Is some music better than other music?

[gmgraves]

Get thee behind me, Satan! Have you seen some audiences? Football crowds? "We're racist and we like it?" Please don't tempt me. I'm trying to maintain some kind of internal karmic balance. Plus, there's my blood pressure.

 

Then comes to mind, the "Horst Wessel Lied". Great tune, shame about the sentiment.

 

I feel the same way about the Panzer Lied. Stirring melody, rather martial words (not as bad as the Horst Wessel, though.

 

(there a commercial first, though)

[semente]

Clearly I really am missing something. I just don't think the two are mutually exclusive. In fact, if art is not entertaining I am not interested. I guess I'm an uncivilized savage.

 

I agree that some Art can be entertaining but I am also convinced that most entertainment (popular music) is not Art.

Maybe I use Art less freely than most, perhaps because of my school and college trainin, and it could very well be that I am overly demanding...

The webpages of Encyclopedia Britannica do mention "the fine arts" as well "popular art".

 

 

Meanwhile I have found this interesting and uplifting video by philosopher Alan de Botton about the meaning of Art:

 

 

R

[mav52]

Yes.

 

Whichever one brings the listener more emotional impact is the better music for that person...

 

 

Well said.

[Paul R]

I've often thought of a similar question. If there is music that can make you smarter, is there music that can make you dumber?

 

Well, I know darn well that when a beautiful woman walks into the room, most men's IQ drops by about 10-20 points, at least momentarily.

 

Some music is as beautiful, so... (grin)

[Allan F]

Well, I know darn well that when a beautiful woman walks into the room, most men's IQ drops by about 10-20 points, at least momentarily.

 

Some music is as beautiful, so... (grin)

 

Sorry, Paul, but I'm afraid your comment about women has no application to music. Rather, as Robin Williams famously observed, "God gave man a brain and a penis and only enough blood to fill one at a time".

[gmgraves]

I agree that some Art can be entertaining but I am also convinced that most entertainment (popular music) is not Art.

Maybe I use Art less freely than most, perhaps because of my school and college trainin, and it could very well be that I am overly demanding...

The webpages of Encyclopedia Britannica do mention "the fine arts" as well "popular art".

 

 

Meanwhile I have found this interesting and uplifting video by philosopher Alan de Botton about the meaning of Art:

 

 

R

 

+1

[Allan F]

I agree that some Art can be entertaining but I am also convinced that most entertainment (popular music) is not Art.

 

Perhaps it was unintended but, IMO, your comment comes across as elitist. You are introducing personal taste as the criterion for defining what is art. That is perfectly valid for determining what you like or don't like as art, but no more. I believe that a lot of popular music is every bit as creative, beautiful and emotionally involving as classical music. Distaste for it, such as George's, does not disqualify it as art.

 

There is, of course, no obligation for anyone to enjoy any particular type of art. The Impressionists' paintings were damned by many at the time - certainly unsuitable for the Louvre. Would anyone today suggest that the works of Manet, Monet, Toulouse Lautrec, Renoir, Gaugin, Van Gogh and others are not art? What about Picasso and Braque's Cubism, etc., etc.?

 

Do you disagree that "Art is in the eye of the beholder"?

[christopher3393]

A small florilegium:

 

Classical mandolinist Avi Avital:

 

“We consume entertainment — pop music, TV series, funny movies — because it’s enjoyable. With art, there is an extra component, a spiritual component — extra value added. We all know the difference between a pop song and classical music, a movie and a film, going to the disco and going to the ballet. We need both entertainment and art in our lives. Although it’s not a thick border, there is a functional difference: we all need that spiritual component in our lives, and art is one way to add that value. That’s how I see my role when I play classical concerts. Folk music, traditional music, shares that same function in life. It was more obvious in the old days, in ancient history, when music was the spiritual component used in religious services: shamanic music in ceremonies to create ecstasy and uplifting effect. And later on, art music as we know it grew out of a religious function. That’s why folk music/ traditional music and art music/classical music share a lot in this sense. It’s [all] music and it moves you in a spiritual way, hopefully.”

