'Art' and 'Pop' - Why?

Okay, so the question I pose has been explored about as much as tonal/atonal arguments have. I just want to state my case for why this distinction makes no sense and let the discussion just explore different sides of the issue. I hope some of the newer members here will chime in on this one as well, just for some fresh perspective on the topic.

We've lived in a monetary system our entire lives, I don't think there is a single person here who does not, in some way, live with the idea that money is an integral part of their society. I could be wrong, and please share your perspective if you don't live in a monetary system. I happen to believe that the distinction to make between 'popular' and 'art' music is a contradiction because there is no escape from living in a monetary system for any of us.

Now, I should probably define things (feel free to interpret terms as you wish, debate them if you feel these aren't fair representations). First, Art. I view art as anything with aesthetic appeal, whether for aesthetic or utilitarian purposes. Example - 20th Century Architecture has aesthetic appeal even though buildings serve a purpose other than just aesthetics... they have utilitarian uses. 'Pop' is simply the abbreviation for 'Popularity', where out of a group of people, a majority of them prefer one thing over something else.

In music, it is common to make a 'distinction' between what we consider as 'music for the sake of art' and 'music for the sake of popularity'. The latter is commonly tied to music that brings in large amounts of money. For example, incidental (film) music, songs, media music (commercials), and so on. 'Art music' is often reserved for music that is not 'pop' or more rarely brings in high revenues (lots of money). So, the generalization appears... 'pop' music is written for financial reasons where 'art' music is written for 'other' reasons, often individual aesthetic reasons.

In my view, it makes no sense to create this dichotomy (this categorization of different styles of music into two sections, music that makes money and music that 'might' make money). Here are some of my reasons:

First, this dichotomy creates a huge contradiction. If a composer prefers the aesthetic of a style or styles within the 'pop' category, is the composer no longer creating 'Art'? Of course the composer is making art, it just so happens that the aesthetic preference is in a different 'classification' of styles. Similarly, suppose a composer writes a more aesthetically 'independent' work personally fulfilling to them as an artist that doesn't really fall into a 'pop' category. Suppose this work earns the composer a LOT of money. Should this style be considered a 'pop' style just because a majority of people like it? Of course not... it makes no sense to rank and file music into this dichotomy as if, once certain 'criteria' are met, music changes from 'art' to 'pop' and vice versa.

Second, most styles of music are found in both categories. You may find yourself attending a contemporary music concert, leaving that concert to go to a movie, and find yourself hearing much of the same styles of music in the film. Much of what we hear aesthetically in 'Art music' is flooding into 'Pop' culture... so how do we maintain this dichotomy when no such barrier exists? The distinction makes no sense.

Third, this dichotomy is restrictive to our own aesthetic development as artists. Perhaps we're too often focused on doing what isn't popular to see that many of the aesthetics we hear more and more in 'pop' music are part of what we do in 'art' music. Are we afraid that doing something that sounds 'pop'ish will make us less like 'artists' and more like 'sell-outs'? Let me be the first to encourage you... you're an artist whether you write a pop song or a symphony. Why limit yourself as an artist to only styles that aren't popular? The distinction makes no sense.

This is my case with my three big hitters for why making a distinction between 'Art' and 'Pop' makes no sense... and could be more detrimental than beneficial to us. An architect doesn't design a building with money in mind, even though a LOT of money is often on the table. There are still aesthetic decisions to be made even though they may or may not serve any utilitarian purpose. I think this dichotomy exists in music because aesthetic decisions are more often tied to the influence of the monetary system. As artists, we have to stick to our principles, we have to work within our means, and we have to maintain perspective on the difference between making music for money and making music for the joy of the aesthetics we embrace in our field.

So, I turn the question over to you, my fellow YCers. Do you agree with me that 'Art' and 'Pop' deserve no distinction, that doing so makes no sense? Do you have another perspective? Please share your thoughts... especially the newer members... I want to hear your thoughts on this dichotomy in music.

Do you agree with me that 'Art' and 'Pop' deserve no distinction...

No.

I consider there to be three categories....

Reasons to create music (or paint, or take photographs, or sculpt wood, or design buildings...):

• Art.
  
• Money/Fame.
  
• Both.
  

I posit that almost all artistic endeavours fall into the final category. We do it for the art...and so that we can eat. I'd often find it VERY difficult to be convinced that someone created something for the sole purpose of making money - that absolutely no creativity or attention to "Art" went into the creation of it.

