# Is music "just" entertainment?



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

For me, the answer is yes. Regardless of the frown on my current avatar! You?


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

Uh-oh. 

I believe in a distinction between art and "just" entertainment, but I think more often than not, they overlap to such a degree the two categories are pointless.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

What if you are entertained by art?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Indeed, what if?


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

KenOC said:


> Indeed, what if?


Hmm Then what would make something deserving of the title "JUST" entertainment?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

violadude said:


> Hmm Then what would make something deserving of the title "JUST" entertainment?


Must entertainment not be art?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Music is my life.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

KenOC said:


> Must entertainment not be art?


No....not in my opinion. Is Jersey Shore art? People are entertained by that.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

violadude said:


> No....not in my opinion. Is Jersey Shore art? People are entertained by that.


The arts are a category within entertainment.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> The arts are a category within entertainment.


So, an "all art is entertainment but not all entertainment is art" kinda thing? So what criteria would put something in the "art" category?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

violadude said:


> So, an "all art is entertainment but not all entertainment is art" kinda thing? So what criteria would put something in the "art" category?


The fine arts and the performing arts.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Music is my life.


Your life is just an entertainment then.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

aleazk said:


> Your life is just an entertainment then.


No, I'm in the entertainment industry.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> No, I'm in the entertainment industry.


Beethoven was in the music industry, a branch of the entertainment industry...


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

KenOC said:


> Beethoven was in the music industry, a branch of the entertainment industry...


Do you categorize things as something like "artistic entertainment" and "vulgar entertainment" then? Or is it all the same to you?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

KenOC said:


> Beethoven was in the music industry, a branch of the entertainment industry...


Cool! I'm in the same branch!


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

violadude said:


> Do you categorize things as something like "artistic entertainment" and "vulgar entertainment" then? Or is it all the same to you?


Yes to the first question, no to the second.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

violadude said:


> Do you categorize things as something like "artistic entertainment" and "vulgar entertainment" then? Or is it all the same to you?


Too gross. The gradations are far finer than that. BTW "vulgar" seems to mean "of or relating to the common people : plebeian." Another sign of snobbishness in classical music? This forum is already at 8.2 pinkies, please don't raise it further!


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

KenOC said:


> Too gross. The gradations are far finer than that. BTW "vulgar" seems to mean "of or relating to the common people : plebeian." Another sign of snobbishness in classical music? This forum is already at 8.2 pinkies, please don't raise it further!


I didn't mean it in a snobby way, obviously there exists vulgar classical music...I was speaking under the impression that art was somehow something which by definition rises above commonality in some way or another, making vulgarity simply the term opposite of it...I guess we need to first define exactly what we mean by art.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

It can be just for fun or it can be a career. Or it could lead you on an emotional rollercoaster. It's very versatile depending on what you use it for.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

violadude said:


> I didn't mean it in a snobby way, obviously there exists vulgar classical music...I was speaking under the impression that art was somehow something which by definition rises above commonality in some way or another, making vulgarity simply the term opposite of it...I guess we need to first define exactly what we mean by art.


What constitutes as art is entirely subjective, in my opinion.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Take LSD and music become visual. Not that I know anything about it. lol


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> What constitutes as art is entirely subjective, in my opinion.


I guess that would make art a definition-less word, since definitions are purely objective in nature, otherwise they are pointless.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

neoshredder said:


> Take LSD and music become visual. Not that I know anything about it. lol


In a few decades time, the 60s will come back and I will try it then.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

neoshredder said:


> Take LSD and music become visual. Not that I know anything about it. lol


I wanna try that sometime. But no one I know currently has it (that I know of anyway).


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

violadude said:


> I guess that would make art a definition-less word, since definitions are purely objective in nature, otherwise they are pointless.


Or I am just too lazy to explain what I think of as "art."


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Or I am just too lazy to explain what I think of as "art."


