Define "Art Music"

[JazzAt52ndStreet]

I'm kinda blurry on what makes a genre of music qualify as "Art Music".
.....looking for something more than, jazz and classical is art music, and techno is not.

-52nd

[Pete C]

I'll be interested in the responses. There are certainly major cultural-political implications in those designations.

As far as I'm concerned, James Brown is art music.

[crawjo]

I think it's a meaningless term, in that music is in and of itself an art form. As for art, by my definition of the term, there is nothing in the word art that means it must be good. Something can be artistic and be terrible at the same time.

[hearsay]

The only definition I might assign to that term would have to do with the intention of the person/people creating the music (which makes it a pretty nebulous definition in the first place). If their intention is to create something out of an inspiration they had, obviously it's different than creating something to make money or have a hit. I feel comfortable saying that music done for tv commercials or soap operas isn't art music. A lot of pop music, especially the corporate commitee invented boy bands and teen idols, is mainly done for the purpose of making lot's of money. Of course this isn't a perfect equation, I'm those folks enjoy making music too, so what do I know.

[Bruce Lindfield]

Originally Posted by JazzAt52ndStreet

I'm kinda blurry on what makes a genre of music qualify as "Art Music".
.....looking for something more than, jazz and classical is art music, and techno is not.

-52nd

I agree that it is the intention that is important - not the genre necessarily. I'm not sure what Americans mean by "techno" - but I think that artists like the Aphex Twin or DJ Shadow, for example, are trying to creat "Art" - whereas, any music that is designed to sell lots of recordings is probably not art....?

Was Dave Brubeck, for example, trying to create art or make popular music.....hmmm?

[JazzAt52ndStreet]

[QUOTE=Bruce Lindfield
Was Dave Brubeck, for example, trying to create art or make popular music.....hmmm?[/QUOTE]

Interesting point.....same with Gershwin etc.

[Bruce Lindfield]

Originally Posted by JazzAt52ndStreet

Interesting point.....same with Gershwin etc.

Gershwin was undoubtedly doing both - so he wrote "show tunes" to be popular melodies for people to enjoy - but he wrote something like "Rhapsody in Blue" as a work of art, to rival Rachmaninov's great piano concertos (concerti) - he wanted to create American Art!!

But isn't that the big debate - that American culture is often bound up with popularity and trying to please the common man - whereas the European "Art" tradition is quite clear and separate from these considerations.....?

Artists had patrons, but were not required to please the hoi polloi!!

[mke]

I would suggest distinguishing along the lines of something like

- music made for music's (or art's) sake
- music made for a functional reason (eg. to accompany a ritual of some sort)

But these aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

[Mark Kleinhaut]

I think the singularly absolute determining factor is whether or not you can buy it at a Walmart.

[SinginSumo]

Hence the "art" in the retailer name of "WalmART."

[Gentle Giant]

"The highest state of art is artlessness" - Henry David Thoreau

Thererfore, to me art music is music that's trying too hard to be arty.

[Pete C]

[Bruce Lindfield]

Originally Posted by Gentle Giant

"The highest state of art is artlessness" - Henry David Thoreau

Thererfore, to me art music is music that's trying too hard to be arty.

That's not as straightforward as it sounds - so you could say that by Thoreau's definition, great art in music is where musicians are using their talents to directly express themselves, with no preconception or great effort.

So - this might include Maxim Vengerov picking up a violin and dazzling whoever is there in front of him or John Coltrane playing "sheets of sound" on tenor because he simple had to!

But it would exclude any "over-produced" or manufactured music - fine you say - that means Britney Spears isn't art - result!!

But what about pieces or albums that were worked on for long periods of time and honed into masterpieces....? Are they not art?

[EDIT]Thinking again - it sounds like a manifesto for punk rock in Britain in the late 70s - anybody can get up on stage and knock out short, 3-chord songs, with a bit of energy!!

[james harrigan]

Originally Posted by Pete C

Pete, you are known and feared for your bad puns both visual and otherwise, but this may be the worst yet. Congratulations.

[Gentle Giant]

Originally Posted by Bruce Lindfield

That's not as straightforward as it sounds - so you could say that by Thoreau's definition, great art in music is where musicians are using their talents to directly express themselves, with no preconception or great effort.

So - this might include Maxim Vengerov picking up a violin and dazzling whoever is there in front of him or John Coltrane playing "sheets of sound" on tenor because he simple had to!

But it would exclude any "over-produced" or manufactured music - fine you say - that means Britney Spears isn't art - result!!

But what about pieces or albums that were worked on for long periods of time and honed into masterpieces....? Are they not art?

[EDIT]Thinking again - it sounds like a manifesto for punk rock in Britain in the late 70s - anybody can get up on stage and knock out short, 3-chord songs, with a bit of energy!!

Of course, Thoreau wasn't around for the conceptualization and execution of A Love Supreme, but on the other hand, he must have been aware that Beethoven's 9th Symphony wasn't just dashed off in a fit of inspiration.

I don't think any adage or maxim is always true, but consider Kind of Blue, where the players had minimal preparation or preconception, only a framework and a mode of operation (no pun intended), and what resulted is pure, capital-A Art.

When I think of art music, I tend to think of Roxy Music and the lesser progressive bands, where there's such a conscious effort to affect an artistic attitude. On the other hand, "art song" is a legitimate compositional and performance category; but for the most part, I think calling something art doesn't necessarily make it so.

[sonic1]

The term "art music" is strictly a utilitarian term for music that is not made for popular consumption but for one or more of the many reasons people do art. There is however no clear dividing line. Look for example at the work of Kurt Cobain of Nirvana. He was definately creating art, definately making pop music, but almost as a way to ridicule the consumption. How many kids were doing just what he was singing about on his pop tunes "but he don't know what it means..."

Point is: There is no clear dividing line between art and pop music, and sometimes it functions as both. I believe as someone before stated, that intent is important here. You will find music that is clearly "art" music and some that is clearly "pop" music. But remember also that what is considered classical and therefor "art" music was once the pop music. One can blur the lines continually here.

Jared