There are exceptions, of course...and some disciplines will inherently lend themselves slightly more to one side...

Also, there are surely infinte shadings of "Art" to "Popularity" (Britney Spears being 12% Art, while Radiohead rounded off to 87%, Tom Waits and Bjork tied for 94%) .... So, I would expect there are very few things that incorporated 100% panning one way or another....

I personally think the distinction is very convenient but at the same time kind of arbitrary. However, having homework to do, I will not go into a detailed discussion for at least a little while. Just throwing out my opinion!

No.

I consider there to be three categories....

Reasons to create music (or paint, or take photographs, or sculpt wood, or design buildings...):

• Art.
  
• Money/Fame.
  
• Both.
  

I posit that almost all artistic endeavours fall into the final category. We do it for the art...and so that we can eat. I'd often find it VERY difficult to be convinced that someone created something for the sole purpose of making money - that absolutely no creativity or attention to "Art" went into the creation of it.

There are exceptions, of course...and some disciplines will inherently lend themselves slightly more to one side...

Also, there are surely infinite shadings of "Art" to "Popularity" (Britney Spears being 12% Art, while Radiohead rounded off to 87%, Tom Waits and Bjork tied for 94%) .... So, I would expect there are very few things that incorporated 100% panning one way or another....

So, Britney Spears makes the distinction necessary? :blink:

Aren't we giving her a little bit too much credit for influencing us on how we should think about music, art, and popularity? Is she even near the top 100 in the Billboard Charts now?

These percentages are rather arbitrary, but I totally understand what you're saying. Britney Spears certainly isn't my favorite music artist to listen to, but I brought a similar argument to one of my composition professors - that Britney Spears makes tons of money but has no musical talent - and he seemed offended I would hold such a negative opinion of a musician. I said, "She doesn't even write her own music, her albums are recorded in a studio, her videos are filmed on a stage... what makes her a talented musician?"

He asked me, "Have you ever seen her perform live, in person?"

I said, "No."

He said, "Then you have no right to make the claims you do until you give her the opportunity to demonstrate her talent as a musician to you..."

I thought this was rather profound, actually. He told me he's not a fan of her music, he's never seen her perform, but he has respect for her as a musician and thinks it's entirely unwise to form judgments such as these before gaining more insight. This isn't really a 'rebuttal', Robin. I just thought I'd share that perspective I received (and try to maintain to the best of my ability) and see what your thoughts are on it. Have you seen Britney Spears live, in concert?

Are you talking about it being 'art' and 'pop' music as a final product, or in reference to how/why it was written? Because I think that's also an important distinction.

Are you talking about it being 'art' and 'pop' music as a final product, or in reference to how/why it was written? Because I think that's also an important distinction.

What are your interpretations either way? Why make the distinction in either case?

This was one of the topics of my major project for sociology last semester. The paper is attached for anyone who wants to read it. (The paper's topic is a bit narrower than just "Pop" versus "Art" (classism in classical music), though that is covered to great extent in the paper.)

The Gist:

"Art" (or in layman's terms "Classical") music and "Pop" music have been defined by, not so much the purpose of writing the music, but the audience listening to the music. And this divide has always been because of social stratification. While some may not want to acknowledge this fact (because it probably isn't politically correct to say so), it is indeed class that divides music. It is not really a matter of how much money either, but rather where it comes from, at least in more recent years.

"Classical" and "Popular" music have always been the products of the upper and lower classes respectively. In the 1700s, this mean the King's Court Composer would compose harpsichord music meant for the Aristocracy while the plebian "folk music" players would entertain the masses with flute songs. In the 1800s, it was the orchestra and opera meant for the high-brow elite. (I realize there is a bit of overlap for opera, though by the 1870s, this was gone.) By the Gilded Age in America, the upper class designated as "The Opera" as the ultimate in musical prestige and christened it as the highest of any social meeting in the arts. Ironically, it was not so much about the music, but about the social gathering. Often the music was unimportant. People were only interested when Mrs. Astor would enter the Diamond Horseshoe at the Met. Music served a utilitarian purpose, where the music would be a pretext for a social gathering. Rossini, Beethoven, Berlioz, Gounod, Verdi, Puccini: these were the "art" composers and very few people (relatively) actually consumed the music listening to it on a regular basis. Conversely, John Philip Sousa was writing his band marches and captivating the masses with catchy tunes and piccolo solos while Stephen Foster wrote singable melodies for the masses to sing in their local town halls or churches. This was the "popular" music that was consumed by huge amounts of people.

