Music: Art or Entertainment?

[mrlespaulman]

I was recently told by a self-proclaimed "virtuoso" and "professional" musician that all music from modern times is purely for surface-level entertainment value. According to him, only music from the Baroque-Romantic period has any "Art-Value" or deeper meaning.

Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love listening to good classical music compositions. But isn't it a little vain to say that NO music from the modern era has deeper meaning? Obviously pop-radio-garbage is what he's referring to here, but it frustrates me to think that a "knowledgeable" musician has little to no knowledge of the current state of good music. Does Pat Methany pump out stale pop tunes? Does John Petrucci play his fantastic improv for entertainment value? I don't think so.

Am I right? Or did all music become stale crap after the turn of the century?

[in-pursuit]

whoever you heard that from is on par, as far as ignorance goes, with the people who only listen to top forty and claim that music like jazz/classical/metal/insert genre here has no tune, rhythm, or musical value.

[bandinaboy]

This just turns down to the opinion on "what is considered art" You could even view each genre has aspects of art and entertainment. Like pop music is generally mostly entertainment value. And Prog is generally art value. but genres like jazz can be either. And I suppose it all boils down to the song and intent. But I personally think there is plenty of art out there today in this century. Just because "its not good" doesn't mean its not art either. It all boils down to listeners opinion and musicians intent.

[brutalwizard]

i don't know who your talking to but music is nothing more then organized sound and silence.

music is the craft of pitch, volume, duration and timbre.

what you see it as beyond that simple concept, is subjective.

so don't argue something with no answer?

[mrlespaulman]

Originally Posted by brutalwizard

i don't know who your talking to but music is nothing more then organized sound and silence.

music is the craft of pitch, volume, duration and timbre.

what you see it as beyond that simple concept, is subjective.

so don't argue something with no answer?

Exactly my point.

[asher]

Yes.

I would like to point to intent, but that's not a very defensible position.

[Harry]

To be honest, the only appropriate response I could think of to that is "LOL".
There is just no reasoning with people like that quite frankly

[Explorer]

Originally Posted by mrlespaulman

I was recently told by a self-proclaimed "virtuoso" and "professional" musician that all music from modern times is purely for surface-level entertainment value. According to him, only music from the Baroque-Romantic period has any "Art-Value" or deeper meaning.

(D)id all music become stale crap after the turn of the century?

What jumped out at me is that he's asserting that he himself is incapable of writing any music with any "art-value" or deeper meaning. That's a pretty funny assertion, and I'd bring it to his attention as often as possible. *laugh*

Geez, some pieces which immediately jumped to mind were Respighi's Pines of Rome (1924) and Thelonius Monk's Round Midnight (1944).

Any person who just dismisses Gershwin's Rhapsody in Blue is just a pretentious twat.

[Cheesebuiscut]

I never got this whole one or the other thing.
Isn't art a form of entertainment?
Can't something that's entertaining be a work of art?
Don't the two often go hand in hand?

I be crazy some times.

[guitareben]

Surely it's oneself's decision as to what is art and what is entertainment. It's not like new music is intrinsically NOT art, as if there were some universal law against newer musics being art...

Either way, who cares right? Music is just... awesome

[DLG]

you hung out with Yngwie?

[Ishan]

So Béla Bartók's music is not art because he did most of his work in the 20th century?
That guy is stupid...

[JPMike]

Well, I truly believe Music is Art, no matter what genre.

Evolution wise, music hasn't been evolved since the time Schillinger and Scriabin were alive. That's true, we reached an edge there and we still haven't been able to surpass that. Meaning, music hasn't come up with anything new, language wise.

And, as Plato's "Πολιτεία" says, Music were called all the arts back in Ancient Greece and then the Catholics or dunno whoever did, baptimised Music the hearing/listening arts.
So in my mind and as my guitar teacher likes to say, Music is the ART of Arts.

[AcousticMinja]

I'm guessing it depends on what artist you're talking to.
I've talked to people before who simply play music to make money. So they'll play whatever is entertaining and sells to the crowd.

For me, it's just something I do. it's a way of expressing myself.
I play from the heart. I guess it's cause I'm a very emotional person, but still. The guys in my band are the same way.
And I know a lot of people on here are like that, too. They play from within.

To say that all new music is purely for entertainment value is, well, in my opinion, very ignorant. Take a look around you, forget the mainstream media for a minute and go watch some local bands. Sure, you'll find some who want to just make money, but look closer, you'll see those who really "feel" their music. That's art to me. Regardless of whether or not they're good in your opinion. Especially when you see a band who all literally perform together and feel the music as one.


art-Noun
1. The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination

[thedonal]

Frankly, the guy sounds like a bit of a .... to me. I'd best avoid him...

[Kurkkuviipale]

Art is entertainment.

