Art music vs. Commercial music

What's the difference? Don't just say "one makes money and the other is for personal/self expression." This is the real world, nothing is ever that black and white. Is there some kind of blurry area that you guys see it as?

Does this count?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXjNB43WRBk

(don't skip that link, go watch it. twice, it's that good)

it's got form and it develops a theme and changes orchestration and all that.

how about this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9KRR62Cch4

(if you skip both, why is you in this thread)

So, does anybody have a best guess for what this distinction is? I have no idea personally, I can't think of a definition that i'm happy with.

This was probably already addressed a million times before, but since it's a relevant question anyway I'll let it slide.

In my opinion the labels are just designed for practicality, not for accuracy. Hence, I would really avoid using them altogether if possible if you're trying to be accurate. You can as well say things like Contemporary classical music, or pop, rock, whatever other distinction, or describe it more detail (what is it a mix of, etc?) There's numerous ways to describe music and being restricted to "commercial music" and "art music" is garbage since there's nothing stopping one from being the other as well (e.g art music that sells and ends up being mass produced like movie soundtracks.)

Generalizing like this may be OK if you're going to quickly comment on something, maybe, but otherwise it's not terms I would use.

*Tokkemon skips the videos and gives his opinion.

*

Art Music is intended for the advancement of...well, Art. Concert hall music is a good lumping into this category.

Commercial Music is intended for the advancement of... well, Commerce, as in money. Film music is a good lumping in this category.

Art is for rich people to understand and consume. Commercial products are for poor people to understand and that consume. That is the only difference, and our culture respects "art" more; thus maintaining age-old class boundaries.

Art is for rich people to understand and consume. Commercial products are for poor people to understand and that consume.

Lol.

Oh no, not one more thread about this again. :< Anyway, my opinion can be found in SSC's post.

Music is music, end of story.

I agree that the distinction being made here, this "label," of something as serving a commercial or artistic purpose is largely unnecessary. I don't know a single, successful music composer (define "success" however you want) out there who isn't an artist making art. Even if we talk about the "purpose" of the music, we're still no closer to making the distinction between "art" and "commerce."

There is a prevalent argument in some academic circles that if a composer is limited to specific conditions/styles due to commercial reasons that the music is no longer written for "artistic" purposes and a distinction, therefore, exists. If we adopt this viewpoint, though, we should apply the same conditions of that argument to composers like Tchaikovsky, Beethoven, Mozart, Wagner, Shostakovich, and any other composer that continued writing music in such a way that people paid to hear it/have it written. We could say the same thing of Stravinsky's ballets commissioned by Diaghilev or even Haydn's symphonies written for the Esterhazy family. Where, then, would we draw a line between "art" and "commerce" given the conditions?

It's such a stupid justification for ignoring popular forms of music to explore "more interesting" forms of historical music. Many theory curricula I know about tend to start in classical writing and progress into 20th century music. There are some that start with 20th century music (set theory, serialism, etc) and work backward, drawing connections as they go. There are a plethora of ways we could educate using popular contemporary examples written today, but we don't do that because the existing pedagogy is so extremely important to many professors that they don't see the need to include forms of music from the popular styles of today. So, I find that too often this distinction between "art" and "commercial" music is used as a justification to not teach about any of the popular forms of contemporary music - like popular songs, film music cues, video game tracks, popular electronic dance albums, and so on.

In short, I find this "dichotomy" between what is art and what is commercial to be an academic construct which serves absolutely no constructive purpose. It's there to justify ignoring the popular works of today to focus only on the historic works included in the pedagogy (which are equally important, just not any -more- important). That's my two cents.

Here's a thought: Would you consider Justin Bieber and Lady Gaga "Art"?

Commercial art?

In short, I find this "dichotomy" between what is art and what is commercial to be an academic construct which serves absolutely no constructive purpose. It's there to justify ignoring the popular works of today to focus only on the historic works included in the pedagogy (which are equally important, just not any -more- important). That's my two cents.

I like your post and I tend to agree. This is part of what I call "pseudo-intellectual academism". These circles are often loaded with ego, with delusional sense of elitism and ridiculous requirements and expectations for specific behavior - some of the reasons that I have never been able to get along with academia. I find myself as too individualistic and open-minded to feel good in such environments. Real life outside is different.

Certain aspects of it, maybe. Why bother making the distinction at all?

Here's a thought: Would you consider Justin Bieber and Lady Gaga "Art"?

Point is not whether or not you would consider it personally, the point is whether you CAN or not, and if you can then surely there'll be people who consider it art. Hence the labels are really kind of pointless since to some Lady Gaga might as well qualify as "art music."

As for the "advancement of art," I don't see why you can't do that too while getting money for it, haha. Plus what the hell is "advancement of art" anyway? Advance to what?