Fast forward to today, there is still this divide. Lincoln Center is still very much a rich boy's club, however, times are changing. This divide has been eroded to the point where the middle class is able to go to the symphony and hear classical Beethoven, Brahms, and Tchaikovsky at a fraction of the cost and social stigma that was present 100 years ago. However, the times of rich vs. poor are not over. Britney Spears and The Beetles are very much pop music because they appeal to the masses, that was their purpose. When one hears a rap song by Flo Rida, the lower classes appeal to it because it is written for them. Rich people, generally, don't listen to popular music because it is not meant for them, Stravinsky, Adams, and Cage is.

What is the most interesting of phenomena in this whole situation is how artists are now crossing boundaries and bringing the masses to the concert hall and vice versa. John Williams (for example) has written film scores that could pass for "classical music" in the concert hall and has popularized the romantic genre. Likewise, several modern composers have written concert music sounding like pop music. (One could argue Gershwin was the earliest form of this by bringing Jazz into the concert hall.) All of this melding can only lead to more collaboration between people groups, and likely will only break down barriers. However, the divide is no where near gone. Until one can ask the average person on the street who Beethoven was and they know exactly or ask the average person in the concert hall who Flo Rida is and also know exactly, the distinctions will still exist.

That's my sociological take on it.

Classism in Classical Music paper.pdf

No.

I consider there to be three categories....

Reasons to create music (or paint, or take photographs, or sculpt wood, or design buildings...):

• Art.
  
• Money/Fame.
  
• Both.
  

Yeah, that distinction's all fine and good from a "marketing" perspective. But it sort of breaks down when you include earlier fors of "popular" musics. Stuff like the white musics that led to blues and jazz, appalachian folk... I guess folk in general come to think of it. But let's focus on the West to be safe.

You could view them as art musics under your definition, yet they were deemed too crass, not only at the time, but even until today. But those musics contained items that did not enter Classical naturally -- only from outside it.

Calling them a 3rd distinction (Folk)overcomplicates the issue (though, again, not from a marketing perspective).

My other question is this -- what was the historical listenership rate for classical vs. "other" musics?

I personally think the distinction is very convenient but at the same time kind of arbitrary.

Si.

He asked me, "Have you ever seen her perform live, in person?"

I said, "No."

He said, "Then you have no right to make the claims you do until you give her the opportunity to demonstrate her talent as a musician to you..."

I thought this was rather profound, actually. He told me he's not a fan of her music, he's never seen her perform, but he has respect for her as a musician and thinks it's entirely unwise to form judgments such as these before gaining more insight. This isn't really a 'rebuttal', Robin. I just thought I'd share that perspective I received (and try to maintain to the best of my ability) and see what your thoughts are on it. Have you seen Britney Spears live, in concert?

Meaningless. Her music is primarily a record form -- its concerts have no want to deviate from the album cut. Her dancing is merely a T&A show to get the parents to come. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it shouldn't change the opinion of that nice Slidell chick.

More quotes later. Nice bs meaningless topic for us to pontificate on.

That's my sociological take on it.

Awesome. Does the existence of social stratification today make the distinction necessary to us as artists, though? As in, if we write works that either gain instant popularity or over time 'popularize' a particular style or styles of music, do we need the dichotomy? If so, why? What purpose does it serve beyond identifying who might be listening to our music?

Also, should we concern ourselves as artists with who might be listening to our music, or would we even be concerned if the monetary system, generally, didn't exist or have the potential to influence our decisions as artists?

Nice bs meaningless topic for us to pontificate on.

Or head-bang to... :headwall:

I love this smilie!

Awesome. Does the existence of social stratification today make the distinction necessary to us as artists, though? As in, if we write works that either gain instant popularity or over time 'popularize' a particular style or styles of music, do we need the dichotomy? If so, why? What purpose does it serve beyond identifying who might be listening to our music?

Also, should we concern ourselves as artists with who might be listening to our music, or would we even be concerned if the monetary system, generally, didn't exist or have the potential to influence our decisions as artists?