 

From “Music Genre”, Wikipedia:

 

“Musicologists have sometimes classified music according to a trichotomic distinction such as Philip Tagg's "axiomatic triangle consisting of 'folk', 'art' and 'popular' musics".[6] He explains that each of these three is distinguishable from the others according to certain criteria.” [The article then proceeds to summarize these criteria.] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_genre

 

Chinese pipa soloist Liu Fang:

 

“In traditional China, most well–educated people and monks could play classical music as a means of self-cultivation, meditation, soul purification and spiritual elevation, union with nature, identification with the values of past sages, and communication with divine beings or with friends and lovers…Up to the beginning of the twentieth century, classical music had always belonged to elite society and it was not popular among ordinary people. Today it is really for everybody who enjoys it…’

 

Philip J. Ivanhoe, Professor of East Asian and Comparative Philosophy & Religion at City University of Hong Kong, from Confucian Reflections:Ancient Wisdom for Modern Times, ch.4: “Music in and of Our Lives” :

 

“For most people in contemporary society, music is a form of recreation: a means of personal enjoyment and relaxation, widely regarded as primarily a kind of diversion and largely thought to be a matter of individual taste, and,as it often is said, “there is no accounting for matters of taste” (de gustibus non est disputandum)… For the greater part of human history, however, music most often has been regarded as a spiritual enterprise, laden with meaning, power, and significance and closely related to the well-being of individuals, groups, institutions, and states. In other words, for most of human history, music has been regarded as a much more serious matter…Music is not inert; its effects on human beings can be subtle, swift, and profound. It often carries not only ideas but traditions and cultures across time. It is much more powerful and important than we realize. A world without music – like one without ceremony, ritual, or art – would not be a human world at all. A world defined by crude, harsh, violent, and uncaring music would be human but utterly inhumane.”

[semente]

Thanks for your post Christopher, I think that it helps to illustrate my point of view.

 

Cheers,

Ricardo

[christopher3393]

Thanks for your post Christopher, I think that it helps to illustrate my point of view.

 

Cheers,

Ricardo

 

You're welcome. That was my intention.

 

Perhaps it was unintended but, IMO, your comment comes across as elitist. You are introducing personal taste as the criterion for defining what is art. That is perfectly valid for determining what you like or don't like as art, but no more. I believe that a lot of popular music is every bit as creative, beautiful and emotionally involving as classical music. Distaste for it, such as George's, does not disqualify it as art.

 

There is, of course, no obligation for anyone to enjoy any particular type of art. The Impressionists' paintings were damned by many at the time - certainly unsuitable for the Louvre. Would anyone today suggest that the works of Manet, Monet, Toulouse Lautrec, Renoir, Gaugin, Van Gogh and others are not art? What about Picasso and Braque's Cubism, etc., etc.?

 

Do you disagree that "Art is in the eye of the beholder"?

 

Hi Allan,

 

I've been browsing Richard Taruskin's monumental Oxford History of Western [Classical] Music, and it is clear, even from the preface, that he claims that elitism has been part of this "genre" from its inception, and that contestations regarding taste often fall along class lines. He also adds that there is a long history of heated argument regarding taste within the classical music "elite". It has been and continues to be a problem, not only for those who are commited to classical music, but also equally for those who write off the classical music genre(s) because of perceived and actual elitism.

 

Now as to "the eye of the beholder", this doesn't work for me as a solution to the problem. I think that radical subjectivism regarding art is a problematic position. It tends to undermine the notion of the"classic", which I do not think has to be construed as a strictly elitist notion. My opinion, of course.

[StephenJK]

Is some music better than other music?If no, then why bother with multiple takes in the studio?If yes, then is Rock & Roll better than Country & Western?

The answer is no - but you already knew that.

[Allan F]

Now as to "the eye of the beholder", this doesn't work for me as a solution to the problem. I think that radical subjectivism regarding art is a problematic position. It tends to undermine the notion of the"classic", which I do not think has to be construed as a strictly elitist notion. My opinion, of course.

 

I have no problem with the above if that's how you see it. What disturbed me about the post to which I responded was use of the phrase, "I am convinced", in stating that most popular music is not art. It came across to me almost as a factual assertion rather than just an opinion. People will always have differing opinions as to what, ultimately, constitutes art. In that sense, I believe that "Art is in the eye of the beholder". I don't see what is gained by publicly dismissing what you don't like as not being art.

