents a degeneration culturally and intellectually"?

Third, what do you know of the audience of Lady Gaga and what they know?

Fourth, what's wrong with love and infatuation and everyday stuff? Isn't that what life is about?

Last, I presumed that 'Lady Gaga' stood as representative for 'pop' music (I wish she wouldn't, but there it is). How much do you know about that genre to be able to dismiss it so comprehensively? I, who know so little about opera, have at least only set it aside as unappealing to me for now.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

A very intelligent woman I knew a few years ago - and an admirer of Jascha Heifetz and Cannonball Adderley - once spent at least 20 minutes enthusiastically explaining why in her opinion Lady Gaga was brilliant. I didn't pay attention and can't remember a single thing she said, largely because I don't know anything about Lady Gaga except that she wore a meat dress. But it's probable that she had a point or two. 

There's really no way to get around it: either the fans of the music are all stupid, or they're not. If they're all stupid, ok, I'll concede, maybe the music is stupid. But if not, then the most I can see agreeing to is that the music is not to my taste.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

KenOC said:


> It means that Lady Gaga's music meets quite nicely the definition of art that you offered. Whose aesthetics are you referring to? Is there some absolute standard of aesthetics I'm unfamiliar with? And -- she obviously doesn't sound like "hysterical rubbish" to a lot of people, far more than give a hoot in heck about the music we discuss here.
> 
> In fact, she sings cunningly wrought music in concerts intended to bring pleasure to many people. Is that different from Schubert? If so, how? I admit to not knowing her music well, but here's the Lady Gaga Fugue. Enjoy!


I think you should check with your dictionary before rambling on and you will then know.
Firstly I thought it was fairly obvious that I was quoting from something--"This appears to be the definition :" I looked it up on line.
As for more people enjoying her than the music on TC you will also find more people going to Macdonalds than Michelin starred restaurants but that doesn't persuade me than Macdonalds is better.


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

When: 
- It's not noise (completely out of place)
- It's not annoying (loud and louder...)


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

moody said:


> As for more people enjoying her than the music on TC you will also find more people going to Macdonalds than Michelin starred restaurants but that doesn't persuade me than Macdonalds is better.


Well, I'm sure you're right. As Rod Steiger says in _Dr. Zhivago_, "Maybe they'll sing better after the revolution."

But...is it art?


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Arsakes said:


> When:
> - It's not noise (completely out of place)
> - It's not annoying (loud and louder...)


Noise is beautiful :3

And loud music is FUN. These violas go up to 11.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Well, I'm sure you're right. As Rod Steiger says in _Dr. Zhivago_, "Maybe they'll sing better after the revolution."
> 
> But...is it art?


short answer: yes


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

BurningDesire said:


> There is SOOOOOO MUCH classical music that was just for entertainment. Really we only see alot of compositions/composers where we can know pretty well the depth of their artistic intent from the Romantic period onward, but even then, a ton of the music really was written to entertain, when you get right down to it. There's tons of pop music that is filled with the musings and contemplations and expressive ideas of its composers, just as in classical or jazz or whatever. There's a fair amount of insipid stuff too, but please don't put forth this dichotomy of classical as "deep, probing art" and pop as just "entertainment" because its simply not true.


1. It looks as if entertainment wasn't the most appropriate, or say, effective, word. Maybe a better distinction would be between types of entertainment. What I had meant by "mere entertainment" is a type of entertainment that is apparently basic, and largely socially based. People identify with each other using genres of music, and their taste is predominantly determined by their environment. That is why you don't typically meet someone from the hood who tries to convince his/her friends that Foo Fighters or Wolf Mother should be preferred over the local rappers. Of course, music can be quite fulfilling to all kinds of people who don't listen to classical music. I encourage that, and enjoy the fact of it. However, I do not just equivocate classical music with pop music because of that.

