# Is there any special value to humanity in art music?



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

Is art music just one more offering of equal value with Country, Broadway, Blues, Rock, Hip Hop, etc.? Or is there something about art music that gives it a particular value to humanity that is unique to art music. 

Budweiser and Coors are pretty much the same to me. I can't tell much difference, although some can. Is art music just another brand of the product music, of equal value with the other "brands"?

If art music does have a special and unique value to humanity, as I believe, how would you describe that value? Is art music worthy of survival?


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Much as I am gritting my teeth at the comparison to country (and to beer), ideally no genre is any better or worse than another. It's the intent and inventiveness behind a piece that gives it value. If someone writes a rock work with as much thoughtfulness and ground breaking nuances as some of the classical works that have survived the ages, then that work is of equal value. I have trouble believing that Lady Gag, Gagman Style, or that rapper - what's his name? Enema? or whomever -- I have trouble believing they will have any lasting impact. So maybe the value is avoidance of the ephemeral in whatever genre.

Of course, what we call classical itself isn't just one genre, but many.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Truckload said:


> Is art music just one more offering of equal value with Country, Broadway, Blues, Rock, Hip Hop, etc.?


In a way, yes, now that the original power-context which propagated it is now gone, replaced by a big consumer industry.



Truckload said:


> Or is there something about art music that gives it a particular value to humanity that is unique to art music?


I think all forms of music have their own utility and/or value. Classical music has the advantage of having a long history, and it is "music about music" for the most part, rather than being simply entertaining or functional as dance music. Really, these popular musics (like rap) are there for social identity reasons, to promote and define young lifestyles and social trends.



Truckload said:


> Budweiser and Coors are pretty much the same to me. I can't tell much difference, although some can. Is art music just another brand of the product music, of equal value with the other "brands"?


I wouldn't say that, since I value each music genre on its own terms, using an appropriate set of criteria. In the consumer field, now more level, and with pre-recorded product, it no longer dominates like it once did.



Truckload said:


> If art music does have a special and unique value to humanity, as I believe, how would you describe that value? Is art music worthy of survival?


For me, it is density of "pure musical idea" that draws me to CM. I have other criteria, such as "art" value, which can apply to any genre, as long as I consider it to be valid art.


----------



## Guest (Feb 2, 2013)

Oooooh, "humanity." Too big. 

I know that art music has a special value to me (one member of "humanity"). And because it has special value to me, and I am human (i.e., social), I enjoy talking about music with other members of humanity.

But humanity as a whole? No idea. 

I disagree with Weston's comment that it's "the intent and inventiveness behind a piece that gives it value." It's the individual members of humanity who listen to a piece who give it value. Intent is outside our purview (diary entries by composers and programme notes notwithstanding), and inventiveness is a quality conferred by a listener. Different listeners, different ideas as to what constitutes "inventive."

Anyway, it's hard for me to imagine how something that so few members of humanity experience, either directly or indirectly, could have value for all humanity.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

weston, millionrainbows and some guy, 

thank you for thinking about the question. For me this has been a burning question of great importance to me for many years. Obviously there is no 2+2=4 kind of answer. But after a lifetime spent with art music, as I get old, I wonder if all has been lost, and whether perhaps if so few see any value in art music, will it even survive the next hundred years.


----------



## Guest (Feb 2, 2013)

Dinna fash, Truckload. 

For one, the impulse to create is such a basic one, there will never ever be an end to art.

For two, you yourself will not survive into the next fifty years or so, much less the next hundred. You are alive now. Enjoy now. Just as a practical matter, you know?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Truckload said:


> weston, millionrainbows and some guy,
> 
> thank you for thinking about the question. For me this has been a burning question of great importance to me for many years. Obviously there is no 2+2=4 kind of answer. But after a lifetime spent with art music, as I get old, I wonder if all has been lost, and whether perhaps if so few see any value in art music, will it even survive the next hundred years.


