REMINDER: If you think there is a difference between 'art music' and 'non-art music', you are a part of the cancer killing this board.
Art music is an umbrella term that refers to musical traditions, implying advanced structural and theoretical considerations and a written musical tradition.
The notion of art music is a frequent and well-defined musicological distinction, e.g., referred to by musicologist Philip Tagg as one of an "axiomatic triangle consisting of 'folk', 'art' and 'popular' musics."
He explains that each of these three is distinguishable from the others according to certain criteria.
The main tradition in the Western world is usually called classical music. In this regard, it is frequently used as a contrasting term to popular music and traditional or folk music.
The only issue with this system of distinctions is the inherent elitism and the fact that the name implies 99% of music can't be considered art. It would be better if they changed the name.
I don't think calling something art music is intended to imply music that is not art music ins't art. However I will agree that it is somewhat or a misnomer. Maybe it should just be called boring music instead.
>Maybe it should just be called boring music instead.
Those names just refer to the different methods in which that type of music is disseminated throughout a culture (folk music is mostly orally, by tradition, art music is based in canon and academia, and popular music varies but it's usually spread through a populace by an individual organization/person)
you don't know what inherent means
literally dude just steal some stock logitech or even a dell mouse from a computer lab
i don't get the point of expensive ass mice unless you play gaymz
It's not that it was intended too, it's just that /mu/ memers who think they're superior flaunt it that way
seriously people like you are the reason why this system is mostly disliked. You literally proved my point with your post
>don't know what inherent means
What I'm saying is that this system of classification, at least to me, incites a feeling that "art music" is immediately better than the others. It's not advertent, but the name is just elitist by the terms nature. If that's not what inherent means, than I guess I'm misunderstood. But, you're just arguing semantics.
Yes you were arguing semantics, and you still are because "feeling" in this context doesn't refer to any emotion. You still haven't made an actual rebuttal.
>but you're stupid lol
do you actually have a counter argument?
Art music is more complex, requires more technical skill and knowledge to make and is held at a higher degree by scholars. But whether or not it's better is a subjective opinion. People on /mu/ will say it's objective but it isn't
you know you're dealing with an idiot when they continually point out that your arguments about art are subjective
we know, it's a basis most people are consciously operating on without you needing to point it out, and doing so does not constitute for a counter-argument
the point of debate is to exchange viewpoints, not to point out that viewpoints are viewpoints
I'm not trying to argue against you, but a symphony is more complex than most popular music. That's a fact. I suppose the scholarly merit of art music is a subjective appeal to authority, but what I'm trying to say is that art music is not better, because "better" is opinion. I'm not placing any more merit in art music than I am in popular music. I agree with you.
... but there is. Trashy pop music made to make money is different than music made to be art.
I mean I hope you really don't think Taylor Swift should be considered in the same category as Swans.
Same way Bayformers is a commercial product while Apocalypse Now is art.
Same way Call of Duty is a commercial product while Osamu Sato's works are art.
it's simple truth, there is a difference.
this thread was all me, btw
I knew this would show up eventually. These graphics are so biased, they have no worth aside from memes
>vulgar, unrefined, meant to be felt with the body, not the mind
>multiple pictures of kanye
These don't apply to everything under the large umbrella that is popular music.
Yes, but just because something is popular music doesn't mean it's bad. Also this definition of popular music is different than top 40 radio pop
Well, of course there are exceptions, but they don't make the rule
I never said that technical skill means you can automatically make good music, but it takes a lot of technical skill to make good music, especially art music. also, this isn't to say that popular music can't be complex. It absolutely can be and often is
Spend years learning theory and practicing your craft. Years of hard thought and processes of emotional and spiritual development culminate in a master piece. This is art.
lmao starting a band with drunk high school bros
just download fruityloops and click away
sick dank beats yo
This is pop.
What about pop that somebody tried hard to make?
>all popular music is the same and none of it is done with an artistic vision.
Of course some popular music can be considered art, not all of it, but it certainly isn't a "commodity".
You've never listened to non-art music?
Don't listen to >>61933888 if you really haven't, it's bait.
Any Bach cantata, they were just there to keep people entertained in church
Any Haydn symphony, he wrote 100 to entertain a bored prince
Any Vivaldi violin concerto, he wrote 300 of them for orphans at a girl's school to play
That vision is ultimately stripped away by the machinations of the entertainment industry and adherence to the styles of popular genres.
TPAB also had no artistic vision; the only thing it had going for it is clever marketing.
You're right about tpab, it was made for money and to push a message, and I strongly believe that ""art"" that pushes a message is not art.
But, there is just so much popular music, a lot of it being self produced, and released independently. The best example I can think of is Phil Elverum. He makes music under his own label, and says that he only makes music to explore and flesh out his own psyche, and explore genres and styles that he never has before, not for money or good reception.
I don't think all music is art. Some music, like top 40 stuff, for example, is made for reasons other than artistry like finance, political agendas, or obligations to record labels. I don't think you can make art without and artistic intent.
>I strongly believe that ""art"" that pushes a message is not art.
There's plenty of great works that were in some way political, but I do think that focusing on a contemporary issue does reduce a piece's lasting power.
Any piece of popular music trying to take a political stance ultimately cheapens it and renders it sterile. Just think of all those awful protest songs from the 60s or hardcore punk.
The article is clearly biased towards classical music.
See the talk page, they are arguing that only classical music is art because 'it's more intellectual and erudite'.
The term 'art music' as classical music is just plain retarded, claiming that your music isn't art unless you are a professional composer with music theory classes is stupid when in other disciplines there are a lot of 'artistic' content creators without a huge erudite background (Kafka for example).
>Susan McClary,Feminine Endings: Music, Gender, and Sexuality, second edition, (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1991-2002): xv-xv
>The notion of art music is a frequent and well-defined musicological distinction, e.g., referred to by musicologist Philip Tagg as one of an "axiomatic triangle consisting of 'folk', 'art' and 'popular' musics." He explains that each of these three is distinguishable from the others according to certain criteria.
Are you going to argue against professional musicologists, or are you going to start acting like a rational adult and respect the opinions, viewpoints and assertions of more knowledgeable people?
I would argue the liberal "all music is of equal worth" philosophy is what killed elitist /mu/, e.g. using "subjective" as an excuse for ignorance and lack of critical reflection instead of an aesthetic (and philosophical) term.
>claiming that [popular and folk] music isn't art
It's just a term, and it is acknowledged by musicologists. Stop being edgy, and follow the laws of linguistic description.
>I would argue the liberal "all music is of equal worth" philosophy is what killed elitist /mu/, e.g. using "subjective" as an excuse for ignorance and lack of critical reflection instead of an aesthetic (and philosophical) term
It had to do more with the adoption of poptimism as a political stance.
>Subjectivity as an excuse rather than an aesthetic term
I think this is a really good explanation as to why both the concepts of objectivity and subjectivity have become memes on/mu/ and lost all meaning
I have not read up on this term, but it sounds sort of useless, because most "(classic) rock music" is, in fact, pop music.
The "born in le right generashun" crowd is absolutely horrifying, though, if that's what you mean. I have yet to hear a EDM song that's as harmonically extensive and inventive as, say, a Beatles song.
Yes, /mu/mblr doesn't understand the difference between empirical quality and objective quality.