Well, here's what the Merriam-Websters dictionary has to say on the matter:

: skill acquired by experience, study, or observation <the art of making friends>
2
a : a branch of learning: (1) : one of the humanities (2) plural : liberal arts
b archaic : learning, scholarship
3
: an occupation requiring knowledge or skill <the art of organ building>
4
a : the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced
b (1) : fine arts (2) : one of the fine arts (3) : a graphic art
5
a archaic : a skillful plan
b : the quality or state of being artful
6
: decorative or illustrative elements in printed matter


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

violadude said:


> Well, here's what the Merriam-Websters dictionary has to say on the matter:
> 
> : skill acquired by experience, study, or observation <the art of making friends>
> 2
> ...


Basically, the first definition pretty much makes everything except for autonomous body functions art lol.


----------



## jeanmarc (Dec 23, 2012)

The highest forms of art can reveal the hidden and open us up to a fuller sense of ourselves. After experiencing the greatest art one feels full, and at peace. Entertainment is a distraction, while art prepares one for death.


----------



## Guest (Dec 26, 2012)

In answer to the OP, no, for me, music is not 'just' entertainment, if, by entertainment, you mean a temporary distraction from the progress of regular life. Music is an integral part of who I am and what makes me tick, whether the music is 'art' or not.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I would say that music is entertainment but there is music which is not just entertainment. Four example Bach's St Matthew passion is not just entertainment. There is more to it than just that.


----------



## Guest (Dec 26, 2012)

KenOC said:


> For me, the answer is yes. Regardless of the frown on my current avatar! You?


Of course it is what else could it be ? some intellectual exercise? never not no how.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

_*"To some people music is like food; to others like medicine; and to others like a fan."*_


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Andante said:


> Of course it is what else could it be ? some intellectual exercise? never not no how.


Intellectual exercise can be entertainment. Look at crossword puzzles, or Bach


----------



## jani (Jun 15, 2012)

I have a same kinda view of about music as Beethoven, meaning that i think that music has more than just entertainment value.

For example it can be used for good cause to help those who need held ( The sandy relief charity concert for example).
Music is part of our everyday lives, you can't avoid it even if you tried to.
Would you count the music played in weddings&funerals only as an entertainment?


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Is entertainment necessarily a shallow and isolated thing? The more deep and rich a form of entertainment, the more likely it is to have an impact on other areas of your life. Its first dependent on your emotional reaction and second dependent on your ideas about it.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

For me music is not just entertainment, it is a _passion._ I would guess it is for you too KenOC.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Too gross. The gradations are far finer than that. BTW "vulgar" seems to mean "of or relating to the common people : plebeian." Another sign of snobbishness in classical music? This forum is already at 8.2 pinkies, please don't raise it further!


There is a difference between a plate of vegetables and a bowl of popcorn: though both contain fiber, one has a far greater amount of nutrients than the other.

Sorry to so burst your bubble -- but plebes exist, are a huge part of the population, and it is safe to say nigh unto none of them 'consume' the 'products' of Olivier Messiaen, where many of them have repeatedly 'consumed' the 'products' of Howard (Jersey) Shore's film scores, like for 'Lord Of The Rings.'

So give it up dude, those who listen to classical music comprise 2% or less of the populace at large. Even if within that 2% you claim to have more plebeian taste, you are still a raving elitist snob who 'consumes' classical music. You've even gone further -- you are a member of an online forum dedicated to classical music!

May as well put that bumper sticker, "Elitist snob who loves classical music" on your car now, be prepared for the Bronx cheers, hand signals (both the affected raised pinkie 10.0 as well as the Charlie Bird) and rocks, all tossed your way from the plebes

To practice "the response" for further confrontations (I'm an expert with decades of experience), lower your voice an octave, jut out your lower jaw, lean into the confronting persons face -- about five inches proximity is good -- and loudly say, "I like beautiful things! You gotta problem with that?"

P.s. Love the 'Scowling Bro Beethoven wit da Fro' avatar, guy.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> In a few decades time, the 60s will come back and I will try it then.