[gmgraves]

I have no problem with the above if that's how you see it. What disturbed me about the post to which I responded was use of the phrase, "I am convinced", in stating that most popular music is not art. It came across to me almost as a factual assertion rather than just an opinion. People will always have differing opinions as to what, ultimately, constitutes art. In that sense, I believe that "Art is in the eye of the beholder". I don't see what is gained by publicly dismissing what you don't like as not being art.

 

 

Doesn't the performer(s)' intent come into play here? I mean isn't pop music created mostly for monetary reasons? Do pop musicians believe that they are creating art when they create a song designed to climb the charts, or do they not even consider their creations' effect on posterity? I'm asking this because I honestly don't know. I can't even say for sure that Beethoven thought about creating art when he wrote his Ninth Symphony, or that Puccini thought he was creating art when he wrote La Boheme. Did Rembrandt think he was creating art when he painted the Dutch Masters did Leonardo know (or even think about) the Mona Lisa as art (I doubt it as it was a paid commission)? Who can say?

 

Yet is clear to me that there is definitely a distinction between entertainment and art in that I know it when I see/hear it. The problem is that art can entertain, and entertainment can be art, but they are separate things. While I might enjoy hearing David Seville perform "Purple People Eater", I certainly don't regard it as art by any stretch of the imagination, and while I am aware that Wagner's Parsifal is considered art, I, for one, do not find it entertaining. 'Tis a puzzlement.

[Allan F]

Doesn't the performer(s)' intent come into play here? I mean isn't pop music created mostly for monetary reasons? Do pop musicians believe that they are creating art when they create a song designed to climb the charts, or do they not even consider their creations' effect on posterity? I'm asking this because I honestly don't know. I can't even say for sure that Beethoven thought about creating art when he wrote his Ninth Symphony, or that Puccini thought he was creating art when he wrote La Boheme. Did Rembrandt think he was creating art when he painted the Dutch Masters did Leonardo know (or even think about) the Mona Lisa as art (I doubt it as it was a paid commission)? Who can say?

 

Yet is clear to me that there is definitely a distinction between entertainment and art in that I know it when I see/hear it. The problem is that art can entertain, and entertainment can be art, but they are separate things. While I might enjoy hearing David Seville perform "Purple People Eater", I certainly don't regard it as art by any stretch of the imagination, and while I am aware that Wagner's Parsifal is considered art, I, for one, do not find it entertaining. 'Tis a puzzlement.

 

Your distaste for popular music and pop musicians is well known. You have expressed it on many occasions. That's fine. However, to question their intent as you do is, IMO, another example of elitism. Pop musicians believe that they are creating music. For many years, the record companies had, for the most part, their eye on maximizing their profits. The greed of the record companies should not be extended to the musicians, many of whom were exploited by them. Because of the changed environment, including piracy, those companies are shells of their former selves.

 

Obviously, performers want to be successful. But, that doesn't mean that money is their primary reason for creating music. While, as in any field, some performers do, the majority care mostly about the music. I sincerely doubt that the Beatles, when they were playing multiple sets nightly in Hamburg basement clubs, were thinking about the incredible fortunes they would eventually make. The number of pop musicians who are wealthy is relatively very few. Most are trying to eke out a living doing what they love to do.

 

Does an artist with an easel and canvas intend to create a painting or art? I don't really see the point in trying to generally distinguish between entertainment and art. As you say, entertainment can be art and art can be entertaining. Whether one views it as one or the other, or both, is most often a question of personal taste or opinion.

[tranz]

Doesn't the performer(s)' intent come into play here? I mean isn't pop music created mostly for monetary reasons? Do pop musicians believe that they are creating art when they create a song designed to climb the charts, or do they not even consider their creations' effect on posterity?.... 'Tis a puzzlement.

 

It is extremely difficult to make money in any form of music including pop, and I am not even talking about the skills, time and talent that is necessary. Most do it for their enjoyment or passion and only a minute % of a fraction of a portion are able to make money out of it. Who gives a shite whether some elitist decides it is good enough to be called 'art'. It is using skills and creativity for musical reasons, in other words...art.