As for the "advancement of art," I don't see why you can't do that too while getting money for it, haha. Plus what the hell is "advancement of art" anyway? Advance to what?

QFT - Totally agree with this.

I like your post and I tend to agree. This is part of what I call "pseudo-intellectual academism", and this environment, loaded with ego, with delusional sense of elitism and requirements for specific behavior in these circles are among the reasons that I have never been able to get along with academia. Real life outside is different.

I've found that the further people go into being "intellectual" about something, the less informed they tend to be about it. At the very least, these people seem to become so immersed in their arguments that they lose sight of the "real world" practicalities of their positions. I don't mean to say that several academics are entirely out of touch with reality, just the demands of the world on the people they teach.

Thank you, mods, for not deleting this thread. At my uni, I don't get along with a lot of the comp studio because they tend to hold certain kinds of music sacred, and I totally disagree. For my final, i used the song "let's make nasty" and did some stuff and turned into a quartet just because it was something that the comp majors didn't want to consider music. (overgeneralizing, i admit it). We talked in one of our classes about, "if art music makes money, then does it change category?". The product doesn't change, but the category changes and then all of the bad press for "commercial music" (people seem to look down on commercial music more than art music) is applied to perfectly "legitamite" music.

One thing I've always wondered is, are the people who write commercial music also considered artists? Isn't there an art form to rehashing the same formulas to make something new each time, or writing music that is constantly popular? There's got to be a pretty high level of skill involved there too. Just because it's not meant for a concert hall doesn't mean it's not skillfully constructed and performed.

The problem isn't that they are different (as EVERYONE in this topic agrees that it's not legitimate to view them as distinct), it's that they are considered different, and the social structures currently in place uphold this distinction. And it's this way because the people in the artistic music establishment want to keep their position of power; if anyone could produce value art, then why have such an establishment?

Here's a thought: Would you consider Justin Bieber and Lady Gaga "Art"?

No, however, I DO consider Switchfoot, Radiohead, and Joe Satriani to be art.

I'm pretey sure Lady Gaga and Justin Beiber are just in it for the money, and most likley don't write their own music.

After reading most of the post in this thread, I see that most have a very different and possibly over thought out definition of the two words art and commercial. Evening seeing people suggest that the difference is a money or class thing, which unless you live in a country that enforces openly a class system, seems a bit much and some what bleak.

The answer to the original post is quiet simple and doesn't require and existentialistic ideas of "what is music" or "what is art".

Commercial music is music written as part of a marketing tool as a means to help sell or enhance a product or to help suggest people to do something that is beneficial to who ever requested that music to be made.

Art music is music that expresses the ideas or thoughts of the composer.

In Art music, the composer is usually the only one that is writing and editing the music as he/she sees fit. In commercial music the composer is not expressing his/her ideas but the ideas of the Director that hired him/her, the CEO of the company, the cooperate heads of the company and of the parent company, the sound editor if there is one, the censors of the network that the commercial may or may not run, ect, ect, ect.

Now I may have paraphrased here, but in essence that is the main difference between commercial and art music.

But are those extremes ever truly present in practice? Any composer who composes music for a commission, competition etc. will be bound by certain guidelines imposed on him, including in most cases instrumentation, duration, sometimes even a specific idea/topic, the abilities of the performers, his own time and financial restraints, the performance space and available equipment, and so on. "Writing music as one sees fit" is very often just not the whole reality, art music or not. Sure, there are composers who went pretty far in the direction of "writing as they saw fit" without caring much about practicability, available resources etc. (such as Ives), but that cannot be said for most "art music". Even composers of the past who were extremely vocal about setting themselves apart from "entertainment composers that were just in for the money", such as Schumann, often found themselves writing pieces of a specific sort (such as short, easily playable chamber music), because their publisher wanted it and because it sold well.

And on the other side, a film composer who writes according to the specifications of a director etc. will still have his freedoms - in varying degrees, depending on the circumstances.

So all in all, I think it's hard to draw a distinct line between "commercial music" and other music like that - even though I agree that there clearly are noticeable differences between how different composers see their job. There are composers who describe what they are doing simply as a "supply of services" under the direct artistic control of their director/whoever, whereas there are other composers who describe themselves as "independent artists". But often, these vocal distinctions are less a precise reflection of the reality, but a conscious, almost "political", choice in order to set themselves apart from other (perceived) groups.

Reality is much more continuous than that.