You've missed the first and second comebacks (which, BTW, makes the phrase 'old hippie' redundant.)

Get in queue for the third time that bus comes round.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

violadude said:


> I wanna try that sometime. But no one I know currently has it (that I know of anyway).


Try in the Jazz department, just down the hall.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

jani said:


> I have a same kinda view of about music as Beethoven, meaning that i think that music has more than just entertainment value.
> 
> *For example it can be used for good cause to help those who need held ( The sandy relief charity concert for example).*


... so can the proceeds from a bingo game.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

violadude said:


> Well, here's what the Merriam-Websters dictionary has to say on the matter:
> 
> : skill acquired by experience, study, or observation <the art of making friends>
> 2
> ...


I hate this definition.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

*"Is music 'just' entertainment?"*

Music serves many functions, many of them social and utilitarian. Examples: popular music for dancing, for lifestyle identification and enhancement, social identity; utilitarian music, cinematic music, elevator music, music for stores, commercials; entertainment can include opera, television, cinema, pop music, etc.

The *real* question implied here is *'when music is seen to be not simply for our entertainment, or for some utilitarian function, what is it?'* The answer, of course, is that it could very well be "art."

When any form of music "transcends" its utilitarian function, it is "non-utilitarian." Any of the forms of "entertainment" music or utilitarian music for Church ceremonies, events, commissions for royals, etc., can become "art" if we, or history's judgement, comes to see the music as having transcended its "intended function," lift it out of its original context, and declare it to be an "object of sublime contemplation."

The problem then becomes, "how do we define the criteria and boundaries of art?" At art's inception (in the 18th century), this was not a pressing question, since there was no previous conception of 'fine art' compared to utilitarian objects; the "highbrow" became the defining criterion. The question has now been explored by Marcel Duchamp, Andy Warhol, and other modernists in the era of "self-aware" art.

In times past, everything which was created had a utilitarian function or social function. Now, with the idea of "low-brow art," objects and things (which formerly were products which had specific functions or uses) can be created for the sole purpose of being "art" or objects of sublime contemplation. Conversely, things previously created for specific functions or uses can now be "appropriated" and seen as "art" or for purposes of "sublime contemplation."

This "art" category can include objects or products which, at their inception, were strictly banal consumer products, such as illustrations of old men's magazines, comic books, toys, collectible objects, etc. How far one wishes to take this is flexible; this particular category of objects could be considered a "sub-category" of art.

Thus, the problem now lies in defining the nature and boundaries of art, not whether "entertainment" is or is not the most important criterion for describing music or art.

•--->







•------------------->








Hmmm...is it art? (crunch, crunch...)


----------



## LordBlackudder (Nov 13, 2010)

animals have to sing and dance to attract a mate. the tribes have to make music to socialize and ward off predators.

if you take this to an extreme the indulgence in arts and sports has prevented many wars and broken boundaries.

these things seem essential and not just for fun.

i think music comes from a basic instinct not a pop chart or mtv. that is more of a commentary of music.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

LordBlackudder said:


> ...animals have to sing and dance to attract a mate. the tribes have to make music to socialize and ward off predators....i think music comes from a basic instinct not a pop chart or mtv...


The most basic instinct is POWER. So that's where all Western music, music of the Church, originates. Meanwhile, in the secular world, traveling minstrels are cruising for new action...


----------



## Guest (Dec 27, 2012)

It's a shame this debate has rather too quickly leapt into the well-worn territory of entertainment v art which usually leads to the safe conclusion that the purpose of art (music) is to both educate and entertain.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> It's a shame this debate has rather too quickly leapt into the well-worn territory of entertainment v art which usually leads to the safe conclusion that the purpose of art (music) is to both educate and entertain.


Yes...there sems to be some effort to define "art," when the more direct approach might be to define "entertainment" per the original post.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Music is a type of art. I got an Associates of Arts in Music to prove it.


----------



## Guest (Dec 27, 2012)

It doesn't matter whether music is art or not, unless you believe that art is music's only alternative purpose/function to 'entertainment'.