Classical music is/was entertaining, because it is "cultural entertainment". Just like other music, it can be enjoyed on a basic level as well, but it is primarily known for it's value when one shares a cultural understanding of it's significance. People were entertained because of the themes and traditions of the music. It was on account of a lot of the things I've mentioned, in my earlier post, that people just payed out of pocket to see it happen.

The only "SOOOOOOO MUCH" of classical music that I see that was "just for kicks" like you seem to characterize it, was secular music, and not only was there much more religious music during a good while there, but I feel that secular music has been thought of too much these days as "absolute" music. If it was just as simple as having a good time at the concert hall or court, then why is so much of it based on poetry, or other examples of prose? Why did so many people take the time to educate themselves about these references as well? Why were music critics so esteemed? I think they took it a lot more seriously than you have made it seem here. For example: Why do so many of Schubert's chamber pieces have actual concrete themes we can refer back to? A good deal of it was based on lieder he wrote. If he had written it all just to sell tickets at a hall, then why are the references good and alive today, and how did everyone know of the references back then? Schubert didn't even name his Trout Quintet the Trout Quintet himself. Those who listened to that work heard the motif and remembered his lieder, and wrote about it, because they loved that story.

2. I offered no dichotomy. I offered a look at the general situation. Pop music is labeled pop music in the first place because it is the music that sells well nowadays. The art of it is in the production, unlike classical music which is a humanity. Furthermore, I've already stated that there are plenty of exceptions. I even listen to several of these exceptions on occasion. But what's so inappropriate or pompous about observing what is by and large the truth? Am I so out of touch or pompous, because I'm surrounded by the general state of affairs and reminded of it constantly, and I've decided to comment on it?


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

MacLeod said:


> A few questions for you...(I'm not holding my breath: you didn't respond to the last post I wrote in reply to your explicit questions).
> 
> First, why is the goal of 'entertaining' such a minimal (even miserable) goal? What is wrong with music that 'merely' entertains'. Come to think of it, what do you mean by 'entertains'?
> 
> ...


1. Entertainment isn't a minimal goal. I am simply of the view that we ought to recognize the difference between pop music and classical music. They aren't the same. That's why people hesitate to call pop music art, because of the high aims of so many artists in the past.

2. It represents a degeneration culturally and intellectually, that people have little to no interest in art that has a higher aim than simply giving them a good time, or sounding cool. And this doesn't necessarily have to do with individual character. It's more about a disappointment that people have absolutely no interest in marvelous possibilities that are so accessible to them. I'm more disappointed at what people are content with, as opposed to actual negative qualities in people. Their culture has dictated these circumstances. When I was younger, LP's were prized, pianos could be found in many homes, and serious discussion of music was a defining component of life. We centered evenings around listening to each other play the piano, singing hymns together, watching orchestral broadcasts, etc. Now people the same age just drink while they listen to a ghetto rapper talk way too fast over a simple drum beat (and I've been to a fair share of parties with younger relatives like this, and it seems that a lot of them don't even know what the rapper is saying), or while they listen to a band like Green Day whine about something while they play stuff on the guitar that a twelve year old could have written.

3. I know of the fans that I've met, who are people I've worked with, or otherwise been acquainted with (I discuss music a lot with people, and tend to meet a fair amount of new people), and I know enough about the artist herself. I've heard from her about her preferences, in what I've seen and around, but have not had the opportunity to really hear comprehensively about her goals when it comes to music. However, I don't see her as being very representative of pop music. Actually, I think pop music is far too broad a term to be useful for anything more than the broadest generalizations, which I have had to make.

4. Nothing is wrong with any of that. I simply don't elevate vague lyrics about some girl named Delilah to the same level that I elevate a chorale. Someone has to shoot me, because here I am being an elitist and actually categorizing things (just being sarcastic, I don't think of you guys like that). To hell with categories, right? Because everything is the same, and it's an insult to people to call steak and lobster better than a microwaved burrito, hehe.

