en.wikipedia.org
So, is art music somehow more "art" than regular music?
Now, when I say regular music, I mean the kind of stuff you cover on Sup Forums. Yes, a lot of it is crap, but that's just the nature of there being a lot of artists, the current information overflow of the digital age, and marketing. Let's narrow our focus down on whatever contemporary music communities and critics would consider classics; just fill in the blank for yourself: "____" by ____ is a classic. I'm less here to talk about if the Beatles or Can or Aphex Twin really made a classic, just choose whatever you want as the best candidate (though maybe not pick from abstract jazz, since that already does tend to get treated as art music often anyway). Is it just as art as the "art music" of Western musical canon? Is it just as relevant? Just as interesting, or have artistic depth? Why?
>Also related, I once heard an ethnomusicologist back at University say that classical music is actually folk music in its own way, though I have a feeling classical composers would argue against that.
"Art Music"
Other urls found in this thread:
ncl.ac.uk
twitter.com
its when you make music for other purposes then topping the charts or being a capitalist scum
no it’s a term insecure pretentious assholes came up with to shame poptimists, despite the fact that they also listen to derivative bullshit. these are the same people that call White Light/White Heat “one of their favorite albums” despite the fact that they’ve probably never listened to the whole thing in one sitting before.
pop music can be art music too you insecure garbage faggot
Literally what are you even talking about?
...
art music isn’t a thing. musical expression is art in and of itself, even if it’s for a faceless corporation. not all art is created equal.
people who say they listen to “art music” are insecure
>musical expression is art in and of itself, even if it’s for a faceless corporation. not all art is created equal
good ol' millenial relativist bullshit
>people who say they listen to “art music” are insecure
but why, tho? and in what way does Velvet Underground relate to art music?
Yes, I'm glad you understood the question. However, this chart doesn't answer the question at all. It just affirms "traditional Western classical" values.
First of all, the notion that if something's written down, it's serious, but if it's not written down, then it's popular music, that distinction seems frankly absurd. The only reason music is like that has to do with the happenstance of history, not because written music is inherently more artistic than non-written forms. Also, this chart doesn't address the criticism that so-called classical music isn't a kind of folk music, in that it is tied to specific cultures and has its basis in what we would ordinarily call folk music (though I'm not an ethnomusicologist myself, so I can't give you much more details than that).
if you are creating something for greed and entertainment it is a product not art.
Art is something that travels through time. Its why people still listen to pet sounds which was made in the early fucking 60's and dont listen to whoever was the justin beiber of the 60's was
popular music is just the traditional music of the capitalist world
>Also, this chart doesn't address the criticism that so-called classical music isn't a kind of folk music
Okay, well, it kind of does, but again, saying that "well, folk music is orally transmitted but classical music isn't" could just be seen as just using too narrow of a definition for "folk" music, in that "folk" music has more to do with a community than anything else, and classical music definitely has a very specific community (though I won't argue this point that much, since it's not particularly my speciality or anything. I know you probably just reposted the diagram to contribute, which is nice, but there's a lot more to be said on the topic than just treating an internet image as gospel).
Yeah u rite! Beyoncé bumps in this whip and is MUCH better than Beethoven y'all! Lesbianade is ART y'all hear? #popthegoat #whitemenareoverparty
You're being a disingenuous tripfag. Cale was an elitist musician yes but no one with a knowledge of WL/WH would say it's 'art music' considering it was designed to sell records. They got an endorsement from Vox for fuck's sake
>First of all, the notion that if something's written down, it's serious, but if it's not written down, then it's popular music, that distinction seems frankly absurd.
This
Is free improvisation not "art music"?
Dividing things into these two extremes is not only stupid, but impossible. It's like the life line in Donnie Darko
All music is some percentage expression, some percentage entertainment
The distinction between "art music" and other music occurs at some arbitrary point where the percentage of expression is large enough, but ultimately it's all just music
I'm not saying the two are equal in value, I'm saying they're often impossible to distinguish
art music refers to western classical tradition, you dimwit. velvet undergrounds negro repetitions aren't art music
The capitalist world does not exist. Artificial creation.
>Is free improvisation not "art music"?
it's folk
see: the plethora of traditional musics in the world that have utilized improvisation for hundreds of hundreds of centuries
where does electronic written in programs such as max and csound fall into the art/pop categories
The capitalist world is aka the western world since the 19th-20th century. The reason modern capitalist society is trying to bring down the notion of the "western world" to make capitalist society more global, kill "western society" in favor of globalization, mass capitalism
>Dividing things into these two extremes is not only stupid, but impossible. It's like the life line in Donnie Darko
Being a post modern faggot who calls everything art even capitalist scum exploiting the stupidity of teens for money lowers the quality of art
Well, I think there's a certain muddying going on here, where genres like jazz, which are full of improv, are now taken seriously as "art music", and kind of like what points to, the electronic music of the pop sphere today (whether they're chart-toppers, or the Aphex Twin kind) do owe a debt, and in a sense part of a lineage from, guys like Stockhausen, who make "serious music". I mean, a lot of those early electronic music technologies were only available to so-called "serious musicians", so it kind of makes sense things turned out this way.
you guys are intentionally being obtuse. have you ever read a music publication before? most of them call it art rock of avant- rock, whatever the fuck that means
>not all is created equal
>millennial revisionism
choose one and only one you stupid faggot
because they think the phrase “art music” makes the music they listen to inherently better than other music.
for example, artsy hipsters at colleges like to say they listen to TVU to lend them “credibility”, because it’s “art rock”
music is an artform whether you believe that or not. music created to be a commodity is still art, just not as important as music made as an artistic expression.