----------



## Guest (Dec 27, 2012)

Does it not come under the heading of the 'Performing Arts' which I think are all entertainment


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> It's a shame this debate has rather too quickly leapt into the well-worn territory of entertainment v art which usually leads to the safe conclusion that the purpose of art (music) is to both educate and entertain.


The thread question is rather vague. I haven't learned anything from this thread so far. If I am supposed to be entertained, it's not working very well.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

Ill-fitting perhaps, rather than well-worn? Nothing is ever "just" anything, there's always more to things than a lonely noun, especially something as copious as music.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

*Is music "just" entertainment?*

The term "entertainment" seems trivial, and fails in making a comprehensive discussion. That's not my doing, for bringing up "art." The term "entertainment" implies light distraction, humor, and _light discussion,_ resulting in a sort of "don't be so serious" attitude.

The thread question and choice of terms is also seems geared toward a "lowest common denominator" type of response, and is an appeal to "obvious common sense."

For me, the thread invites the view, largely by omission, that "entertainment" is an absolute quality which can be an "objective" quality in music or any art.

"Entertainment" can be assumed to be a criterion, or an "objective quality" of music or art if its form (most opera, popular music) _implies or reflects an intent on the part of the composer_ (which involves criteria which determine the genre, context, and form in which it is created and presented).

"Entertainment" as an objective quality "in the music" reflects a utilitarian intent, purpose, and concept in this definition, which is a quality associated with certain forms (opera, etc) but can be at odds with pure artistic intent, but can be transcended to become "art," as in Mozart's opera, or really good opera, depending on its qualities.

Otherwise, "entertainment as a result or reaction" is best seen as being subjective.

There_* is *_music, like Milton Babbitt's, which was not created with the primary purpose of "entertaining" in the sense the term implies.

This music is "entertaining" in a sense to those who like it, but the term "entertainment" again seems to fail here, implying light distraction and humor.

Church or religious music is "utilitarian," but is not created to "entertain" in a trivial sense but to embody and enhance religious concepts and rituals. In this sense, as music created for "the contemplation of the divine," it is art, even if the idea of "art" did not exist at its inception.

I don't think "entertainment" is a very encompassing criterion for the arts, and limits our view of the arts.

BTW, I am very proud of the fact that I earned an Associate's degree in arts, as well as a BFA.


----------



## Guest (Dec 28, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> The thread question is rather vague.


I think it's serviceable enough, if the reader doesn't get all exercised about definitions. Possibly KenOC was being provocative, but it's not necessary to be provoked. I already gave what I thought was a plausible answer, and your own earlier post indicating that music has many purposes - some explicitly utilitarian, some derived by the listener - was also helpful. In this forum, discussions can sometimes be quite disposable, but it's not easy to predict which will generate heat and which light.



millionrainbows said:


> *Is music "just" entertainment?*
> 
> The term "entertainment" seems trivial, and fails in making a comprehensive discussion. That's not my doing, for bringing up "art." The term "entertainment" implies light distraction, humor, and _light discussion,_ resulting in a sort of "don't be so serious" attitude.
> 
> ...


As I think I said earlier, the classically accepted purpose(s) of art is (are) to educate and entertain. There is nothing wrong with either of those purposes, except that the artist or the critic determines a narrow definition for one of those terms in order to elevate or denigrate.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> As I think I said earlier, the classically accepted purpose(s) of art is (are) to educate and entertain.


To educate, entertain, and improve, if I may put a gloss on it. An old-fashioned idea, hardly recognized today. Are we the better for that?


----------



## Guest (Dec 28, 2012)

In the last few posts I see that concept of Art itself is being questioned as to "what is Art" 
when we start to fall back on definitions it makes the subject of discussion very elusive IMO. I can only add that all music for me is for enjoyment if someone wishes to call that entertainment I would not disagree.


----------



## Ralfy (Jul 19, 2010)

Art is both entertainment and enlightening. Most works, though, emphasize the former.