I think Beethoven has already proved that his music will survive. I wonder, though, in the future, if our concern for "art music" will be as important as finding water and the planet's survival.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

All music is art.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Truckload said:


> Is art music just one more offering of equal value with Country, Broadway, Blues, Rock, Hip Hop, etc.? Or is there something about art music that gives it a particular value to humanity that is unique to art music.


In short, no. My opening post on my thread below puts my position.
http://www.talkclassical.com/22784-classical-music-its-so.html



> ...
> If art music does have a special and unique value to humanity, as I believe, how would you describe that value? Is art music worthy of survival?


I think my own jaundiced view is that 'art music' has been used more as a tool for oppression than liberation. I must emphasise that this is MY own at times very negative view, informed by MY OWN experience. Doesn't have to be other people's here.

But I am concerned more of the 'basics' of a society or culture, not about the add-ons like art music. Europe had centuries to get it right, and we wound up with the most toxic regimes on the planet there in the mid 20th century - Nazism and Stalinism. So if you don't practice what you preach - eg. the Enlightenment was basically just theory on paper for intellectuals to discuss in their salons - no matter how so called 'superior' or 'enlightening' your culture is compared to others, well, you potentially end up with hell from people who promised heaven.

What's this got to do with music? Nothing if you just think of it as music and that's it. But I don't, I see it as more than that. Eg. the current fracas on this forum about John Cage - or previous ones about other composers, even who I previously thought innocuous, Wolfie - it shows that music isn't just music once you unpack it, its a lot more. You got the personalities, the histories, the anecdotes, the ideologies, the politics and I could go on.

"No man is an island" , the quote by John Donne is relevant here I think.


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

This is hifalutin' sounding, but I'll try.

The best art takes one out of the here-and-now and speaks to a higher truth -- sometimes transcendental, sometimes the ineffable, sometimes just a beauty we've lost sight of, or a lesson we've forgotten. A painting at the Met can usually do this better than a backyard landscape produced with the help of book or a show on public television. Same with a dance choreographed by Martha Graham or Alwin Nikolai vs. Dancing with the Stars. Or a play by Eugene O'Neill or Tony Kushner vs. a fraternity skit. A really good Broadway song can transport you. As can a really good piece of jazz. It's harder with popular songs because they have to be commercial and there are musical language constraints -- but it's not impossible. "Art music" has fewer time and language constraints, so the best of it (which, like all the arts, constitutes less than 1%) has a greater expressive possibility, thus more of a chance for succeeding. It speaks of things inexpressable in casual conversation -- and leaves me, for one, with a feeling of immense pride at having been a human being.

Does it serve any "utility" -- in terms of feeding the poor, curing the sick, correcting inequality? No. But it might sway a conscience or two.

george


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Truckload said:


> Is art music just one more offering of equal value with Country, Broadway, Blues, Rock, Hip Hop, etc.? Or is there something about art music that gives it a particular value to humanity that is unique to art music.
> 
> Budweiser and Coors are pretty much the same to me. I can't tell much difference, although some can. Is art music just another brand of the product music, of equal value with the other "brands"?
> 
> If art music does have a special and unique value to humanity, as I believe, how would you describe that value? Is art music worthy of survival?


As one humble listener, the fact that I am able to learn a great deal of what life was probably like at the Spanish court centuries ago, and aesthetical values then when I listen through one by one the harpsichord sonatas of Domenico Scarlatti, is good enough reason for the survival of art music qualified to do so.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Perhaps if the OP would be kind enough to define "value," that might make things a bit easier.


----------



## Turangalîla (Jan 29, 2012)

I don't think that you could say "humanity" has a special place for art music. Rather, art music is very precious to those who make it a part of their lives. I can't imagine that rock, pop, country, etc. (which I consider to be businesses, not art) is the same to their admirers as art music is to us. Classical music has done an immense amount for my intellectual capacity and creativity, and judging from what others have been saying, it is a trend that affects all who have a passion for it. From my experience, the primary goal of mainstream music is to make one feel good or emotional...to make them tap their toes or feel a connection to the song lyrics. In that respect classical music is different than mainstream music.

