'Art' and 'Pop' - Why?

Omg: Cyndi Lauper's Boy Blue isn't on YouTube anymore! Aw man! DX Sorry about the broken link!

There ARE absolutes. There, I said it.

I have to agree with the above statement (the claim "there are no absolutes" is a contradiction; it's meant as an absolute yet can't be if there are none).

Anywho, if we're talking about the distinction between art music and pop music I certainly think there is one. Art music (or "serious music") is done for the sake of invention and I think the intention is that the music will either serve as an exercise in learning (either to a composer or a performer), or the piece will have lasting value, or both. Pop music, on the other hand, is mainstream (consumed by the mainstream public) typically a throw away art (yes it's still an art), designed for either quick entertainment or for making money. [it's like the difference between poet laureate Ben Jonson and stage architect Inigo Jones who worked together to create Jacobean masques in the early 17th century. Jonson felt that the masque should be a literary masterpiece worthy of being performed many times, while Jones thought of the masque as a dispensable art form created for a one-night party and treated like a one-night stand.]

This is not to say that some artists whose music is mainstream are not writing serious music (any of the composers/lyricists of the Great American Songbook), or that some pop artists can't at some point start to write serious music (The Beatles). In fact pop music and art music do not have to be separate. But the fact is that with the rise of audio recording, radio, etc... public consumption of music began to change. The public could be fed music and didn't necessarily have to make any musical choices. Catchy tunes caught on easily and writing formulas for making a quick buck developed, particularly with Berry Gordy and the Motown sound (nothing against some of its excellent musicians). And the former artist would hand over his or her control to a formulaic songsmith, and the "artist" became a symbol and a cute body used to get the public to consume. I have to admit I have a pessimistic view of most of the music industry and what it releases on the radio/tv today (most of the music is simply catchy and requires no thought).

Ever since the advent of music publishing there has been popular music, but the audience has changed. There is (almost) no more Hausmusik (music-making with family or friends in an intimate setting), for instance. There is no time, for most Americans at least, to think about the form of what they listen to (and how a composer plays with their expectations), as a fun way to pass the time. The general public doesn't truly know/understand the music as well anymore, although they may connect with lyrics or simple melodies. There are so many things to do that it is hard to focus. And the role of popular music has changed. Works have become generally shorter and shorter and now it's pumped into our heads and homes for quick consumption, and then we quickly move on (instead of, for example, spending a night at the premier of a famous composer's new work). Also, music, I think, is becoming more and more localized. While I don't like the direction popular music is taking, I think that as our world expands small communities will expand and getting truly involved in music will be easier for those who seek it out. There's so much out there now (perhaps there always was, but now access to music and composers via the internet is so easy) that local musicians are the real commodity. But I digress.

So of course there is a difference between art music and pop music. Pop music simply reaches and is accepted by a wide audience (and has a recent history of being throw away music), while the label of serious music is reserved for that by an artist who wants to primarily improve his or her compositions and perhaps secondarily reach people in a way that will challenge what they think. What is this distinction useful for? Well it's not useful for lumping music into two broad categories since there is crossover. They are just terms, like anything else, to help us better understand the world in which we live. If one artist thinks of him/herself as a pop artist instead of a serious artist then perhaps that is something worth considering. If an artist considers him/herself a serious musician instead of a pop artist then he/she may be looking too much into the "pop" term, which is understandable considering the recent track record of popular music.

Who wants to argue what makes good music?

Go to your keyboard, and tap the C key 8 times. Quite a melody, hmm? Actually, not really! However, change some of those eight keys, or add more harmonies to it with other instruments, and it IMPROVES. Or are you going to say that tapping the C Key 8 times is of the same depth and beauty as one of Mozart's symphonies? Please, I beg of you, don't even argue that.

We can't prove it doesn't have that depth! You have the burden of proof here. What seems ridiculous to you may not be so ridiculous to an Mbuti tribesman or to an alien.

We can't prove it doesn't have that depth! You have the burden of proof here. What seems ridiculous to you may not be so ridiculous to an Mbuti tribesman or to an alien.

