Art music vs. Commercial music

How does "being intended as dance music" make a difference? Can there be no commercial disco, techno, whatever? Isn't it often exactly the existence of a beat that separates music "meant as a dance" from other kinds of music?

And is most baroque music commercial (a basso continuo, especially when played by a harpsichord, often provides quite a strong beat), while a lot of later music isn't?

Of course, historically speaking, you even have somewhat of a point in making a distinction based on having beats: In medieval and renaissance music, the vocal sacred music was considered the "high art" whereas instrumental music that often contained much stronger "beats" was more seen as "mere entertainment", and this separation did somewhat carry over the centuries. But only through the connection beat -> dance -> entertainment. I'm not sure where "commerce" or "art" actually enter the field.

What is the point of making a distinction? Can't a popular song be a song in the style of hip-hop, not "commercial art" or something?

I want to know the point of doing it. I have no interest in giving someone grief over their opinion of commercial or art music. I happen to believe there is no point for making the distinction, so if you think there's a reason to make the distinction, let's hear it. I think the point of (or how about the "reason" for) calling some music "commercial" and other music "art" is debatable.

C'mon guys...

There is no such thing as "non-art"...

Even the most commercially geared endeavours are artistic at their core and while the artistry may not be evident to you, can you all not concede that there's always an underlying art inherent in their creation?

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.

1. Saying some isn't an artist because they don't write their own music is knd of ridiculous. Does a symphony orchestra performing Mahlers 3rd fail to be art because Mahler himself is not playing it?

2. I am not sure if Lady Gaga writes all of her own music or not, but I do know she has written a lot of songs for ther artists as well as herself.

So....What you just did was claim that the music that you personally like is art, and that music that you personally hate is not art.

What's the point in valuing some art more than other art (i.e. art music over commercial music, or Radiohead over Justin Beiber for that matter), when appreciating them all would make your life that much better?

What's the point in valuing some art more than other art (i.e. art music over commercial music, or Radiohead over Justin Beiber for that matter), when appreciating them all would make your life that much better?

My life wouldn't be better if I listened to Justin Bieber.

The way we value art is a personal and highly subjective thing, and some "arts" a surely not going to be appreciated by everyone - nor should they be. The difference is when folks who don't appreciate something as art, still can't see how it can be artistic. I appreciate the artistry in something without appreciating the end result. I can respect the guys who write Bieber's songs, and the guy who played bass on the track, and the producer and engineers and Bieber himself as artists, without having to value it equally alongside Miles Davis, or Duke Ellington, or Tom Waits, etc...

It's a personal opinion - somethings are inherently more important/powerful/valuable to me as an artist. This doesn't diminish the value of something I don't like, it just means the art isn't something that factors into my own scope of "what's meaningful to me" ...

I can try to play devil's advocate on this a bit, just to liven things up... no guarantees that it will be a very rich discussion, though.

It's possible to make a case for the distinction between art and commercial music if we factor in what is, perhaps, customary or traditional in how different styles of music within these categories come together from a social point of view. For example, the commercial realm of music is largely funded on the private business side. The artistic realm is largely funded by grants from donors or through social programs funded by tax dollars and so forth. It's difficult to make this so general though, because the source of a commission could just as likely come from a private business for an artistic work of music as a more commercially written piece of music could (at least in theory) end up being funded through taxes - think about an independent film being funded through some government grant awarded to a production company or something.

Considering the purpose for writing music in either a commercial or artistic environment, there are restrictions to the former more than the latter. That isn't to say there are no restrictions to artistic works, because quite frankly such restrictions are inversely applied in judging works for commissions, grants, etc. The difference might be more aligned to who generally imposes these restrictions. In the commercial realm, a director or producer might be the one calling the shots and the composer answers to them. In the artist realm, the composer really only answers to other qualified composers who judge the work on the basis of the music, not its use in a film, game, or other form of media/entertainment.

This could be a reasonable way to represent the distinction, but it still doesn't have anything to do with the "art" involved in either case. I think there are too many instances where a work that sounds like it belongs in a film soundtrack or something might be rejected more often by the academic establishment than a work written with contemporary methods of mixing electronics with live instruments, which appears to be one growing trend out of several in the art music world today. There are definitely preferences in both camps that tend to divide us instead of uniting us as artists. Still, neither camp has created a convincing argument that "art" music is any more artistic than "commercial" music. To do that, someone would need to make a convincing, agreeable argument for what criteria we should use for determining the "artistic worth" of music... and that's easier said than done, IMO.

What is the point of making a distinction?

Exactly, thank you. The problem only arises when we're asked to categorise music, such as is necessary on a site like Young Composers to make browsing specific music easier. If it weren't for that I don't give a damn what's what.

1. Saying some isn't an artist because they don't write their own music is knd of ridiculous. Does a symphony orchestra performing Mahlers 3rd fail to be art because Mahler himself is not playing it?

2. I am not sure if Lady Gaga writes all of her own music or not, but I do know she has written a lot of songs for ther artists as well as herself.

So....What you just did was claim that the music that you personally like is art, and that music that you personally hate is not art.

Not really, I was just saying, because Lady Gaga, And Justin Beiber are just in it for the money, fame, whatever, they aren't really art... But then again, who knows their real motives? I haven't met either of them, let alone know much about them. :P

[re Bieber & GaGa]...who knows their real motives? I haven't met either of them, let alone know much about them.

Precisely!

Now, if only you could only have said that without the other nonsense ;)

Also:

Lady GaGa. IS IN FACT, a supremely talented artist (see above). Why begrudge her for evolving as a musician/songwriter? She's applying herself in a lucrative way, but that hardly diminishes her music in any crative/artistic capacity.