But I wouldn't say that classical music has any measurable value to society in general, only that it makes our existence a little more pleasant  .


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Truckload said:


> I wonder if all has been lost, and whether perhaps if so few see any value in art music, will it even survive the next hundred years.


It will survive. How many people listen to Greogrian chants even among us so called art music buffs? Yet as many Gregorian chants as possible are preserved and studied by musicologists and historians. It doesn't take the entire human race enjoying an art form to ensure its survival.

It sounds like you need some sunshine, vitamin D, and whatever little bit of exercise you can manage, if you are able, to help snap you out of this funk. I know I need that too.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Weston said:


> How many people listen to Greogrian chants even among us so called art music buffs?


Gregorian chant had a huge surge a few years ago. Yoga for the ears, it seems. Here's one of the big hits.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

GGluek said:


> This is hifalutin' sounding, but I'll try.
> 
> The best art takes one out of the here-and-now and speaks to a higher truth -- sometimes transcendental, sometimes the ineffable, sometimes just a beauty we've lost sight of, or a lesson we've forgotten. A painting at the Met can usually do this better than a backyard landscape produced with the help of book or a show on public television. Same with a dance choreographed by Martha Graham or Alwin Nikolai vs. Dancing with the Stars. Or a play by Eugene O'Neill or Tony Kushner vs. a fraternity skit. A really good Broadway song can transport you. As can a really good piece of jazz. It's harder with popular songs because they have to be commercial and there are musical language constraints -- but it's not impossible. "Art music" has fewer time and language constraints, so the best of it (which, like all the arts, constitutes less than 1%) has a greater expressive possibility, thus more of a chance for succeeding. It speaks of things inexpressable in casual conversation -- and leaves me, for one, with a feeling of immense pride at having been a human being.
> 
> ...


That was very thought provoking. One of the many things your comments stir in me is the belief that thinking about big questions like this helps us (and any member of humanity) rise above the sordid issues of everyday life and begin to strive for something better, cleaner, more noble.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Perhaps if the OP would be kind enough to define "value," that might make things a bit easier.


The value of growing wheat is to feed humanities physical hunger. The value of digging up coal is to provide warmth to a cold humanity, light in the darkness, etc. The value of working on a construction crew building a new road is to provide transportation to humanity. The value of driving a truck is to deliver meat (and everything else) to a hungry city. (That is the source of my username, I used my retirement money to buy a trucking company).

Thus by value I refer to the relative uitlity or benefit to be derived from it. What does humanity gain by the existence of art music?


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

CarterJohnsonPiano said:


> I don't think that you could say "humanity" has a special place for art music. Rather, art music is very precious to those who make it a part of their lives. I can't imagine that rock, pop, country, etc. (which I consider to be businesses, not art) is the same to their admirers as art music is to us. Classical music has done an immense amount for my intellectual capacity and creativity, and judging from what others have been saying, it is a trend that affects all who have a passion for it. From my experience, the primary goal of mainstream music is to make one feel good or emotional...to make them tap their toes or feel a connection to the song lyrics. In that respect classical music is different than mainstream music.
> 
> But I wouldn't say that classical music has any measurable value to society in general, only that it makes our existence a little more pleasant  .


That was really interesting. You believe classical music has personally helped your intellectual capacity and creativity. I agree with you completely. I believe art music has helped my intellectual capacity and creativity also. In fact, I have seen music help many people to develop creativity and intellectual capacity.

Yet do you really feel that improving intellectual capacity and creativity is of no measurable value to society in general?


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2013)

Truckload said:


> That was really interesting. You believe classical music has personally helped your intellectual capacity and creativity. I agree with you completely. I believe art music has helped my intellectual capacity and creativity also. In fact, I have seen music help many people to develop creativity and intellectual capacity.