[gmgraves]

Your distaste for popular music and pop musicians is well known. You have expressed it on many occasions. That's fine. However, to question their intent as you do is, IMO, another example of elitism. Pop musicians believe that they are creating music. For many years, the record companies had, for the most part, their eye on maximizing their profits. The greed of the record companies should not be extended to the musicians, many of whom were exploited by them. Because of the changed environment, including piracy, those companies are shells of their former selves.

 

I'm sorry Allan, you have fixated on the wrong part of my post. Of course they are creating music, and I'm certainly not questioning anyone's intent except to wonder what that intent is. The subject is entertainment vs. art. How does one distinguish the difference? Do artist believe that their output is art? This question is independent of the medium, music, painting, sculpture, literature. When Marcel Proust wrote Remembrances of Things Past , did he think to himself, "I'm writing a work of art"? My whole point was if the artists themselves don't know, how does the world decide that a song, a composition, a sculpture, painting, or book is just entertainment or a work of art. Reading anything else into my question, above, is showing your own prejudice by second guessing mine. This is just a thought "experiment", nothing more. And while, yes, I'll admit to being an elitist (which in this brave new world of hyper-egalitarianism, seems to have become a dirty word, but I don't see anything wrong with elitism. Somebody has to upholds standards for taste ), I wasn't expressing it here.

 

Obviously, performers want to be successful. But, that doesn't mean that money is their primary reason for creating music. While, as in any field, some performers do, the majority care mostly about the music. I sincerely doubt that the Beatles, when they were playing multiple sets nightly in Hamburg basement clubs, were thinking about the incredible fortunes they would eventually make. The number of pop musicians who are wealthy is relatively very few. Most are trying to eke out a living doing what they love to do.

 

Again, the question is did they think that they were creating art? We know that they were trying to make a living by doing what they do. Hell, Mozart and Beethoven did that.

 

Does an artist with an easel and canvas intend to create a painting or art? I don't really see the point in trying to generally distinguish between entertainment and art. As you say, entertainment can be art and art can be entertaining. Whether one views it as one or the other, or both, is most often a question of personal taste or opinion.

 

While that might be true on an individual level, society as a whole makes that distinction for posterity. So that begs the question, how is the distinction made? Who decides that "serious" music is art while pop music is entertainment? Why is a film like "The Maltese Falcon" or Disney's "Pinnochio" considered art while "Animal House" or "Toy Story" are just entertainment? Do you understand the question, now, Allan?

[gmgraves]

It is extremely difficult to make money in any form of music including pop, and I am not even talking about the skills, time and talent that is necessary. Most do it for their enjoyment or passion and only a minute % of a fraction of a portion are able to make money out of it. Who gives a shite whether some elitist decides it is good enough to be called 'art'. It is using skills and creativity for musical reasons, in other words...art.

 

 

I'm beginning to regret mentioning the financial aspects of creating. My intent was not to mire the conversation in crass commercialism (which seems to have happened, anyway) but to contrast different motivations for applying the creative process that results in either art or entertainment or both. Let's face it, everyone has to eat, from Justin Biber to Bach, from John Grisham to Chaucer. Few people in history have had state or patron supplied livelihoods free of constraint and censorship, so that they could follow their muse in any direction that their muse leads them. So therefore, creativity is always tied, in some way or another to a modicum of commercialism. That's the real world. Even in Communist countries, creative people strove to get recognized by the "State" in order to be able to use their creative gifts full-time without having to do something else to feed themselves. So let's forget about the monetary portion of the equation in this discussion, OK?

[senorx]

deleted

[senorx]

Perhaps it was unintended but, IMO, your comment comes across as elitist. You are introducing personal taste as the criterion for defining what is art. That is perfectly valid for determining what you like or don't like as art, but no more. I believe that a lot of popular music is every bit as creative, beautiful and emotionally involving as classical music. Distaste for it, such as George's, does not disqualify it as art.

 

There is, of course, no obligation for anyone to enjoy any particular type of art. The Impressionists' paintings were damned by many at the time - certainly unsuitable for the Louvre. Would anyone today suggest that the works of Manet, Monet, Toulouse Lautrec, Renoir, Gaugin, Van Gogh and others are not art? What about Picasso and Braque's Cubism, etc., etc.?