I believe it does. As artists, we need to know who's listening to our music. Indeed, we don't have jobs unless people do listen to the music. So who the music appeals to is just as important as how it appeals to us. And even if money was a non-issue (which is sometimes the case in classical commissions), we would still want the music heard. Now, naturally, the composer can mold the audience's sentiments and ideas towards a particular style, but not to the point, I believe, to destroy the dichotomy, at least not yet. Perhaps it may happen in the future. In the ideal postmodern world, there would be no dichotomy, but I don't think we're anywhere near an ideal postmodern world simply because social stratification exists. Postmodernism is very much an "everyone is equal" idea. And in America, the hallmark of all Capitalist societies, which carries an immense amount of social stratification with it, a completely postmodern ideology towards music will likely never happen, that is, of course, unless America is no longer capitalist. So it does come down to money either way.

If one wants to think in purely abstract terms of "well, I write this type of music and it falls directly on the border of "pop" and "art" music", then of course, the dichotomy isn't important, but artists, just like everyone else, also have to eat. So a discussion in abstract terms would be utterly irrelevant to real-world application and be, in essence, purely academic. I won't take part in that discussion, though I will admit, it is fun to pontificate on. :)

I don't even use "art" music as a term, so I don't see the point. I do say pop music to mean just about everything other than classical/contemporary, but to be honest it's only a superficial thing, I don't really think anything is inherently more artistic than anything else.

I don't even use "art" music as a term, so I don't see the point. I do say pop music to mean just about everything other than classical/contemporary, but to be honest it's only a superficial thing, I don't really think anything is inherently more artistic than anything else.

Call it whatever terms you wish. The point is, the divide is still there.

Call it whatever terms you wish. The point is, the divide is still there.

Not really. It's there in terms of style, but that's the same as saying the divide between styles and audiences of even classical music. "Pop" is a thousand million things as well and certainly britney spears is NOT AC/DC which is NOT daft punk which is NOT jimi hendrix, I end up calling all of it "pop" but it's a ridiculous generalization and not too useful unless I'm talking to someone who has no idea.

It's difficult to divide it really. because if you do think about it all composers, classical, pop, rock, whatever wrote for commissions or promise of money. Beatles did, Radiohead did, Stravinksy did, John williams did, etc...

I'd say that there is a dichotomy between music that is made in a professional level, and the composer needs to be paid, and that that is made out of pure pleasure and there is no monetary compensation. (<-notice that there is nothing to be said about quality in both forms).

...

These percentages are rather arbitrary, but I totally understand what you're saying. Britney Spears certainly isn't my favorite music artist to listen to, but I brought a similar argument to one of my composition professors - that Britney Spears makes tons of money but has no musical talent

... respect for her as a musician and thinks it's entirely unwise to form judgments such as these before gaining more insight. This isn't really a 'rebuttal', Robin. I just thought I'd share that perspective I received (and try to maintain to the best of my ability) and see what your thoughts are on it. Have you seen Britney Spears live, in concert?

The percentages were more a joke than anything - just to get my point across.

BUT - I never did say anything about Britney and Co. being "untalented musicians". I haven't seen her perform live (and Ferk's right - it's moot), but can certainly appreciate the artistry and craft in what she does - be it in studio or on stage.

My point was that the reason for her to create her music isn't driven by a creative desire to make Art ... That is not to say it isn't artistic or creative, but instead the balance between the two facets of "artistic intentions" is skewed towards the Popularity.

================================

Yeah, that distinction's all fine and good from a "marketing" perspective. But it sort of breaks down when you include earlier fors of "popular" musics. Stuff like the white musics that led to blues and jazz, appalachian folk... I guess folk in general come to think of it. But let's focus on the West to be safe.

Good point. There appears to be another facet to all this....

:hmmm:

I don't even use "art" music as a term, so I don't see the point. I do say pop music to mean just about everything other than classical/contemporary, but to be honest it's only a superficial thing, I don't really think anything is inherently more artistic than anything else.

Do you think it's necessary for us to make the distinction between contemporary music and 'pop' music at all? You say you use 'pop' as a superficial thing... do you think this superficiality is 'avoidable' or can be better expressed by not acknowledging the distinction along lines like 'popularity'?

My point was that the reason for her [britney Spears][/b'] to create her music isn't driven by a creative desire to make Art ... That is not to say it isn't artistic or creative, but instead the balance between the two facets of "artistic intentions" is skewed towards the Popularity.

So, if the 'intent' or 'purpose behind' the creation of the art is not for the sake of the art form, yet it is 'artistic' or 'creative', it's still only 'pop' music, and should not be grouped or categorized with any of the music in the 'art' music classification?