----------



## appoggiatura (Feb 6, 2012)

Regardless of the art/entertainment discussion... music is not just entertainment or art to me. 
Well, it can be. Sometimes I listen music for entertainment. For example Strauss's walzes are just entertainment (read: fun, lightheartedness) to me while I consider a symphony of Rachmaninoff or Brahms less entertaining and more art (read: serious, makes you think, moves you deeply).

For me it's like the difference between fast food and haute cuisine.

Strauss =_ french fries_, Rachmaninoff = _Boeuf Bourguignon _ with a lovely glass of wine. 
One thing is not better nor tastier than the other, it's just a difference in components and purpose of the piece.

I do other things for just 'entertainment', like going to the gym, meeting up with friends. Music means a great part of my life to me, professionally and emotionally. I don't listen to Dvorak's New World symphony, or the other examples I mentioned before, as background, 'fun' music. I take my time for that and devote that time to listening to music only. I analyse the piece, write about on my blog for example, and I listen very attentively so that I can learn things that I can apply in my life as a 'semi-pro' musician, and as a person.

Music is a part of my personality, not only because of my background, but music can move me so deeply and it can have a huge influence on me and I think it adds to my purpose of living. Plain entertainment does not.

Is music "just" entertainment?
For me the answer is a *NO*.


----------



## Phidias (Dec 24, 2012)

Seneca wrote in his Epistulae morales ad Lucilium that one should not bother too much with music as it serves only to entertain and doesn't improve one's soul, morally speaking. It teaches nothing about how a man is to behave and how we should face life.

That was probably true in his time. However, i have no doubt that he would have an entirely different opinion if he lived today, after listening to the serious serious works of Bach or Beethoven.


----------



## Knhee (Dec 28, 2012)

It is a fallacy to think that everything has a special purpose. I guess this is comparable to the frequently asked question, "what is the purpose of poetry?". I really don't think that such a great thing (music) has to have an equally great purpose- it can simply be for entertainment.

People are mentioning other factors such as music being enlightening and educating, and yes some pieces may be so. But in talking about music in general, if all pieces of music are enlightening and educating, it can't be for that purpose- I would say it's more a residual property of music.

So my take on this is if the question is asking if the purpose of music is just entertainment, then I would say yes it is. If the question is asking if music can be more than just entertainment, I would say yes it can be more than that but it's not the purpose. I hope that makes sense.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)




----------



## Chrythes (Oct 13, 2011)

Isn't entertainment as itself is a thing with the purpose to provide pleasure or specifically amusement?
Music can provide us entertainment but also much more - either philosophy, sentimentalism or intellectualism. Entertainment is only one aspect of music.


----------



## Knhee (Dec 28, 2012)

Yes I am saying entertainment is the only purpose of music- not that it isn't a purpose. But I also agree that it can provide us with so much more than just entertainment even if it may not be its purpose


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Sure. 

Some people require a great deal from their entertainments, others don't -- and there is your real question


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Andante said:


> In the last few posts I see that concept of Art itself is being questioned as to "what is Art"
> when we start to fall back on definitions it makes the subject of discussion very elusive IMO. I can only add that all music for me is for enjoyment if someone wishes to call that entertainment I would not disagree.


No definition of art is really necessary. Art is like a chair; we sit in it, we don't question it. Of course, unlike a chair, art serves other goals.

To continue the metaphor, not all chairs are alike; some are cushy, some are hard. Depending on what suits their needs, some people seem to probably prefer the Lazy Boy recliner, or the critical armchair.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)




----------



## Phidias (Dec 24, 2012)

The same happens with literature... we have a all bunch of 'entertaining' types, comics, novels, romances, etc. It doesn't matter if they are in prose or in verse. Then we have poetry in the classical forms, sonatas, odes, etc., which can also be entertaining and jesting, or very profound and enlightening. We also have moral and philosophical works like treatises, sermons, etc. All this happens in music.


----------