Well, this depends on the individual and also their psychological profile. For example (for those who insist on separation), I think it could hardly be denied that the music of Bob Dylan, Roy Orbison, Nick Drake (among my favorite songwriters) is art; I think of them as highly personal and sincere artists. Pink Floyd means art, too.

Bob Dylan once said in an interview that he didn't have the desire and goal to be popular, it just happened, while he was actually doing what he wanted to do.

Precisely!

Now, if only you could only have said that without the other nonsense ;)

Also:

Lady GaGa. IS IN FACT, a supremely talented artist (see above). Why begrudge her for evolving as a musician/songwriter? She's applying herself in a lucrative way, but that hardly diminishes her music in any crative/artistic capacity.

Yeah, I just hate dance music... I find her music just plain annoying (except for maybe "Just Dance" if I'm in the right mood. :happy: Eh, still kind of annoying... )

I'll take a look at that video later.

Yeah, I just hate dance music... I find her music just plain annoying (except for maybe "Just Dance" if I'm in the right mood. :happy: Eh, still kind of annoying... )

Sounds like you loved Tik Tok by Kesha. How about anything by the Black Eyed Peas? <sarcasm>

I must admit, there are times I'm left to question what exactly is "artistic" in a popular song, but then again I don't go "clubbing" or anything either. So, I can at least resolve for myself that because I generally don't involve myself in the culture that enjoys that music, I can't expect myself to appreciate it for what artistry it might contain for someone who enjoys it.

That's enough for me to say, "It's not my place to say what is and is not 'art'."

Back in the 80s to 90s, I listened to Arrested Development, specifically a song called "Tennessee," and I thought it was awesome. Today, I don't even know why, but it doesn't matter. I appreciated it at the time, and that was enough.

EDIT: Hehe... found a vid.

Sounds like you loved Tik Tok by Kesha. How about anything by the Black Eyed Peas? <sarcasm>

I must admit, there are times I'm left to question what exactly is "artistic" in a popular song, but then again I don't go "clubbing" or anything either. So, I can at least resolve for myself that because I generally don't involve myself in the culture that enjoys that music, I can't expect myself to appreciate it for what artistry it might contain for someone who enjoys it.

That's enough for me to say, "It's not my place to say what is and is not 'art'."

Back in the 80s to 90s, I listened to Arrested Development, specifically a song called "Tennessee," and I thought it was awesome. Today, I don't even know why, but it doesn't matter. I appreciated it at the time, and that was enough.

Yeah, I suppose that about sum up my opinion, except not every pop song, just the cookie cutter top 40 songs. :happy:

I would just like to point out that (as far as I know) most composers of "art music" rely largely on commissions for their composition output. If you're good at this then you probably try to glean as much information from the commissioner as possible on what they want from you.

So even writing "art music" for some form of payment makes it "commercial".

Furthermore, how did Mozart make a living? It wasn't creating works of art (i.e. "Mozart - You have created this wonderful piano sonata, here's 50 pounds!), it was creating music for whomever his patron was at the time (this music may or may not have had artistic intent, but it was still created for a purpose other than the sole creation of music.)

And for those of you that rail against pop music for "sounding all the same", have you listened to all 41 of Mozart's symphonies straight in a row? If so, then I'm sure you'll be able to recall which is which immediately, as they all have completely different feelings and moods and artistic motives to each them. :)

I would just like to point out that (as far as I know) most composers of "art music" rely largely on commissions for their composition output. If you're good at this then you probably try to glean as much information from the commissioner as possible on what they want from you.

So even writing "art music" for some form of payment makes it "commercial".

Furthermore, how did Mozart make a living? It wasn't creating works of art (i.e. "Mozart - You have created this wonderful piano sonata, here's 50 pounds!), it was creating music for whomever his patron was at the time (this music may or may not have had artistic intent, but it was still created for a purpose other than the sole creation of music.)

And for those of you that rail against pop music for "sounding all the same", have you listened to all 41 of Mozart's symphonies straight in a row? If so, then I'm sure you'll be able to recall which is which immediately, as they all have completely different feelings and moods and artistic motives to each them. :)

I think that when people are asked about a genre they don't know much about/haven't listened to much, they often say "It all sounds the same!" For example, I used to think all classicail sounded the same, until I really got into it.

Concerning the discussed subject of art music being created to express oneself and commercial music being created to make money, I'd disagree strongly. How would you classify Bach? Or Palestrina? Or Wagner? Classical art or Commercial?

No doubt classical art music? But isn't it true that Bach composed most of his pieces for religious purposes, they were commissioned of him? Bach's job required him to instruct the students of the Thomasschule in singing and to provide weekly music at the two main churches in Leipzig, St. Thomas and St Nicholas. Didn't most of classical masters work under patronage, and were paid for their works?

Wouldn't that put them in the commercial music group? After all they made money out of it... it must be commercial!

It's not all that black and white. I make money out of music, but I never look at it as a job. I'm not selling an industrial product, I'm selling art. Just like great painters sell paintings, like great architects sell their expertise in building. I don't see why it is impossible for a musician to make art and make money from that art. If that were impossible we would all need to have other jobs and make music a hobby, after all, we must put some food on our tables. And those of us with academic diplomas could just hang them as a decoration on the wall since we clearly wasted most of our young lives learning something that can never be used to make an honest living without accepting the grim fact that we sold ourselves and are artists no more. That is of course before we all go to artistic hell where we will be tortured by cacophony, cubism and boiled in a pot for all eternity along with Bach, Mozart, Michelangelo and Elvis.