5. I'm not dismissing pop music at all, and there was nothing comprehensive about what I had to say. It wasn't my goal to be comprehensive. We're talking about two massive and broad categories of music, and I'm trying to argue that it isn't necessarily elitist or arrogant to elevate one over the other.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

KenOC said:


> Again, valuable to whom? For example there are many people who prize the pop songs of the "golden era" quite highly (probably far more than listen to CM at all). In fact, I just listened to the Grateful Dead's _Workingman's Dead_. There are plenty of pieces of so-called "classical music" written at the same time that I'd sooner give up. As one of the Beatles said to Clang in _Help!, "_I don't subscribe to your religion."
> 
> I'm not sure what pointing out that Lady Gaga is no Beethoven (or maybe not even a Raff!) accomplishes. The question is, is this art?


1. Well, how do we define art? Is there fine art? Does art have any high goals? That's kind of how it was originally defined, as a fine craft, as a humanity.

2. Yes, all kinds of music can be valuable to people everywhere. The reason that classical music has been preserved over all this time and given a different status, is that classical music is of more than a personal value. We don't preserve because we've just said to ourselves "I like that". We preserve it because it is an index of human history. A massive accomplishment of mankind. An endlessly and mindblowingly creative outlet. It will be of value to people hundreds of years from now for the same reasons it is today, regardless of the tastes of most people in that distant year, because of the monumental nature of it. It takes up the greatest themes, it takes theoretical work to a whole new level, and most importantly it is indispensable for historians. Just like you can't understand what motivated the American Revolution if you don't understand how important tea, gambling cards, and stamps were to them, you can't understand European history, without understanding how classical music was both motivated by it and motivated it. They took so much pride in their music, that music even had a great deal to do with the development of big, impacting ideas like nationalism. Do you think that nationalism would have been what it was without classical music? Classical music helped to start WWI, in it's own way. Their separate musical traditions were a part of how they distinguished and defined themselves. Music was just that central to life.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> The question, as I read it, was when (historically) did the work of music begin to be seen as a work of ART and the composer an ARTIST and not merely a craftsman? In the visual arts there were a number of sculptors that were highly revered... but whether they were seen as "Artists" in the modern sense is questionable. Prior to the Renaissance, the very notion of taking credit oneself for creative efforts was thought of as almost blasphemous. Only God could create. The human artisan/craftsman was but the conduit through which the inspiration of God worked. With the Renaissance, a good number of "artists" strove to be recognized as something more than skilled craftsmen: Brunelleschi, Leonardo, Donatello, Alberti, Michelangelo, Raphael, etc... This involved the "artist" breaking away from the limits of the artist's guild and focusing upon a single craft (painting, wood carving, stone carving, engraving, etc...) and developing into the ideal of the "Renaissance Man" who was not merely a master of a single craft... but well read, often a skilled writer, knowledgeable of the latest theories, etc... The Dutch Baroque era... the period of Rembrandt and Vermeer... pushed this notion of Art backwards as the middleman/dealer entered on the scene and paintings and sculpture became little more than luxury items to hawked to upwardly mobile collectors no differently than fine furniture. It was really the era of Romanticism that led to the Modern notion of the "Artist" (for better or worse) in the visual arts... and I suspect this is equally true in the realm of music. Painters and composers no longer saw their efforts as merely luxury products to entertain the wealthy... even if that's still essentially what the wealthy collectors/patrons saw it as.


I think you are quite right as to the approximate era when 'art became art, and artists became artists.' - The late Classical era, and Beethoven, along with the flowering of the concept of individualism, which in Beethoven's era was truly a new concept. This is the era when, Beethoven the first musical example, 'artisans' were mere servants to households or a bureaucracy such as The Church. Beethoven's break away from dependence upon being a subservient craftsman into being an independent agent for himself and his work is the 'milestone' - in music - of that shift. Then, we get the romantic era, where 'individualism' and indeed 'an individual style' began to be expected of artists, and too, artists being considered as 'artists' vs. mere journeymen craftsmen.