>you guys are intentionally being obtuse
i'm not.
>most of them call it art rock of avant- rock, whatever the fuck that means
so what? it still doesn't make it art music. art music legit only refers to western classical.
>because they think the phrase “art music” makes the music they listen to inherently better than other music.
>for example, artsy hipsters at colleges like to say they listen to TVU to lend them “credibility”, because it’s “art rock”
literally whatever
So a number of people on here (or maybe it's just one repetitive guy) keeps insisting that art made for financial purposes to any degree isn't real art, but you guys are aware that classical composers of "art music" (not to mention other artists of "high art": painters, sculptors, etc.) received commissions or sponsorships and endorsements for their work, I hope? This notion that artists making money off their music at all equals "they were tarnished by their money and their artwork is now just entertainment!" seems rather reductive, and possibly wishful thinking.
I know people mythologize the starving artist, but many great artists were well-off because of their art, or at least not destitute, back during the height of so-called "high art", as well as now.
how can music be partially art and entertainment if art is a description of what the art is and entertainment is something the listener may derive from it?
>for example, artsy hipsters at colleges like to say they listen to TVU to lend them “credibility”, because it’s “art rock”
We're talking about specifically "art music" here, which is, usually speaking, belonging to the Western classical canon (except for things like experimental jazz). We're talking about the validity of taking modern music forms (yes, bands like Velvet Underground) as seriously as works considered "art music" on the grounds of its artistic merit.
"Art rock" and "art music" are two separate, distinct terms.
even beyond that, plenty of folk songs were created by minstrels and the like to pay their bills
good art is made for reasons other than greed.
Its why people are still listening to the beach boys 60 years later.
Its why 60 years from now people will still be listening to kanye and not the black eyed peas.
Its why 60 years from now even though rivers has ruined his rep people will still be listening to pinkerton and not nickleback
none of those will be remembered after 50 years
I don't necessarily agree with that percentage division by that other poster, but you think about popular music, and I think you'll recognize the point yourself. There is a lot of music out there created specifically to please (and in many cases, to make money), in such a way that creative choices are made for that goal; the goal of making art for art's sake is different, and in many ways, opposing. So someone might say, certain (or maybe all) popular works of music are part art, part entertainment. I don't necessarily agree with it, but there it is.
all art has a goal, whether that is to convey an idea or feeling (happiness included), persuade the audience, challenge the audience, or any other of a multitude of things one could be trying to achieve
I cringed reading that wikipedia page, and classical is my favourite genre
Id like it to be nuked
ugh old people, right?
I'm not entirely sure what your point is, but I'll try to address it anyway
I agree that I think treating everything as "art" (or at least artistically equal) lowers the quality of the form
But I was saying that distinguishing between "art music" and "entertainment music" based purely on whether or not it was distributed in written form is pretty stupid
Just because something is written doesn't automatically make it "art music", and just because something is recorded doesn't automatically make it sellout dancefloor lowest-common-denominator capitalist garbage
The distinguishing factor should be "artistic ambition", although I agree that's really nebulous
I mean, are we going to argue that stands tunes written for high school marching bands are more "artistic" than recordings by Loren Connors or Keith Rowe just because they're written down?
Thanks for considering my point even if you disagreed with it
>have you ever read a music publication before
>reading popular music publications
>>>/p4k/
Yeah but electroacoustic music comes from the "art music" tradition yet exists primarily as recordings rather than notation.
It's easy to think, "well, there's good art and bad art, and that's that!", but it's also tempting to think that's kind of naive, that there's a reason why high art and "art music" is remembered while other things are not, and that the kind of music or art you care about are ultimately lumped into the "other things" to be callously forgotten like everything else because it's lacking in artistic depth in ways you didn't even realize. Or that might just be fear-mongering and outdated thinking. I'm not sure.
no
The distinction between art and popular music has nothing to do with quality or the latter somehow being "lesser" art or not art at all. The difference is literally just how the music is recorded
Faust and Pere Ubu are far better than Einaudi and Whitacre
You have to be 18+ to post here.
You have to be 18+ to post here.
its just an umbrella term in the venn diagram of music (folk music, popular music and "art" music), where all music falls somewhere between these 3 categories
>Is it just as art as the "art music" of Western musical canon?
No because it's Popular Music, not Art Music
>It is estimated that up to 75% of persons on the autism spectrum have exhibited echolalia. A symptom of some children with ASD is the struggle to produce spontaneous speech. Studies have shown that in some cases echolalia is used as a coping mechanism allowing a person with autism to contribute to a conversation when unable to produce spontaneous speech.[14]
Really makes you think.
ncl.ac.uk
"more art" is a nonsense term
you're not being clever or subversive by being the 4,000,000th person to question these terms and their implications
filtered for sub-par shitposting
>autism memes
You definitely need to consider growing up before you post.
Listen I don't think there's any pint in discussing this. I guess a good comparison would be between any good ol' writer like Balzac and stuff like C Clarke or Stephen King. I mean they'e so far apart from each ther comparsons are stupid
?