But are those extremes ever truly present in practice? Any composer who composes music for a commission, competition etc. will be bound by certain guidelines imposed on him, including in most cases instrumentation, duration, sometimes even a specific idea/topic, the abilities of the performers, his own time and financial restraints, the performance space and available equipment, and so on. "Writing music as one sees fit" is very often just not the whole reality, art music or not. Sure, there are composers who went pretty far in the direction of "writing as they saw fit" without caring much about practicability, available resources etc. (such as Ives), but that cannot be said for most "art music". Even composers of the past who were extremely vocal about setting themselves apart from "entertainment composers that were just in for the money", such as Schumann, often found themselves writing pieces of a specific sort (such as short, easily playable chamber music), because their publisher wanted it and because it sold well.

But all in all arent those decisions part of the compositional process? As a composer composing art music, isn't the practicality issues such as performers, venue, instrumentation, ect, part of what we must deem to "see fit". And in a commission, aren't we selling ourselves as composer and our ideas, not just accompanying in the idea of selling a product as part of the overall marketing?

And on the other side, a film composer who writes according to the specifications of a director etc. will still have his freedoms - in varying degrees, depending on the circumstances.

I would say that film music is its own category now a days in some instances. Though personally, I do feel that its a form of commercial music. A very free and artistic form, but commercial music no the less. Not that there is anything wrong with commercial music, it is very important in our society, about as important if not equal to art music.

So all in all, I think it's hard to draw a distinct line between "commercial music" and other music like that - even though I agree that there clearly are noticeable differences between how different composers see their job. There are composers who describe what they are doing simply as a "supply of services" under the direct artistic control of their director/whoever, whereas there are other composers who describe themselves as "independent artists". But often, these vocal distinctions are less a precise reflection of the reality, but a conscious, almost "political", choice in order to set themselves apart from other (perceived) groups.

Reality is much more continuous than that.

I would agree with you to a point. I do believe there is more of a hard line between the two, and in reality it is practiced. Though that line itself is getting blurred as the definition of commercial and art slowly start to change.

Threads like this are just an excuse for people who create things no one likes to somehow rationalize the reasons why they are not liked by belittling the creations of others they deem inferior. This whole discussion is fruitless and will always be rife with pretentious self-aggrandizing rhetoric, and no person of worth should pay it any mind.

You ask "Is Justin Bieber art?" and I ask "What does it matter, neither of your creations can feed the hungry or clothe the naked," so get over yourself

Both descriptions of art and commercial music, as written by Plutokat, are in reality fused and form one continuous gradation. You can express your thoughts and ideas in commercial music, too, and something that you think of as art music might turn out commercially successful within a small group. You are also free to choose to bound yourself within certain limits and then to destroy and break them.

Why care about drawing a distinct line between the two in the first place?

com·mer·cial   /kəˈmɜrʃəl/ Show Spelled[kuh-mur-shuhl] Show IPA

–adjective

1. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of commerce.

2. engaged in commerce.

3. prepared, done, or acting with sole or chief emphasis on salability, profit, or success: a commercial product; His attitude toward the theater is very commercial.

4. able to yield or make a profit: We decided that the small oil well was not commercial.

5. suitable or fit for a wide, popular market: Communications satellites are gradually finding a commercial use.

com·merce   /ˈkɒmərs/ Show Spelled[kom-ers] Show IPA

–noun

1. an interchange of goods or commodities, esp. on a large scale between different countries (foreign commerce) or between different parts of the same country (domestic commerce); trade; business.

2. social relations, esp. the exchange of views, attitudes, etc.

3. sexual intercourse.

4. intellectual or spiritual interchange; communion.

5. ( initial capital letter ) Also called Commerce Department. Informal . the Department of Commerce.

art1    /ɑrt/ Show Spelled[ahrt] Show IPA

–noun

1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.

2. the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria; works of art collectively, as paintings, sculptures, or drawings: a museum of art; an art collection.

3. a field, genre, or category of art: Dance is an art.

4. the fine arts collectively, often excluding architecture: art and architecture.

5. any field using the skills or techniques of art: advertising art; industrial art.

Commercial music - intended for mass distribution and the making of profit.

Art music - not intended for mass distribution and the making of profit, but rather "the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance"

Apparently.

Is there overlap? Probably. Commercial music can be "artistic", art music can have "commercial" elements, however the distinction here is in the intent. Is Lady Gaga out there to sell records? You betcha. Is Tristan Murail? Not that I know of.

Yes, Bjork, for example, does some "artsy-fartsy", occasionally bitonal, stuff. But the bottom line is that her records are being mass produced, she was signed to a label to sell, and someone there is turning a big profit. Boom, commercial music. Yes, you can buy mass produced CDs of "classical" music, but the intent of the composer was not "oh, this is going to be recorded and mass-produced", the composer was writing for the concert hall.

It's like "commercial" art vs. "museum" art. Commercial art = magazines, TV commercials, other kinds of ads. "Museum" art is not intended for that kind of distribution, but rather to be shown in a gallery, etc.