If I may, let me put some perspective into play before I follow up with more questions... perhaps 'collaboration' or 'collaborative art' would be more appropriate? In the creation of a popular song, there are several artistic considerations involving several different skill areas. There's the songwriter, the performing artist, the recording engineer, even the performance director (who prepares the live performance before a tour, who coaches the band and the performing artist in rehearsal, who arranges many aspects of the show, etc.), and so on. Maybe the producer is, in some ways, an artist in how s/he works within networks of these professionals to organize and prepare an album release/tour.

If we acknowledge that the songwriter is an artist who created art in the form of a song, should we consider the performer of that song as any less of an artist (in this case, Spears)? If not, why? If we consider the performing artist an 'artist', what do we say about the work of the recording engineer? Is that not art in its own right? What about the director of the tour? Like a conductor of an orchestra or a director of a film, is this individual not an 'artist' in his role of the production? What about the producer?

The deeper down the rabbit hole we go, the less it makes sense to me to differentiate or distinguish 'art' music from 'pop' music, especially considering the sheer amount of artistic approaches that are involved in the production of a popular song. So, even 'collaborative art music' seems like a somewhat more accurate category or distinction to be made that doesn't arbitrarily group music along lines of social stratification... at the same time more accurately associating the method of creation of the end product with terminology that is more accurate.

Would you agree with this kind of approach instead of the more arbitrary 'art' and 'pop' classifications if such a distinction was at all necessary? I'm still not completely convinced that the distinction is necessary, but just to explore your perspective in more detail, I posit this as a substitute that approaches the dichotomy with less arbitrary ranking of music. Would you at least go for something like this if you weren't convinced of my view that it makes no sense to distinguish between them in this way at all?

I haven't really thought about it, but chances are there's probably a more coherent way to organize music rather than "pop" vs "classical/whatever" or other such labels. If anyone has any better suggestions, I'm all ears.

I mean, it's only a language thing for the sake of organizing the music when talking about it, nothing else.

In my opinion, Cyndi Lauper's music clearly shows that pop music can be artful and musically relevant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhpofSGObBk

However, the times of rich vs. poor are not over. Britney Spears and The Beetles are very much pop music because they appeal to the masses, that was their purpose. When one hears a rap song by Flo Rida, the lower classes appeal to it because it is written for them. Rich people, generally, don't listen to popular music because it is not meant for them, Stravinsky, Adams, and Cage is.

Problem is, most rich people these days don't listen to classical music anymore; they usually listen to "pop" music. I mean, sure, live "art" music is still predominantly consumed by the rich, but technology is helping to "democratize" it quite a bit. Art music has also lost part of its social function, since going to contemporary music concerts isn't the best way to pick up a date. And in any case, I wasn't aware Adams and Cage wrote their music for any particular social stratum...in fact, I think composers have gotten less aware of who their audience is (especially since it's now harder to predict), even as they've gotten more aware of what their audience will perceive.

I don't know yet if I want to contribute to this. I have some pretty heavy opinions but I'm waiting to see how things play out.

One thing I will add is my objection to all the terminology. And we've covered this already, but "art music" implies a non-art in everything else. And "contemporary music" is even worse, because it implies everything else isn't music!

And that's not the only problem with the terms stated in the topic title. If "western art music" began to be totally popular again in 20 years, say as a result of people getting tired of hip hop and indie rock, would it then be called pop music? What would become of what we now call pop music?

Is there a solution? I don't know. Would "concert hall music" and "CD music" be better? Maybe. I'd rather have slightly misleading terms, or terms that have exceptions to them, than ones that imply something negative about its complementary term.

And as a sort of aside, don't you think it's a little difficult getting into "contemporary music" when you have to understand where our living composers are coming from, stylistically, to understand what the music is doing today? Shouldn't music be self-evident, and not have a pre-requisite? I feel as if enjoyment is no longer the primary goal of that music.

Maybe it's the job of the composer to write music that doesn't veer as far away from the threshold as possible. Maybe it's the contemporary composers to blame for the dichotomy we have. Should we have it? Well, that might be a moot point, but it's there, and it's because most people insist on keeping on the tradition of classical music, and just letting pop/jazz/whatever do its own thing.

