# Art Music



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

What exactly is the issue with referring to Classical Music as "Art Music"?

We will insist that this is art:










But we're afraid to call Beethoven's Late Quartets art?


----------



## Klavierspieler (Jul 16, 2011)

Couchie said:


> But we're afraid to call Beethoven's Late Quartets art?


We are? Are we?


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

No issue for me. But, the consensus seems to be either that it just isn't a common enough term for people to understand what's meant or that *all* music is art music. (see thread on 'what is ART')


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Couchie said:


> What exactly is the issue with referring to Classical Music as "Art Music"?
> 
> We will insist that this is art:
> 
> ...


The _issue_ is that it is a foolishly snobbish appellation. Of course if you _are_ foolishly snobbish, there is no issue; it becomes an 'identifying term', of use to the hearer/reader.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I've always kind of liked the term...I don't find it snobbish. Its a way of classifying things, calling classical music 'art music' doesn't mean that popular music can't be artistic, just as calling popular music 'pop music' doesn't mean that art music cannot become popular. Its a term that connotes a distinguished quality, why is that snobbish?


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

You, _tdc_, are 'into' classical music. Thinking of it as 'art' music is not a 'loaded' term for you (but by your own words above you admit that you consider it to connote a 'distinguished' quality, not a distinguishing quality). 'Art' is even less defining than 'classical', because the latter is better understood by the general population.

This is is one (of many) cases where perception trumps reality. The people who are *not* into classical music greatly outnumber those who are. It is *their* understanding of the term 'art music' that determines whether that long haul trucker can casually mention in the truck stop diner that he has been listening to Brahms all morning (between smokey alerts).


----------



## LordBlackudder (Nov 13, 2010)

because it doesn't mean anything and no one uses it. and in most cases if you were to use the term it would not clearly define what you were referring to enough. so you would quickly revert back to saying the genre or era.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Couchie said:


> What exactly is the issue with referring to Classical Music as "Art Music"?


Music written by Richard Wagner!


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I'm not sure the terms matter, but eventually I think there may be a problem with using one term to refer to such diverse things as Renaissance era music, Romantic music, atonal music, noise music (is that the right term?), various avant-garde genres, and whatever new music composers will soon compose. I wonder if there will be more terms introduced in the next century or so to distinguish music which is so diverse.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Malevich did his black squares like 100 years ago. As well as white squares, multicoloured squares, all that 'suprematist' stuff. So too other early abstractionists like Mondrian and Kandinsky. I've got no problem with calling that art, cos it is, basically. I do have some big issues with today's art, but I won't go there. If people think something is art, and I don't, good for them. I just go with what I like now, that's it.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

It's a battle over ghettos. Art in the sense of "Art Music" is a religion shrouded in sterile tradition. It's not a category without purpose, but I don't blame anyone who doesn't want anything to do with it.


----------



## Romantic Geek (Dec 25, 2009)

Technically all music is "art music" but people usually say art music when they mean "high art music" or "learned music" versus "popular music" which usually lacks a learned style. Albeit, that's a huge grey area and that's OK with me


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

What do you mean "we," white man 

The debacle runs apace between the populist / general public and the classical crowd. 

Those less interested or inclined to the 'fine' arts resent like hell the implication that the arts they consume are less than... with that mentality, and its reflex response in place, calling classical music 'art music' supposedly implies that other popular genres are 'not art.'

You can't win for losing in this one. I have no problem with it, but do think to the average Jane or John Doe it only fuels the fire of their thinking of all fine arts consumers as 'elitist snobs.'


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

PetrB said:


> ... to the average Jane or John Doe it only fuels the fire of their thinking of all fine arts consumers as 'elitist snobs.'


'John Doe' says 'classical lovers are elitist snobs.'
'Mr. Classical Conoisseur' says 'those who don't listen to classical music are the great unwashed.'

But this is a stereotype. There are many people on this forum who listen to many types of music, not just classical. & same goes with people I know personally.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Ive got not problem with elitism personally.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

All kinds of elitists exist, including the kind who think "top 40 pop music is popular because it's good; anyone who likes anything else is a weird shut-in."

Elitism is less about any particular set of values and more about narrow, rigid thinking.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

emiellucifuge said:


> Ive got not problem with elitism personally.


It's fine to be elitists as long as you do so unapologetically.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Sid James said:


> 'John Doe' says 'classical lovers are elitist snobs.'
> 'Mr. Classical Conoisseur' says 'those who don't listen to classical music are the great unwashed.'
> 
> But this is a stereotype. There are many people on this forum who listen to many types of music, not just classical. & same goes with people I know personally.


WE know this - just saying the average jane and john are perhaps 'class' sensitive, through no fault of their own, btw, so any of the possible terms, 'classical' 'art music' to them raises 'issues' where those who more freely consume, liking only what they think 'good' have 0 issues.

Stereotypes exist for the same reasons cliches exist - because there is much general truth to them: danger is in applying them blindly, across the board, vs. a case-by-case basis.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

regressivetransphobe said:


> All kinds of elitists exist, including the kind who think "top 40 pop music is popular because it's good; anyone who likes anything else is a weird shut-in."
> 
> Elitism is less about any particular set of values and more about narrow, rigid thinking.


A group of high-powered and successful businessmen, professional sports teams, power brokers, concert artists, fine artists, etc. _are each and all, de facto, "An Elite."_

Removed from attitude, and more directed towards 'just the facts, ma'am,' that is a sort of elite I have no trouble with - not everyone is a world-class expert at something. That is just a matter of fact.

