Reminder that popular music is entertainment, not art. Popular

*grabs popcorn*

>>73240186
It's true though

Whats with all the fedora's complaining about popular music lately? I'm sorry for posting >I listen to classical music in /classical/ but you started it.

there's no real difference between art and entertainment even if some academics like to think a bit higher of themselves

>>73240052
Reminder that art music is a dead term and anyone who uses it, presumably people who have gone to art school and believe themselves superior to everyone else, though jobless and unqualified for anything but an elementary school reading class and maybe playing classical music if they have some sort of instrumental skill, has not the slightest idea of music and is remarkably close-minded beyond belief about what kind of music they can and can't listen to. Unfortunate, really.

>>73241049
t. high school sophomore

Aight then

>>73240052
Lol ur so insecure

This is obviously bait, but

There is not a dichotomy between "entertainment" and "art". For one, entertainment has been a primary goal of art for centuries. You'd be hard-pressed to call Shakespeare or Liszt neither "entertainment" (since they were wildly popular with just about everyone) or "art" (since they remain stupendously influential on art and culture to this day).

On an even more granular level, how would you possibly enforce this membrane between "art" and "entertainment"? Because if you're arguing that they're definitionally different, you should be able to point to an essential quality that one does/doesn't have that makes it art or entertainment. Here, often, people like OP will try to say "well art isn't created for popular demand, or sale/consumption" but in practice that's never true. Beethoven's music has sold better than almost anyone's, and Take Five is one of the most famous songs of all time. Furthermore, what constitutes a sufficient level of "popularity" for something to stop being art? No one is ever able to answer this, because it's not possible. Do you measure it in fans, listeners, dollars, media coverage, what? What if something is created as art music, but happens to vault into popularity? Does it stop being art? Or does it retroactively lose its definition as "art"? Either option undermines the validity of the dichotomy in the first place.

Again, I know it's bait, but people do unironically believe this, and it's a meme opinion situated just slightly below "all art is equally good" as far as defensibility goes.

>>73240052
we know. is this some grand revelation to those of you who are knew to analyzing the arts and entertainment?

pop artists are still artists, just not as interesting or unique as someone who does "art music".