Noooooo, wrong answer! I know it's comforting to think that a baby can go up to a keyboard and make great, deep music by banging randomly on a keyboard (and by extension, us making great music easily too), but nooooooo, that's wrrooonnnggg! Music takes effort and thought and talent to create (unless you're a genius prodigy or something, like Hecklephone)! Pleaseeeeee don't argue this point, I positively beg of you, it's embarrassing to me! :blush:

I think it might be relevant for some of the people replying here to revisit the OPs' opening statement and again look at what he meant by 'pop.' To be fair, pop isnt really a good way to abbreviate 'popular.' Not for those of us that dwell in the USA anyway, as it also means a genre of music as well.

While I am sure that my statement will be argued against.. It is, after all, merely my opinion. Nothing more.

Well, I wanted to use a Pop song so it'd be on topic! xD And come on, it IS a great song, most definitely!

I guess I just didn't get out of it what you did... I'm sure if I had something in my life experience to reference to the tune or the lyrics, it might hold greater meaning to me. I just hear it as a late 80's style song... context is always appreciated.

What interests you about this song so much that gives it so much meaning for you?

Noooooo, wrong answer! I know it's comforting to think that a baby can go up to a keyboard and make great, deep music by banging randomly on a keyboard (and by extension, us making great music easily too), but nooooooo, that's wrrooonnnggg! Music takes effort and thought and talent to create (unless you're a genius prodigy or something, like Hecklephone)! Pleaseeeeee don't argue this point, I positively beg of you, it's embarrassing to me!

Be RIGOROUS. Prove it.

By the way, note I didn't defend the idea that hitting 8 Cs is like a Mozart symphony. I'm just asking you not to allow laxity in reasoning. Prove it. You can't just say it's wrong, because then people like me come along and bring things like culture and values and paradigms into the argument.

Be RIGOROUS. Prove it.

By the way, note I didn't defend the idea that hitting 8 Cs is like a Mozart symphony. I'm just asking you not to allow laxity in reasoning. Prove it. You can't just say it's wrong, because then people like me come along and bring things like culture and values and paradigms into the argument.

I think a better solution would be to ask in the context of the situation...

Would you honestly tell the baby his music isn't THE BEST music you've EVER HEARD? If not, where's your soul?! :yc:

This has elevated into shitstorm status. I'm sorry, anyone who responded to my posts, but I can no longer continue this. I'll still read all/some posts though.

I think a better solution would be to ask in the context of the situation...

Would you honestly tell the baby his music isn't THE BEST music you've EVER HEARD? If not, where's your soul?!

Quite honestly, there's a chance I might enjoy the baby banging the piano more. It depends on the temperament of the baby, I guess...

This has elevated into shitstorm status.

:blink:

Shitstorm status? What did I miss?

Ok, I'll give you proof, as far as I can see. Go to your keyboard, and tap the C key 8 times. Quite a melody, hmm? Actually, not really! However, change some of those eight keys, or add more harmonies to it with other instruments, and it IMPROVES. Or are you going to say that tapping the C Key 8 times is of the same depth and beauty as one of Mozart's symphonies?

And what if I say tapping C 8 times is of the same depth and beauty as one of Mozart's symphonies? Then what? What if I'm not the only one, what if there's an entire generation of C-tappers that end up dominating the compositional trends of 2010.

Your opinion is not universal, stop acting like it is. I can as well say that Mozart's symphonies are garbage (most are IMO,) and that I'd much rather hear that C 8 times than sit through any of them.

But, since you dodged what you have to do (your opinion doesn't count as proof,) you STILL need to demonstrate that your opinion IS universal before you can start saying stuff like that.

And what if I say tapping C 8 times is of the same depth and beauty as one of Mozart's symphonies? Then what? What if I'm not the only one, what if there's an entire generation of C-tappers that end up dominating the compositional trends of 2010.

What might really boggle your noggin is thinking about how Mozart might even inspire C-tappers to be C-tappers...

After all, Mozart tapped that 'C' a LOT more than just 8 times... he tapped that 'C' REAL WELL!

Yeah, Mozart totally tapped that 'C'. What a cat in heat! :toothygrin:

--------------------------

Really doing my best here to try to keep the mood lighter, even if you don't think it's funny, a pity laugh for the sake of helping the mood in this thread would be great!

I think as long as you're writing any sort of music that makes sense to at least you and a few others then you are an artist. It doesn't matter what style you write in, just as long as you're writing it. However, there is the difference then in if you can perform what you've written, which would make you a musician. Thats just my view on it.

