There are elitists in all genres of music. I know plenty of Nickelback fans who think that classical, jazz, country, & plenty of other genres suck. Where I live, anything with a fiddle or banjo & a mandolin will go over great; throw in some obscure "folk" instrument & it's even better. People like what they like, & generally think that what they don't like is somehow less deserving of appreciation. I can understand casual music fans being that way, but I know plenty of musicians like that, too, & you'd think they'd know better! Personally, I try to support & encourage my fellow brother & sister musicians regardless of whether their niche is what I happen to like, & hope that they'll do the same for me.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Music is "art"
- Thread starter Noseferatu
- Start date
Not to be too critical here but how is this DIFFERENT IN ANY WAY from the thread where the ditzy girl wanted all songs taylored to the various wines at a tasting?
Music and art are seperate things. (Remember Mr. Berlin)
Beat your instrument against a wall, you can call it art if you want because art is not a measurable thing, it's completely subjective (Think French Figure Skating)
Music on the other hand is measurable. Is it in tune? Is it in key? on time? etc....
Good musicians are good at music. Bad musicians are not. If you hold up a musical measuring stick, the reasons are obvious and irrefutable, if you hold up the art measuring stick it all becomes subjective, so you can make up any BS you like and put it forward.
Coonside this:
"I know it was out of tune and not on time but I did that on purpose because in my mind that is what rainbows sound like..."
This could be great art I guess but we would all agree it is bad music.
-eSmith.
Music is art and there are many types of art some people try to paint a masterpiece so it will hang in a museum one day and some people make hotel room art just like musicians some try to make every note count and some just make mindless pop different people appreciate each one and when it comes down to it the hotel/pop people probably make a lot more money
Not to be too critical here but how is this DIFFERENT IN ANY WAY from the thread where the ditzy girl wanted all songs taylored to the various wines at a tasting?
Music and art are seperate things. (Remember Mr. Berlin)
Beat your instrument against a wall, you can call it art if you want because art is not a measurable thing, it's completely subjective (Think French Figure Skating)
Music on the other hand is measurable. Is it in tune? Is it in key? on time? etc....
Good musicians are good at music. Bad musicians are not. If you hold up a musical measuring stick, the reasons are obvious and irrefutable, if you hold up the art measuring stick it all becomes subjective, so you can make up any BS you like and put it forward.
Coonside this:
"I know it was out of tune and not on time but I did that on purpose because in my mind that is what rainbows sound like..."
This could be great art I guess but we would all agree it is bad music.
-eSmith.
How obvious? I've watched kids doing a recital and was able to enjoy it, using your terms, artistically and musically even if there was the occasional mistake.
If I heard a statement like the rainbow guy, I'd probably assume that it wouldn't be good - but how can someone know definitively? The objective measures of western music don't necessarily mesh with other musical forms - which is correct? Which is better?
Moreover, is an acoustic piece which is technically correct necessarily good as art or music?
Is a computer controlled klaxon music if it it totally correct in terms of tone and timing? Is a fretless bass line not music if it isn't perfectly intonated(
)?Not to be too critical here but how is this DIFFERENT IN ANY WAY from the thread where the ditzy girl wanted all songs taylored to the various wines at a tasting?
Music and art are seperate things. (Remember Mr. Berlin)
Beat your instrument against a wall, you can call it art if you want because art is not a measurable thing, it's completely subjective (Think French Figure Skating)
Music on the other hand is measurable. Is it in tune? Is it in key? on time? etc....
Good musicians are good at music. Bad musicians are not. If you hold up a musical measuring stick, the reasons are obvious and irrefutable, if you hold up the art measuring stick it all becomes subjective, so you can make up any BS you like and put it forward.
Coonside this:
"I know it was out of tune and not on time but I did that on purpose because in my mind that is what rainbows sound like..."
This could be great art I guess but we would all agree it is bad music.
-eSmith.