Addressing another post, calling something 'art' just does not cut it - contemporary promo hype (some of the highest order of wholesale fabricated lies) does not necessarily 'legitimize' the thing being hyped, but is mere hype. I could say a shard of glass was a diamond, but that shard remains glass.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

*1956:* A young *Elvis Presley* listens intently to playbacks of different takes of _"Heartbreak Hotel"_ on a mono studio monitor speaker in a corner; while across the ocean, *Karlheinz Stockhausen* is putting the finishing touches on his electronic/vocal composition _"Gesang der Jünglinge" (Song of the Youths)._

The world is big.

"Give us time to perfect our art." -Jim Morrison


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

PetrB said:


> I could say a shard of glass was a diamond, but that shard remains glass.


However, there are quite objective tests for things like that.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

PetrB said:


> I could say a shard of glass was a diamond, but that shard remains glass.


Depends on what the criteria are, and the intended use. If low cost and the ability to mold and recycle were your criteria, then diamonds fail. Plus, glass makes better, cheaper windows.


----------



## Guest (Oct 28, 2012)

Lukecash12 said:


> 1. Entertainment isn't a minimal goal.


Yet what you said implied that you thought so.



> _while pop music, for the most part, *merely *sets out to entertain people._





> 2. It represents a degeneration culturally and intellectually, that people have little to no interest in art that has a higher aim than simply giving them a good time, or sounding cool.


And again, you point to minimum goals for pop music. Your use of the term 'degeneration' is either deeply insulting, or merely misused.



> It's more about a disappointment that people have absolutely no interest in marvelous possibilities that are so accessible to them. I'm more disappointed at what people are content with, as opposed to actual negative qualities in people.


I'm happier with this idea. I too would rather "people" tried music at the more challenging end of the pop genre, but that simply reveals my arrogance!



> Their culture has dictated these circumstances.[...] Now people the same age just drink while they listen to a ghetto rapper talk way too fast over a simple drum beat (and I've been to a fair share of parties with younger relatives like this, and it seems that a lot of them don't even know what the rapper is saying), or while they listen to a band like Green Day whine about something while they play stuff on the guitar that a twelve year old could have written.


Now you're getting seriously and mistakenly judgemental. Please stop. You know nothing about those who listen to the genre(s) about which you are pontificating.



> However, I don't see her as being very representative of pop music.


I wasn't suggesting that she _is '_representative' of pop music. I was suggesting that she is used as a symbol, token or emblem _for _pop music (in the same way that when you referred to Green Day, you were using the band as a token for all similar types. (See 'synecdoche').



> 4. Nothing is wrong with any of that. [_infatuation, love, having fun, everyday stuff.]_


That's a relief! It makes up quite a bit of my life!



> 5. I'm not dismissing pop music at all, and there was nothing comprehensive about what I had to say. It wasn't my goal to be comprehensive. We're talking about two massive and broad categories of music, and I'm trying to argue that it isn't necessarily elitist or arrogant to elevate one over the other.


When you say that 'pop' music is _merely _for entertainment, dismissing it all is _exactly _what you are doing, because you fail to acknowledge that not all pop is the same, and you admit you elevate other types of music that do more than merely entertain.

Let's be clear. In the same way that 'Classical' and 'classical' can be used to mean slightly different things (though they overlap) so can 'Pop' and 'pop'. One is a very broad genre, which could, for example, encompass mainstream rock music; one is a narrower genre which tends to refer to the 3-minute song that makes into the Top Ten.

Perhaps the next time someone wants to use Lady Gaga, they might indicate whether she is being named for herself and her own output; for mega-selling Top Ten output; or for the pop genre more generally.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

MacLeod said:


> Yet what you said implied that you thought so.


You'll find that I am more of a literal type. I don't like to leave things at an implication, because I'm not too good with implications in the first place. If I had meant that, I would have been more explicit.



> And again, you point to minimum goals for pop music. Your use of the term 'degeneration' is either deeply insulting, or merely misused.