Well, Truckload, here's another place where you and I also agree.

So it seems that where we disagree is in the details. You would exclude artists like Cage and Karkowski and Lopez and Merzbow and Radigue and Oliveros. I would include them.

You claim that artists like Cage destroy all that is valuable in art music. I have personally experienced an increase in intellectual capacity and creativity in my contacts with Cage. And I have watched dozens of musicians that I admire whose debt to Cage is not only obvious but acknowledged.

[And yes, the predictable response is that I and they are all deluded. Yawn.]


----------



## Zauberberg (Feb 21, 2012)

> Is there any special value to humanity in art music?


Well, it's of special value to me. It has broadened my perception, the way I see the world and how strong could it be the human being with its thinking; but I can only speak for me.


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2013)

In my less optimistic moments, the best I can see for music of any variety is that it keeps us amused, distracted from the inevitability of death and oblivion. To that extent, no one music serves any higher purpose than any other. It may be in our nature to claim that the things _we _amuse ourselves with carry more 'value' than the things that amuse others, but that does not make it so.

In my more optimistic moods, the value I have attached over time to the pieces of music I have most enjoyed is, I think, a value that I share with many other humans, and one that has the potential to draw me closer to the 'meaning of life' ('only connect') along with other humans.

That's a bit heavy for a Sunday evening, but perhaps it has something to do with watching 'The Time Machine' (Guy Pearce not George Pal) and realising that since time only goes forward, there's nothing we can do stop it.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

CarterJohnsonPiano said:


> ...
> But I wouldn't say that classical music has any measurable value to society in general, only that it makes our existence a little more pleasant  .


I agree with that. Its like a balm or a tonic. It can also make me understand some of the uglier things in life, in human history. Its one of the reasons I like music of Beethoven and after, when composers began to really engage with all that history, with their times. So it is many things, but I don't see it as altering the fundamentals of any civilisation. Those basics are more about practical things, these are not very exciting, but they are damn important to prevent the atrocities that have occured time and time again in the name of some noble cause or some supposedly liberating ideology. (see below for more on that!).



Truckload said:


> ...One of the many things your comments stir in me is the belief that thinking about big questions like this helps us (and any member of humanity) rise above the sordid issues of everyday life and begin to strive for something better, cleaner, more noble.


That's basically what Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and other tyrants like that said. What did we get from them? They gave us the ugliest things parading as if they where noble things. One of these things was music, but of course they manipulated everything they could. & composers who fell for this and toed the line opportunisitically jumped on the bandwagon (others who did not where controlled, oppressed, fled or where killed).

But of course its good to have ideals. But unless you back them up with the pragmatic things, they're not worth much more than empty rhetoric. I'm sorry, this is again my negative view, informed by my experience of that pantheon of civilisation, Europe, which my relatives where happy to see the back of. I'm being brutally honest here, and I think most people can respect that.

What really troubles me is the rise of the far right in recent decades in Europe. Also the continuation of dictatorial ways in places like Russia and Ukraine, Stalin's shadow is still very much there. Looks like some 'basics' where not dealt with there since the last war or the end of the Cold War, despite all the culture etc. I fear we will have another world war caused by them within my lifetime. I hope I am wrong on that, I really do.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Truckload said:


> That was really interesting. You believe classical music has personally helped your intellectual capacity and creativity. I agree with you completely. I believe art music has helped my intellectual capacity and creativity also. In fact, I have seen music help many people to develop creativity and intellectual capacity.
> 
> Yet do you really feel that improving intellectual capacity and creativity is of no measurable value to society in general?