[BigBaldIan]

Originally Posted by Explorer

What jumped out at me is that he's asserting that he himself is incapable of writing any music with any "art-value" or deeper meaning. That's a pretty funny assertion, and I'd bring it to his attention as often as possible. *laugh*

Geez, some pieces which immediately jumped to mind were Respighi's Pines of Rome (1924) and Thelonius Monk's Round Midnight (1944).

Any person who just dismisses Gershwin's Rhapsody in Blue is just a pretentious twat.

Hello Mr. Virtuoso, please point bazooka at foot and feel free to pull the trigger whenever you please. All humour aside I've had several conversations with a good friend of mine about this subject, whilst driving to lunch. If we treat music as a meme, then by definition all we are hearing now from the Baroque and Romantic periods are the ideas that were persistent enough to survive. Given a time machine, I'm sure we would find in the same given periods, the equivalent of ephemeral music that was designed to be superficially entertaining with no deeper meaning.

Given the same time machine and projecting the same time into the future, only the music deemed by society worthy of saving will still be remembered. Perhaps more will survive due to technological paradigm shifts, but how much of it will still be played?

To assert that no modern music has value based on the small percentile of music that has survived from older periods, shows deeply flawed logic and astonishing arrogance in my humble opinion. It's like saying that because a Rolls Royce Silver Ghost is a classic car, nothing made today has that potential.

Edit: Note to self will listen to Rhapsody in Blue tonight. If I remember correctly the famous opening clarinet line was originally done as a joke, but Gershwin loved it.

[brutalwizard]

to me personally music is but, 500 beavers screaming in unison with a Canadian accent, over amplified water dripping arhythmically to the sound of a ceiling fan with a Pokemon card glued to it. Thus causing an ambient screeching in the process and varying in volume, only given a beat by the bumps of the dry ceiling paint occurring in 5/8 time.

When something is as vague and subjective as music, it can be perceived as anything.

[Demiurge]

Wouldn't lose too much sleep over the jackass making that claim in the OP. Idiots like that will always make ridiculous arguments that essentially boil down to assertions that the object of their particular interest is just so much more "important" than what other people are interested in.

Classical snobbery is the art-criticism equivalent of lamenting about how comic books no longer cost a nickel- it's low-level nostalgia and takes no effort to cultivate. The thing is, that era has had the benefit of centuries of time of natural selection where the good elements have been canonized and the shitty elements are largely forgotten. I bet that there was a lot of shitty music back then that simply didn't survive. Our era might not have that same benefit, thanks to digital storage and CDs being pressed by the 100k's.

[BigBaldIan]

Originally Posted by Demiurge

The thing is, that era has had the benefit of centuries of time of natural selection where the good elements have been canonized and the shitty elements are largely forgotten. I bet that there was a lot of shitty music back then that simply didn't survive. Our era might not have that same benefit, thanks to digital storage and CDs being pressed by the 100k's.

Exactly the point I was making earlier, glad to see I'm not the only one.

[Explorer]

Years ago over at Sonic State (synth forum), I suggested the Filter of Time Theory: Time eliminates weaker examples of art and technology, so we only have stronger examples from any given time period.

We remember Hendrix and those who played Woodstock... but what we think of as the Sixties was really less than a few years, culminating in the Summer of Love. How much bad music is now forgotten from that decade?

And, extending that... how much bad music is forgotten from the Romantic/Baroque eras?

Sure, we'll remember the most amazing pieces, as they passed through the FoT successfully, but not many people spend study time on music from that period that just didn't have an enduring quality beyond the moment, in the same way few (if any) college courses concentrate on romance novels or other popular writings.

----

And now, I'm going to toss on Naked Keys, a wonderful and atypical (for her) album of solo piano by singer/songwriter Margie Adam, just the thing for an overcast day....

[BigBaldIan]

Originally Posted by Explorer

We remember Hendrix and those who played Woodstock... but what we think of as the Sixties was really less than a few years, culminating in the Summer of Love. How much bad music is now forgotten from that decade?

I may be dating myself here, but as I'm in my mid-thirties, people my age generally tend to look upon the post New Romantic era as the time when pop went downhill. Personally I blame the Hit Factory but that's another story for another day. It was only when I was watching some reruns of Top of The Pops 2, that I realised how much unmitigated dross was around and was popular for that matter. I had simply filtered them out of my memory and the only songs that remained had some intrinsic value (if subjectively).

Ahh TotP the only show that could have Megadeth following Diana Ross.

[Wingchunwarrior]

Music is a sport

*deal with it gif.*

[brutalwizard]

Originally Posted by brutalwizard

to me personally music is but, 500 beavers screaming in unison with a Canadian accent, over amplified water dripping arhythmically to the sound of a ceiling fan with a Pokemon card glued to it. Thus causing an ambient screeching in the process and varying in volume, only given a beat by the bumps of the dry ceiling paint occurring in 5/8 time.

ohh wait that is mike pattons version of music

[Konfyouzd]

Art is entertaining...