That brings up another point. It might be a little shallow to say there is only pop and art. Even aside from the terrible terminology, metal is nothing like pop. Jazz is nothing like pop. Ambient electronica is nothing like pop, and neither are video game scores. In fact, the only thing that's really pop is... pop. We're sort of saying that, because they all evolved in the twentieth century in a sort of different tradition, they're all lumped together in a category of their own away from classical. And nothing could be more closeminded.

Then, would it be a good idea for composers to try to blur the lines and do bits and pieces of both? I've been told no. I've been told that you pick a slice of the pie and you stay there. People who try to blur the lines are unsuccessful. Is that really a healthy way to think about music? Progressing towards unity is pointless? More often than I'd like, I don't think that's the direction we're heading.

I guess I did contribute there. Oh well. It had to be said.

musically relevant.

Huh? Is there music that is musically irrelevant? Contradiction?

And as a sort of aside, don't you think it's a little difficult getting into "contemporary music" when you have to understand where our living composers are coming from, stylistically, to understand what the music is doing today? Shouldn't music be self-evident, and not have a pre-requisite? I feel as if enjoyment is no longer the primary goal of that music.

Maybe it's the job of the composer to write music that doesn't veer as far away from the threshold as possible. Maybe it's the contemporary composers to blame for the dichotomy we have. Should we have it? Well, that might be a moot point, but it's there, and it's because most people insist on keeping on the tradition of classical music, and just letting pop/jazz/whatever do its own thing.

Music can't be self-evident since it requires cultural context and bla bla bla to mean anything at all. Also, it's not a pre-requisite to understand music in order to enjoy it and likewise, enjoyment can't be "written" into the music, it depends entirely on who's hearing it.

And if we're to blame for the problem, then screw the "problem" since I'm not going to change the music I write just because of some retarded labeling issue and neither should anyone else. Likewise, the "tradition" of classical music can be anything. It's always the problem, Mozart may be "traditional" but Machaut sounds almost modern compared to him, and yet is much older (and not part of what MOST call "traditional.") It's a trend thing, an advertising thing.

People will make their own labels to fit their tastes, it's also why I hear a lot of people involved in modern composition call pop/rock/? "light music" or whatever, since they're not involved they can apply whatever term they want regardless of how it demerits what the others are doing. I'd much rather call it all by the names it already has (pop is actually a category/style of music, like rock is, etc, so it's not demeaning to call anything pop music any more than it is to call something rock music.)

And like I said earlier, I think the problem is mostly agreeing what to call contemporary modern music... which is usually what I call it to begin with, and most people understand right away since pop music is ALSO a form of contemporary modern music yet it's not called that exactly.

Then, would it be a good idea for composers to try to blur the lines and do bits and pieces of both? I've been told no. I've been told that you pick a slice of the pie and you stay there. People who try to blur the lines are unsuccessful. Is that really a healthy way to think about music? Progressing towards unity is pointless? More often than I'd like, I don't think that's the direction we're heading.

Eh, I don't blur the line so much because to me they are entirely different ideas, but I'm not against it and maybe I'll do it later on, I don't know. But it's a moot point to talk about "unity" considering that there's no such a thing in general, even within the "traditional" canon (Machaut vs Mozart, for example.)

Different music is different and there's nothing wrong with that.

Music can't be self-evident since it requires cultural context and bla bla bla to mean anything at all. Also, it's not a pre-requisite to understand music in order to enjoy it and likewise, enjoyment can't be "written" into the music, it depends entirely on who's hearing it.

That's true, objectivity in music is always difficult. But there has to be some space between "everyone enjoys this music due to an empirical goodness of it" and "nobody enjoys this music because any goodness it has lies in some obscure compositional technique the composer used and it doesn't actually sound good". It doesn't matter if the piece follows the Fibonacci sequence or is a palindrome, the score itself is a work of art, the score was computer generated from a mathematical algorithm or whatever have you. If someone can't listen to it without knowing anything about it (even the title) and enjoy it, perhaps there's a problem. That's what I'm referring to when I say music should be self-evident. At least in part... maybe some of the meaning lies in the title or the position of the composer when s/he wrote it. But if it just doesn't sound good whatsoever, most people won't enjoy it. Example: my musically uneducated best friend made a few things in Finale that I love listening to just because he made them, but I know the writing itself is bad, and no one else would like them but me.

And if we're to blame for the problem, then screw the "problem" since I'm not going to change the music I write just because of some retarded labeling issue and neither should anyone else. Likewise, the "tradition" of classical music can be anything. It's always the problem, Mozart may be "traditional" but Machaut sounds almost modern compared to him, and yet is much older (and not part of what MOST call "traditional.") It's a trend thing, an advertising thing.