Let's try with an analogy. In many major capital cities of the world, there is often a city central park with mature trees, water features; public space for all in the midst of crowd and maybe pollution. It is often well maintained (and maybe costly) green pasture offering a break that is free to all, substance that the young and the elderly can enjoy despite the millions of folks and tonnes of urbanisation surrounding the park. It's a breathing space that most would welcome.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Sid James said:


> I agree with that. Its like a balm or a tonic. It can also make me understand some of the uglier things in life, in human history. Its one of the reasons I like music of Beethoven and after, when composers began to really engage with all that history, with their times. So it is many things, but I don't see it as altering the fundamentals of any civilisation. Those basics are more about practical things, these are not very exciting, but they are damn important to prevent the atrocities that have occured time and time again in the name of some noble cause or some supposedly liberating ideology. (see below for more on that!).
> 
> That's basically what Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and other tyrants like that said. What did we get from them? They gave us the ugliest things parading as if they where noble things. One of these things was music, but of course they manipulated everything they could. & composers who fell for this and toed the line opportunisitically jumped on the bandwagon (others who did not where controlled, oppressed, fled or where killed).
> 
> ...


Let's think about new art music in contemporary Australian society. Thank goodness it is not as bleak as dictatorial states you mentioned.


----------



## Ralfy (Jul 19, 2010)

At the very least, it allows the human mind to deal with complexity.


----------



## Tero (Jun 2, 2012)

No. All music is just chewing gum for the bored brain. Like crosswords, it may slow down dementia.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

I don't know if one can 'just write that in' along with a bunch of notes.

(Of course I assume that which appear to be purely musical questions are about absolute music.)

It might help to clarify the question in your post a bit, or it could readily be argued that a pop song, it's only lyric being, "Oh, Baby; oh, Baby; oh, Baby." has ten thousands time a deeper 'humanity factor' than any prelude and fugue as written by J.S. Bach does.


----------



## Guest (Feb 4, 2013)

PetrB said:


> it could readily be argued that a pop song, it's only lyric being, "Oh, Baby; oh, Baby; oh, Baby." has ten thousands time a deeper 'humanity factor' than any prelude and fugue as written by J.S. Bach does.


Made _me_ grin!


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Truckload said:


> The value of growing wheat is to feed humanities physical hunger. The value of digging up coal is to provide warmth to a cold humanity, light in the darkness, etc. The value of working on a construction crew building a new road is to provide transportation to humanity. The value of driving a truck is to deliver meat (and everything else) to a hungry city. (That is the source of my username, I used my retirement money to buy a trucking company).
> 
> Thus by value I refer to the relative uitlity or benefit to be derived from it. What does humanity gain by the existence of art music?


Nothing palpably so literally 'practical.' But what is practical or 'useful' about spirituality, eh? 
IF a piece 'works' on the listener and transports them outside the realms of wheat production, etc. into something 'reflective' or 'spiritual,' -- well, that could be considered, by some, as 'valuable.'

There is an old saying, a comment on the quality of life and what one might purchase, if really low on money, to maintain some dignity and beauty in the home environment, alongside the most necessary -- food.

_"Half a loaf, and flowers."_


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

PetrB said:


> It might help to clarify the question in your post a bit, or it could readily be argued that a pop song, it's only lyric being, "Oh, Baby; oh, Baby; oh, Baby." has ten thousands time a deeper 'humanity factor' than any prelude and fugue as written by J.S. Bach does.


If the Bach brings 10 value units to one person, and "Oh, Baby" brings one value unit to 100 persons, which is of greater value?


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

Value units?!? That's it, art is dead, the economists have taken over.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

quack said:


> Value units?!? That's it, art is dead, the economists have taken over.


Come come, Mr. Quack. "If your knowledge cannot be explained in numbers, it is of a meager and unsatisfactory sort." --Lord Kelvin


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Much of the Western classical tradition sprang from, or exemplifies a concern with religion, regardless of whether or not one considers religion not as simply dogma, but as a tool for reaching greater spiritual awareness. This is a universal concern.

If we see the newer concept of "art" and art music as a secular continuation of this, with more universal qualities, then "art" music, and art in general, satisfies this ongoing concern with the metaphysical which Western music started with. 