I merely observe the affect, and I pointed out what it is that is degenerating, and it isn't the qualities of people. What they are settling for is what has degenerated.



> I'm happier with this idea. I too would rather "people" tried music at the more challenging end of the pop genre, but that simply reveals my arrogance!


Is it really all that arrogant to note that classical music typically tries people harder than other music and is in many ways a constructive force in their lives? That much has basically been proven, and that much should be intuitively evident as well.



> I wasn't suggesting that she is 'representative' of pop music. I was suggesting that she is used as a symbol, token or emblem for pop music (in the same way that when you referred to Green Day, you were using the band as a token for all similar types. (See 'synecdoche').


Right, I understand that, and appreciate that it is more use to take whatever reference points you can than it is to use none. It's better to have at least something concrete. And her music does represent some trends.



> That's a relief! It makes up quite a bit of my life!


The same here. It's good to know that you don't sit in a room all day writing out math problems and probing the mysteries of man's soul, while your body withers away. But normalcy being healthy doesn't mean that our wheel inventors shouldn't be given a special kind of appreciation. Is it really so foreign a concept to people, that wheel inventing wouldn't be thought of in the same sentence as flirting with girls? That one effort is more revered because it's implications and impact? I don't mean to cheapen or trivialize normal things. I mean for there to be more categories than normal.



> When you say that 'pop' music is merely for entertainment, dismissing it all is exactly what you are doing, because you fail to acknowledge that not all pop is the same, and you admit you elevate other types of music that do more than merely entertain.


I have specifically said in this thread that not all pop music is the same, so I've not failed to acknowledge anything. I've acknowledged it repeatedly and am doing so again. Seriously, how many times do I have to? It should be obvious to pretty much anyone here that classical music has produced much more material worthy of serious consideration than pop music has. I've been pretty clear so far that I'm talking about general output.



> Let's be clear. In the same way that 'Classical' and 'classical' can be used to mean slightly different things (though they overlap) so can 'Pop' and 'pop'. One is a very broad genre, which could, for example, encompass mainstream rock music; one is a narrower genre which tends to refer to the 3-minute song that makes into the Top Ten.


Of this I am aware.



> Now you're getting seriously and mistakenly judgemental. Please stop. You know nothing about those who listen to the genre(s) about which you are pontificating.


Considering just how much of it I do listen to, and just how many people I've heard from about it, some of whom are family members I've had lengthy discussions with, I know plenty about these genres. I have an uncle who literally needs a terrabyte sized hard drive to store all of his modern music collection, and we've listened to a ton of it together, and have discussed it a lot as well. And I am pontificating to no one. It seems that every time someone takes the same position as me or a similar one, we are immediately cast into this role of the one who pontificates, without further thought (although I don't mean to suggest that you have done so).

It's as if no one has the right any more to say that something is preferable to something else, that something is more valuable or constructive. Why so? Does everyone really have to chafe so hard as if they have rebellion against daddy complex?


----------



## Guest (Oct 28, 2012)

Lukecash12 said:


> [...] I have specifically said in this thread that not all pop music is the same, so I've not failed to acknowledge anything. I've acknowledged it repeatedly and am doing so again. Seriously, how many times do I have to? It should be obvious to pretty much anyone here that classical music has produced much more material worthy of serious consideration than pop music has. I've been pretty clear so far that I'm talking about general output.
> 
> [...]
> 
> It's as if no one has the right any more to say that something is preferable to something else, that something is more valuable or constructive. Why so? Does everyone really have to chafe so hard as if they have rebellion against daddy complex?


Thanks for your considered response. I think I'll say just two things. To the first point I've quoted, you say that you know not all pop is the same, yet in the very next sentence, you lump it all back together and elevate classical above it. It's not a matter of how many times you need to say 'not all pop is the same'; it's a matter of reinforcing that acknowledgement with a more discerning judgement. It's not all the same, so should not be judged as if it were.