I think as long as you're writing any sort of music that makes sense to at least you and a few others then you are an artist. It doesn't matter what style you write in, just as long as you're writing it. However, there is the difference then in if you can perform what you've written, which would make you a musician. Thats just my view on it.

No pity laugh? Aww...

Just a question out of curiosity... why do a few others need to make sense of your music for you to be an artist? Do you personally feel that your music is some 'lesser form of art' if you're the only one who understands it?

The point is it doesn't matter who or how many or how few like it. An artist is an artist regardless of his audience, or if there is one. A guy drawing endless pictures of his hand, never showing them, never anything more than simple doodles is still an artist.

Art has nothing to do with the audience, except when it does.

Also: I love appeals to popularity, but only certain kinds of popularity (ie "britney spears, ew!")

Also:

Who wants to argue what makes good music?

Now I could answer your post with lists of pop musicians who do more artistic things that you'd ever dream (Thurston Moore comes to mind too quick), but let's not do that.

How bout we just say that Jazz is considered "pop" music and that there's a pooton too much nostalgia flinging around in ideas like that to be useful.

_______________________________

And that I maintain, truthfully, that the Beatles suck and are simply just good hack artists.

Now I could answer your post with lists of pop musicians who do more artistic things that you'd ever dream (Thurston Moore comes to mind too quick), but let's not do that.

How bout we just say that Jazz is considered "pop" music and that there's a pooton too much nostalgia flinging around in ideas like that to be useful.

_______________________________

And that I maintain, truthfully, that the Beatles suck and are simply just good hack artists.

Who was the above comment directed at? Of course there are many pop artists who do great things for the world of sound. My post wasn't arguing against that. My post did have a lot of nostalgia, but I thought I hinted at the fact that jazz was pop at one time (and from an ethnological viewpoint those who study jazz are lumped into the same group as those who study pop as a genre).

(the claim "there are no absolutes" is a contradiction; it's meant as an absolute yet can't be if there are none).

it's not so easy. it does not say there are no absolutes whatsoever (in thsi aprticular usage, in this discussion), it only says there are no absolutes of taste, which uses its application to certain empirical domain and thus stops being in a class of self-referring paradoxical statements, since the statement 'there are no absolute reasons/cause/whatever in liking/loving music' is not the absolute reason itself to like or not like any music. it's the limit statement and perfectly (possibly) applicable. (the statement 'all colours are red' must not itself be red to be valid.) bang, no more paradox!

Did you really want this?

Anywho, if we're talking about the distinction between art music and pop music I certainly think there is one. Art music (or "serious music") is done for the sake of invention and I think the intention is that the music will either serve as an exercise in learning (either to a composer or a performer), or the piece will have lasting value, or both.

What about a art musician who has already hit his peak and is just living off his legacy, not changing how or why he writes, only pumping out more? (I wish I could name names, but ignorance is my biggest frailty.) And let's compound the situation by saying that his entire catalogue will be ignored by history, since he's a writer of music that is sublimated by the more popular art.

Pop music, on the other hand, is mainstream (consumed by the mainstream public) typically a throw away art (yes it's still an art), designed for either quick entertainment or for making money. [it's like the difference between poet laureate Ben Jonson and stage architect Inigo Jones who worked together to create Jacobean masques in the early 17th century. Jonson felt that the masque should be a literary masterpiece worthy of being performed many times, while Jones thought of the masque as a dispensable art form created for a one-night party and treated like a one-night stand.]

Nice namedrops. Except who was it who would improvise his fugues strictly for money? There you have a lack of growth and pure monetary gain simultaneously.

This is not to say that some artists whose music is mainstream are not writing serious music (any of the composers/lyricists of the Great American Songbook), or that some pop artists can't at some point start to write serious music (The Beatles). In fact pop music and art music do not have to be separate. But the fact is that with the rise of audio recording, radio, etc... public consumption of music began to change.

And so begins the anticapitalistic rant, gleaned from watered-down post-marxists. It wasn't audio recording that did it, it was even the player piano... Attali points to the "star system," somethign that seems to be a part of Spengler's Culture stage -- the 1850s. Wasn't until after the turn of the century that music could be accurately recorded.

The public could be fed music and didn't necessarily have to make any musical choices. Catchy tunes caught on easily and writing formulas for making a quick buck developed, particularly with Fux.