Generally speaking, he notion of "materialism (or consumerism) vs. spirituality" did not really exist in the past, which put the older classical music by default into 'higher' category of "non-utilitarian," since the Church was the only game in town, and there were no real secular forces which empowered popular music enough to present any real competition with this power position.

By the late 18th century, with the advent of the new concept of art to carry on this function, the criteria for "art" music continued and expanded the older "high art" paradigm, by empowering a new intellectually-based scholar class which continued the priest/scholar tradition. 

These scholar/composers now serve as the forefront of music theory and musical thought, and create non-utilitarian art which largely serves intellectual aims, such as expanding the language of music and art. 

The notion of "art" itself has expanded the possibilities, enabling music from any geographic location and culture to permeate and cross-breed with Western tradition. 

"Art" is now the larger umbrella, subsuming the Western classical tradition and allowing any form of music, from whatever source, to be considered as "art" which fulfills the art criteria for enhancing man's awareness, knowledge, and spirituality.

This means that all music which originated and is connected to the historical Western tradition, up to and including modern music to the present and into the future, is "art music," and benefits mankind. 

With the advent of recordings, a large consumer-based economy, the mass media, and the proliferation of popular music and music in general, the art tradition has been marginalized compared to its previous position of power, and the playing field has been leveled, or even skewed in the direction of the mass consumer market.

Therefore, "value to Humanity" of any form of art or music must be seen as a far-reaching, objective assessment of its intrinsic value and qualities, without being distracted by elitist attitudes or absurd, inappropriate criteria, and not as exclusively related to the Western classical tradition.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

But then Lord Kelvin & The Fahrenheits was one of the cheesiest metal bands of the 1890s.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

quack said:


> But then Lord Kelvin & The Fahrenheits was one of the cheesiest metal bands of the 1890s.


:lol: If there wasn't such a band, there should have been!


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

I can't make judgments about all of humanity, but for me it does have a special value: every time I read some news or political discussion website and see what idiots are at the steering wheel of most countries (including my beloved Western nations) and how the whole Western civilization seems to be slowly going down the drain, classical music gives me a feeling that not all is lost after all and that there is still a light ahead, as long as something that beautiful continues to exist.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

SiegendesLicht makes a good point. 

Sometimes I feel like, considering all the horrible things that have happened and that we've done to each other, and that are happening and that we're doing to each other, and that are going to happen and that we're going to do to each other, what can be the point of music or literature? 

But other times I feel like, considering all that, is there anything better than music or literature?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Yes, it's a panacea, a "little utopia" we can use as an example to others.


----------



## Guest (Feb 6, 2013)

Actually, I don't think it's a panacea at all. Or any of the other soothing things that others have claimed for it.

I think the arts are essential. The one essential thing. 

So ya gots some peeps that don't have any interest in the arts? I'll betcha a dollar to a nickel that they've got paintings on their walls, that they've got cars that they think are cool, that they decorate their houses or their offices with all sorts of things that are only there because they're "cool" or "pretty" or "nice."

Maybe a Mexican velvet painting is not a Rembrandt, maybe Lady Gaga is not Mozart, but all of these things speak to the same basic urge in all humans, the urge for pleasure, the urge for something outside of ourselves, even (at its most extreme) the urge to create. How many people's houses have no decoration at all? How many people do not have any music at all? How many people do not dress up, either themselves or their yards or their cubicles, at all?

Exactly.

So maybe the "special" part is insignificant, really. All humans value, normally, things that have no "objective" value. All humans value things, at least, that they do not need in order to "survive."

Survival's just not all it's cracked up to be is all. Art is everything. Art is what we do. We are humans. That's our thing.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Come come, Mr. Quack. "If your knowledge cannot be explained in numbers, it is of a meager and unsatisfactory sort." --Lord Kelvin


Sounds more like Keynes's General Theory and "Dark Age" of economics to me........


----------