There will always be the expert who has issues, and makes an *** of themselves acting the elitist. There will always be non-experts who resent even the most unassuming of experts, because those non-experts have issues. This is more about personal 'issues' than anything really about elite / elitism, etc.

Basically, this point of the OP is not a real issue in itself: it is the various issues and baggage individuals carry around which is the issue. Unfortunately, there are many many people walking through life with 'issues.'

Issue, issue, issue: Gesundheit, Gesundheit, Gesundheit.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

Interestingly, I was listening to lecture 8 in a CD course on Jazz dealing with the change from Swing music to be-bop in the late 1940's. The lecturer said something like - 'unlike Swing, be-bop was considered to be 'art music' by its creators - music to be listened to rather than danced to - music for music's sake and for no particular use or purpose'.

It's a useful definition, but it leads to all sorts of odd questions when it comes to classical music. Are Elgar's Pomp and Circumstance Marches "Art Music"? On the one hand, they are marches. On the other hand, I don't believe they were actually composed with the idea that people would really march to them. So....

At any rate, I thought it might be interesting to see that the term "Art Music" can be used in other than an elitist way.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Hilltroll72 said:


> You, _tdc_, are 'into' classical music. Thinking of it as 'art' music is not a 'loaded' term for you (but by your own words above you admit that you consider it to connote a 'distinguished' quality, not a distinguishing quality). 'Art' is even less defining than 'classical', because the latter is better understood by the general population.
> 
> This is is one (of many) cases where perception trumps reality. The people who are *not* into classical music greatly outnumber those who are. It is *their* understanding of the term 'art music' that determines whether that long haul trucker can casually mention in the truck stop diner that he has been listening to Brahms all morning (between smokey alerts).


_Scene: Coffee shop in Alabama at 5:45 am_

Trucker 1: "I have been doing Brahms' art music all morning."

Trucker 2: "ARTZMUSICK?" (nearly upsets his coffee) "Ah-hahah! Scoff, scoff..."

Trucker 1: "Be it preferable to that Wagnerian ruckus you dare call music!"

Trucker 2: "Music? O fool... C'est _Gesamtkunstwerk_" (gestures with wrist delicately).


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Art music is music written by a guy named Art .









:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Finally recognition!


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

You know, the more I think about this, the more I am beginning to feel that I don't dislike the term "Art Music".

It's just that I don't think it should apply only to classical. It seems to me like a term that simply distinguishes between music that is written strictly to be listened to and music written for some other purpose besides just listening.

So on the one hand, you would have hymns and religious music used in worship, marches, dance music, work songs (like the original blues music), etc.

On the other hand you would have concert hall symphonic music, chamber music (not for dancing), prog rock, post-Swing era jazz, etc.

The trouble is that I wouldn't know how to categorize Opera (it would seem like Art Music to me, though not strictly for listening) and Heavy Metal - which is for more than just listening (music to bang your head against the wall with). 

(and, I know it's hard, but try not to take this too seriously)


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

the term "Art music" makes absolutely zero sense


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

Philip said:


> the term "Art music" makes absolutely zero sense


and "classical" does?


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

Vesteralen said:


> and "classical" does?


Yes, because it refers to music of the classical tradition, while "Art music" refers to... oh yeah, it refers to nothing, because music is already an art form in itself.

I've also never heard anyone refer to a painting as an "Art painting", yes perhaps as "visual art" or a "work of art", but it would otherwise be very redundant.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

Philip said:


> Yes, because it refers to music of the classical tradition, while "Art music" refers to... oh yeah, it refers to nothing because music is already an art form in itself.


It's all in what you're used to hearing.

If "Art Music" was common parlence (and it's a term that's been around longer than some people might think - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_music) and somebody out of the blue said, let's call this music "classical", there would be just as many protestors.

What is "classical" about Stockhausen, Cage or Adams? Or, for that matter, Schumann, Brahms or Bruckner?

"Classical" in literature applies very specifically to ancient Greek and Roman writings. In music, it applies to the period between about 1760 and 1805.

The only reason we accept the term "classical" as a synonym for "serious" in music is because of long, and basically erroneous usage.

You don't have to accept "Art Music" as a fitting description, and I can understand all the objections, including yours, but when you're talking about what makes *sense*, as opposed to what people are *used to*, it can't be any worse than "classical".


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

Vesteralen said:


> It's all in what you're used to hearing.
> 
> If "Art Music" was common parlence (and it's a term that's been around longer than some people might think - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_music) and somebody out of the blue said, let's call this music "classical", there would be just as many protestors.
> 
> ...


I can't agree with a single word you've just said.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

Philip said:


> I can't agree with a single word you've just said.


Good.

Does that mean we're done?


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Vesteralen said:


> Good.
> 
> Does that mean we're done?


I agree with _Philip_. And I don't want to 'get started'.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Philip said:


> Yes, because it refers to music of the classical tradition, while "Art music" refers to... oh yeah, it refers to nothing, because music is already an art form in itself.
> 
> I've also never heard anyone refer to a painting as an "Art painting", yes perhaps as "visual art" or a "work of art", but it would otherwise be very redundant.


"Art music" is distinguished from "Popular music".

We can mill about the linguistics all day and demonstrate our anti-elitist messiah complexes, but at the end of the day we all know exactly what the meaning is without further kidding of ourselves.


----------