You don't have to change. In fact, I wouldn't want you to. I want everyone to sell out as little as possible. Changing because of some labeling issue would be selling out. If everyone honestly felt compelled to write noisy atonal music, that would be fine. I just hate it when I hear people talking about the necessity of continuing the "tradition", whatever they mean by that, of classical or "western art music". I wish it was more "this is what I want to hear, what I feel the world is lacking, as an artist" rather than "this is what needs to be done to keep the tradition alive". I have heard both.

People will make their own labels to fit their tastes, it's also why I hear a lot of people involved in modern composition call pop/rock/? "light music" or whatever, since they're not involved they can apply whatever term they want regardless of how it demerits what the others are doing. I'd much rather call it all by the names it already has (pop is actually a category/style of music, like rock is, etc, so it's not demeaning to call anything pop music any more than it is to call something rock music.)

And like I said earlier, I think the problem is mostly agreeing what to call contemporary modern music... which is usually what I call it to begin with, and most people understand right away since pop music is ALSO a form of contemporary modern music yet it's not called that exactly.

I know what you meant... that is the problem, the way I see it. Pop music, referring to everything after classical (sometimes even including jazz) is actually not the worst title in the world; even though it's a huge umbrella and I think it should be done away with, at least it doesn't insinuate that classical music isn't artful. But it would present a problem if it ceased to become popular. I don't really know what could replace these terms though, but like I said, almost anything would be better.

Eh, I don't blur the line so much because to me they are entirely different ideas, but I'm not against it and maybe I'll do it later on, I don't know. But it's a moot point to talk about "unity" considering that there's no such a thing in general, even within the "traditional" canon (Machaut vs Mozart, for example.)

Different music is different and there's nothing wrong with that.

Don't you think, though, that we could potentially make even more different music if the dichotomy was torn down? Different not just between genres, like art vs. pop, but different from anything we as a society have heard before? It frustrates me because there are so many combinations possible, and we need good composers to explore them and work them out, and nothing is happening. Composers continue to work in their own world. Yes, I'm generalizing, and no, there isn't anything morally wrong with sticking to your guns. But I wish we would realize how much potential there is for new, exciting music if we just think out of the big classical box! Is this really such a romantic, unrealistic notion?

I think that getting rid of labels that have "art" or any sort of thing like that is the way to do it. I myself never use "art music" or other such terminology. I use "modern music" to mean everything that DOESN'T have a name, like pop, rock, various jazz styles, etc. Even then, I would say "contemporary modern music" to mean music being made right now or in the last ten years or so. I think this is OK enough, but I also can't think of anything better.

Don't you think, though, that we could potentially make even more different music if the dichotomy was torn down? Different not just between genres, like art vs. pop, but different from anything we as a society have heard before? It frustrates me because there are so many combinations possible, and we need good composers to explore them and work them out, and nothing is happening. Composers continue to work in their own world. Yes, I'm generalizing, and no, there isn't anything morally wrong with sticking to your guns. But I wish we would realize how much potential there is for new, exciting music if we just think out of the big classical box! Is this really such a romantic, unrealistic notion?

Don't underestimate what people are doing right now. Besides, the point of "anything we a society have heard before" is moot since it depends on what type of society and even then, masses don't really care for hearing stuff they've never heard before (which would be, hell, anything by Ligeti in 98% of the cases!)

So, when it comes to this applied to contemporary composers, I would say there's no absolute "never heard before," but what there is is a personalization of material that has already been explored. I mean, that's also more realistic than shooting for an objective that at best is impossible to know if its been achieved (after all how do we really know if we're being truly original without knowing 100% of what everyone has ever made throughout the history of mankind?) and at worst it undermines other aspects of music beyond "trying to be new."

The composers you're talking about that "stick to their own thing" out of ignorance shouldn't be the norm that we're talking about. They're fine in doing what they're doing, but composers who truly take advantage of the information around them are the ideal type of composer, regardless of what they choose to write at the end. That's an important distinction, I think.

To a smart contemporary composer, "their world" is everything, from britney spears to arvo p

Huh? Is there music that is musically irrelevant? Contradiction?

Are you saying that Britney Spears music, for example, is in any way shape or form RELEVANT? No: it's soulless, pointless, empty. It is irrelevant!