 

Do you disagree that "Art is in the eye of the beholder"?

 

Agree 100%, which is, I believe, a first.

[orgel]

While I might enjoy hearing David Seville perform "Purple People Eater", I certainly don't regard it as art ...

 

Actually, it was Sheb Wooley in 1958 ... but I agree that it's probably not art. (There was a "David Seville" hit, "Witch Doctor," also in 1958, which may be the source of the confusion. Note that "David Seville" is a pseudonym for Ross Bagdasarian.) However, I wish we still had novelty pop tunes like those of yesteryear — clearly, they scratch a certain aesthetic itch.

 

Kudos to christopher3393 for Post #83.

 

--David

[AlainGr]

I wonder if what we call "art" has something to do with the duration of a concept, a piece of work, a book, composition - something that will stand the test of time ? Just asking, not trying to label something...

 

When a band (Genesis, Kiss, Marilion, Pink Floyd, Peter Gabriel, etc...) goes through the extent of "making a show", with visual effects, is there something that is more a part of entertainment, or it depends on the concept that lies behind...

 

But the test of time ?

[Allan F]

I'm sorry Allan, you have fixated on the wrong part of my post. Of course they are creating music, and I'm certainly not questioning anyone's intent except to wonder what that intent is. The subject is entertainment vs. art. How does one distinguish the difference? Do artist believe that their output is art?

...

While that might be true on an individual level, society as a whole makes that distinction for posterity. So that begs the question, how is the distinction made? Who decides that "serious" music is art while pop music is entertainment? Why is a film like "The Maltese Falcon" or Disney's "Pinnochio" considered art while "Animal House" or "Toy Story" are just entertainment? Do you understand the question, now, Allan?

 

I understood the question perfectly at the outset, George. My point is that I don't believe that most pop musicians or many other creative people think in those terms. They create music or literature or films and leave it to others to classify it as they will.

 

To answer your latter question re entertainment vs art, I don't believe there is any simple answer or that an answer is necessary. Passing the test of time would obviously come to mind when certain works are considered to be "classics". However, what society as a whole considers to be art or dismisses as not being art is by no means conclusive, or even permanent. That is why I raised the Impressionists in an earlier post. At the time, their work was reviled by many. Now, those same artists are revered.

 

Bottom line, IMO, you are asking the wrong questions.

[gmgraves]

Actually, it was Sheb Wooley in 1958 ... but I agree that it's probably not art. (There was a "David Seville" hit, "Witch Doctor," also in 1958, which may be the source of the confusion. Note that "David Seville" is a pseudonym for Ross Bagdasarian.) However, I wish we still had novelty pop tunes like those of yesteryear — clearly, they scratch a certain aesthetic itch.

 

Kudos to christopher3393 for Post #83.

 

--David

 

 

Yes, you are correct. I did get Ross Bagdasarian's Witch Doctor confused with Sheb Wooley's Purple People Eater Might want to mention that David "Ross Bagdasarian" Seville was also responsible for the Chipmunks. He was also the composer in the artist's garret across the courtyard in Hitchcock's "Rear Window".

[gmgraves]

I wonder if what we call "art" has something to do with the duration of a concept, a piece of work, a book, composition - something that will stand the test of time ? Just asking, not trying to label something...

 

When a band (Genesis, Kiss, Marilion, Pink Floyd, Peter Gabriel, etc...) goes through the extent of "making a show", with visual effects, is there something that is more a part of entertainment, or it depends on the concept that lies behind...

 

But the test of time ?

 

 

We are asking essentially, the same questions, I think.

[gmgraves]

I understood the question perfectly at the outset, George. My point is that I don't believe that most pop musicians or many other creative people think in those terms. They create music or literature or films and leave it to others to classify it as they will.

 

To answer your latter question re entertainment vs art, I don't believe there is any simple answer or that an answer is necessary. Passing the test of time would obviously come to mind when certain works are considered to be "classics". However, what society as a whole considers to be art or dismisses as not being art is by no means conclusive, or even permanent. That is why I raised the Impressionists in an earlier post. At the time, their work was reviled by many. Now, those same artists are revered.

 

Bottom line, IMO, you are asking the wrong questions.

 

 

Then what are the right questions?