I guess its a it-comes-to-you vs. you-go-to-it kind of thing.

Yes, its nice to put everything on the same level and say there is no "commercial" and no "art", but different music is produced to serve these different functions.

Now, that being said, I don't know that there has to necessarily be the same kind of distinction between "high-brow" and "low-brow". I mean, I'd go ahead and say that Public Enemy's It Takes a Nation of Million's to Hold Us Back is a bigger, and infinitely more important, artistic statement than Mendelssohn's Elijah, but that's just me (I'm sure I just offended a whole bunch of you).

It is important to note that "commercial" music seems to have a way bigger cultural impact than "art" music, whether you classical composers like it or not.

Yes, there is a whole lot of overlap. But I think the distinction is still pretty clear.

The distinction is in the "intent", eh??

So, Lady Gaga set out to write lyrics and music to express her views (political, social, w/e). She worked with industry professionals for a while providing various assistance where other artists were concerned. Those artists, through their connections, helped her get signed and go mainstream. That's good business, but it speaks nothing for "intent" on her part. She might have written many of these "popular" songs with purely aesthetic intent with no expectation of any particular one topping the charts. To say that commercial music is created for the masses more or less ignores where the inspiration often comes from in writing these tunes, because it definitely doesn't come from market research, which usually only comes AFTER the final product exists. It comes from existing music within the genre. In most cases, it's someone listening to and appreciating a tune while thinking in the back of their mind that they would do it differently. I believe that ignoring this is tantamount to self-deception, because we all tend to have similar moments of inspiration through listening to works we individually consider to be superior in some way within our genre. It's no different in this "commercial" world of music, as some call it.

We don't -know- the intent of any artist unless they explicitly, honestly state their intent. I haven't heard of many successful artists that explicitly state that their intent in a particular tune was to make lots of money - I realize in the world of rap, at least for a while, this was actually a theme of many albums (making money = higher respect), but that's more of a cultural phenomenon than an artistic issue. Nonetheless, the "intent" of an artist is a moot point. I can state my music is -not- intended to be heard "as art" and people might actually still consider it art. "Commercial" and "Art" music are just words with empty meanings created to make distinctions in music of the past that have no business being made today.

“Lady Gaga,” according to Lady Gaga, was a nickname given by her LES compatriots (as she told Oprah), something Fusari mistakenly called her once in a text message (as she told Rolling Stone), an homage to Queen’s song “Radio Gaga” (general lore). Actually, it was the result of a marketing meeting.

“That was the name we decided on before we started shopping to the record labels,” says a former collaborator, who asked not to be named.

http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/music/who_that_lady_CBlHI927dRlLmIwjVfGrwK/0

That sounds pretty commercial to me.

I never said there was NO artistry. Otherwise it wouldn't be "commercial" art.

I haven't heard of many successful artists that explicitly state that their intent in a particular tune was to make lots of money - I realize in the world of rap, at least for a while, this was actually a theme of many albums (making money = higher respect), but that's more of a cultural phenomenon than an artistic issue.

You need to listen to some more hip-hop.

Again, that is my opinion. You can disagree all you want and pretend that you're above everyone else for not seeing a distinction between "commercial" and "art" music (at least that's the way you're coming off, especially with statements like "I've found that the further people go into being 'intellectual' about something, the less informed they tend to be about it") -- your opinion here is just as valid as mine. There's nothing here for you to correct. I'm not over here making factually incorrect statements about the harmonic series or something like that. :musicwhistle:

That's the way I think. You're not going to change it. If you'd like to discuss it, I'd be more than willing. But, and maybe it's only based on previous encounters, it seems like you just want to prove me wrong.

Anyway, since opinions seem to not be valid in an opinion based topic, I'm out.

EDIT:

BTW, would you then put 2 Live Crew on the same level as Mozart?

I've discovered for myself that I tend to think of commercial music as music with a beat. I know this has nothing to do with definitions or aesthetics or art or anything, but I have just noticed this trend in my thinking. Both of the links in the OP I consider to be commercial music and they don't they came very close to "art music" or "classical music". They both had distinctive beats and they kept me from considering them art music, no matter how artful they where (and I did like both of them, thanks for sharing.) Yes, I consider Bieber and Gaga to be art - I don't care, it's still art. I even like Gaga and HATE Bieber, but they're both art to me. Are they both commercial to me? Yes, they have drum beats and repeated chord progressions so even those they're artful they aren't "art music" in my little mind. Does a waltz have a beat? Yes, but it's intended as dance music, commercial music is not. Yes, there is a grey area. No, I'm not going to defend my opinion, I just thought I'd share it.