Fixed for you.

Ok, maybe not fixed. I don't know my history worth a poo. But believe me, every generation had its lesser, more "poppy" artists.

And the former artist would hand over his or her control to a formulaic songsmith, and the "artist" became a symbol and a cute body used to get the public to consume. I have to admit I have a pessimistic view of most of the music industry and what it releases on the radio/tv today (most of the music is simply catchy and requires no thought).

No thought? Pump out a hit-quality single. Right now. All of it -- recording, mixing, mastering, marketing. Now. Dead serious. You're an artiste, right? Should be no thought.

Ever since the advent of music there has been popular music, but the audience has changed.

Another fix. The second half is irrelevant -- who the audience is doesn't change the music (at the first level, at deeper levels, that's another story).

But unless you ignore popular music from the pre-recorded and outside the publishers' realms, pop music of a "lesser" sort, both historically and even now, existed since the dawn of Ug with his rock-log. I point mainly to folk musics, though even stuff like Rag and early jazz (i'm talking 1890, not 1930, just to be clear) would fall under it.

There is (almost) no more Hausmusik (music-making with family or friends in an intimate setting), for instance.

I never not had music in the house. Whether it was mi madre playing something, mi padre singing some showtune, or yes, CDs. I think you're having an issue with cause and effect -- music in fact has become more complex since the age of recording due to the fact that recordings allow that music to be heard in a variety of places, instead of staying simple to make it playable among friends.

I'd also argue, with nothing to back it, that it was only the rich who did this "hausmusik," an the poor had their folk/popular.

There is no time, for most Americans at least, to think about the form of what they listen to (and how a composer plays with their expectations), as a fun way to pass the time. The general public doesn't truly know/understand the music as well anymore, although they may connect with lyrics or simple melodies.

this sounds like some of the of-the-time criticism I've read of the galant style.

Now I know I'm cutting half of your post, but I'm going to ask you this: go to tchoupchup.com and listen to one track. Is it pop? Likely. But, it does not fit your description, at least in intent, of being without want to expand.

Now, it is my old band, for sure, but that's only because I know every detail of that stuff.

What about a art musician who has already hit his peak and is just living off his legacy, not changing how or why he writes, only pumping out more? (I wish I could name names, but ignorance is my biggest frailty.) And let's compound the situation by saying that his entire catalogue will be ignored by history, since he's a writer of music that is sublimated by the more popular art.

I'd say Good'ol J.S. Bach is a good example. I mean, a LOT of his output is mechanical writing for his job (the cantatas for example,) regardless of how anyone finds it. But his case isn't that special, if you have to put out music on a deadline for years it's expected you'll turn it into a formula regardless of who you are.

But then again, this isn't really a good way to tackle what he said, since:

Art music (or "serious music") is done for the sake of invention and I think the intention is that the music will either serve as an exercise in learning (either to a composer or a performer), or the piece will have lasting value, or both.

Is nonsense. He can't assert a generalization as to why people write music, regardless of what kind of music, much less in a way that might as well include EVERYTHING anyway, not just "art" music (ignoring whatever is meant with "lasting value" for the moment.)

After all, he'd have to demonstrate that you can't write a pop song with the intentions he mentioned above.

@ Tokkemon: Yes, the approach to this discussion is Postmodern. I wanted people to express their opinions freely and openly to debate both sides of the issue for the purpose of exploring the necessity of designations like 'art' and 'pop'. I think this is clear and observable in the opening post, so there's really no reason to complain about it.

@ SSC: Yep, Tokke's post was removed.

Sorry to cause emotional distress, but the thread (as all in serious discussions) has undergone some spring cleaning (but, it's not even spring!?)

Spam posts get deleted.

It wasn't spam Daniel. It was a legitimate opinion that was borderline censored.

The fact that no one took up discussion of said opinion is not my fault.

It's not enough to say:

Ugh. MORE postmodernsim.

without backing it up with something a little more substantial.

It wasn't spam Daniel. It was a legitimate opinion that was borderline censored.

The fact that no one took up discussion of said opinion is not my fault.

Okay Tokke! I'll bite....

Ugh. MORE postmodernsim.

Explain yourself. Why do you harbour such disdain towards contemporary artistic philosophies ??