If you've followed any of my other posts, you'll know that I defend my right and others' rights to express a preference, even if it means saying the unpopular (eg "I prefer Beethoven over Mozart and Radiohead over both but Ligeti not all"). But you are not merely expressing a preference, but also rejecting what you don't prefer as 'degenerate'. That's what I object to. Prefer as you will, but please be less dismissive of what you don't prefer.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

MacLeod said:


> Thanks for your considered response. I think I'll say just two things. To the first point I've quoted, you say that you know not all pop is the same, yet in the very next sentence, you lump it all back together and elevate classical above it. It's not a matter of how many times you need to say 'not all pop is the same'; it's a matter of reinforcing that acknowledgement with a more discerning judgement. It's not all the same, so should not be judged as if it were.
> 
> If you've followed any of my other posts, you'll know that I defend my right and others' rights to express a preference, even if it means saying the unpopular (eg "I prefer Beethoven over Mozart and Radiohead over both but Ligeti not all"). But you are not merely expressing a preference, but also rejecting what you don't prefer as 'degenerate'. That's what I object to. Prefer as you will, but please be less dismissive of what you don't prefer.


I lump it back together, so to speak, because there are general trends in pop music. General output is all I aimed to address, because it would take much brevity to do otherwise. I'm not judging it "as if it were", I'm assessing the trends and rendering my judgments of the trends. The obvious and clear trend today in the music that most people support, is that it has been packaged for sale, that the actual compositional efforts are meager, while the efforts are great in terms of production.

I dismiss what I do dismiss, because I see these trends having an actual and negative impact. Had people from my day or earlier been given these opportunities, believe you me that the state of affairs would be both better and worse. We'd certainly have a different way of appreciating what you all have, and a different way of abusing it, too. What I do know, is that classical music would rack up more than a pitiful 3% of music sales. I know that we wouldn't throw away such a wealth of culture like that.

And really, it's not so much that I dismiss pop music itself, because definitely I see it's place in things, it's value. What I dismiss is the trend that pop music flourishes while classical music gathers just 3%. I dismiss the fact that classical music is of so little import and influence, in this day and age. I dismiss that we have settled for the typical, instead of the fantastical.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I think part of the problem here with the denigration of pop music is that critics and proponents have not identified their criteria. The mediums themselves will guide you, if you are looking with your eyes open and using your intellect and common sense.

I hate to sound post-modern, but an artist like Lady Gaga is a hybrid form, not comparable to Beethoven. Also, we have to realize that music has more functions than just being music: it functions socially as well.

Much pop music is designed to reflect lifestyle, promote certain sub-cultures, and reinforce identity. Whose identity needs reinforcing or defining? Not us old fogeys listening to Bach. It's adolescents, who see Justin Bieber as more than music. Musical substance is probably not one of their main criteria.

Yes, I think that classical music usually has more musical ideas "per square inch" than most other music, although there is jazz that competes, as well as some advanced pop. "Musical ideas" is only one criterion.

I have special criteria for jazz, for rock, and for classical. I don't try to apply the wrong criteria to music that obviously has different requirements, or music I don't like which I can't bother to create any criteria for.

You are not going to have an informed view, or gain credibility, when you apply your "classical only" specialist criteria to other genres. It will only create the impression of elitism. If that's your goal, go for it, but those from other genres will just see you as absurd.


----------



## Guest (Oct 28, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> You are not going to have an informed view, or gain credibility, when you apply your "classical only" specialist criteria to other genres. It will only create the impression of elitism. If that's your goal, go for it, but those from other genres will just see you as absurd.


Just to be clear - is it the royal 'you' or a particular 'you' that you (millionrainbows) are referring to?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> Just to be clear - is the royal 'you' or a particular 'you' that you (millionrainbows) are referring to?


In other words, "Who are you talking to?" That's a good question. I'm addressing, as the post's opening says, "...critics and proponents (who) have not identified their criteria." So that works both ways.


----------