Sooo...sculpture isn't art? It's just geometry, after all.
just because he plays music means he's right? not so sure about that...plus if this is in reference to the "can you teach art" thread, this isn't about teaching, it's about music *being* art, not if the art that some find inherent to the music is "artsy" enough for certain people to like it.
I hear less people ask those three questions compared to "does it sound good?" it seems the questions get subjective...heck "is it in tune?" is a relative question too--what if the whole band is 3 cents off perfectly in tune? they are out of tune but in tune with each other. It starts to get subjective.
Consider this:
"I know it was out of tune and not on time but I did that on purpose because in my mind that is what rainbows sound like..."
This could be great art I guess but we would all agree it is bad music.
would we all agree with that? what about the people who enjoy dissonance in music? what about the people who are consider that they are friends with the band, and they aren't serious listeners so they really don't care?
My response to the OP is that people will always have their own idea of what is and what isn't art. I went to the uptown minneapolis art fair and I wasn't impressed with most of the art I saw. Some things were cool, but most were uninspired to my eyes, drawing off overused "artsy" themes, and a lot were just not good. However, Everybody probably was thinking the same thing, but about different pieces. We all judge art based on our own experiences and perceptions. They do it, you do it, and I do it. We all do it.
I agree with the guy who says the OP is projecting because even the OP says the only "true artists" are jazz and classical. That assumes that "fun" bands don't consider what they are doing "art" or some form of self-expression. The "elitists" assume the same thing. Is classical music more "artsy"? i mean, they essentially are a cover band just as much as your local Van Halen cover band--they are playing music written by another band. If the "self-expression" aspect of playing beethoven is playing the same song but with "personalized" dynamics, then you could argue that modern cover bands do the same couldn't you?
Bryan R. Tyler
TalkBass: Usurping My Practice Time Since 2002
Staff member
Administrator
Gold Supporting Member
Supporting Member
- May 3, 2002
- 28,948
- 20,936
- Disclosures
- Reviewer: Bass Player Magazine
Not to be too critical here but how is this DIFFERENT IN ANY WAY from the thread where the ditzy girl wanted all songs taylored to the various wines at a tasting?
Music and art are seperate things. (Remember Mr. Berlin)
Beat your instrument against a wall, you can call it art if you want because art is not a measurable thing, it's completely subjective (Think French Figure Skating)
Music on the other hand is measurable. Is it in tune? Is it in key? on time? etc....
Good musicians are good at music. Bad musicians are not. If you hold up a musical measuring stick, the reasons are obvious and irrefutable, if you hold up the art measuring stick it all becomes subjective, so you can make up any BS you like and put it forward.
Coonside this:
"I know it was out of tune and not on time but I did that on purpose because in my mind that is what rainbows sound like..."
This could be great art I guess but we would all agree it is bad music.
-eSmith.
You're misquoting Jeff Berlin. He says the teaching and learning of music and art should be separate. While this is IMO faulty thinking, he never said the two are different when creating music, and I highly doubt he would ever think that way. Music is in no way measurable the way you are trying to claim it is. There are literally millions of examples of great music that goes out of tune (non-Western music), out of key (jazz), and out of time (Asian folk, behind-the-beat R&B). If you're holding a measuring stick up to music, you're going to miss a whole of it that's really great that doesn't follow any of those rules.
Art. "High Art". "Low Art". Whatever. It's not ACCOUNTING. Spend time pursuing YOUR art, and spend less time complaining about it, and what anyone else thinks it is or isn't.
If a dog craps on your lawn, it could be considered ART by some... Can it be considered music? No, there is a rule that says music is audable so you can evaulate ANYTHING to determine if it is music, not so with art.
I never once quoted Jeff Berlin so you are mistaken to suggest I Misquoted someone I haven't quoted. Anyone who followed Jeff's posts knows full well he reserved all comment regarding anyones "ART" and limited his comments to the measurable aspects of music. This is in no way incorrect and is all I am referring to.
Classical musicans do not create ART any more that a child who fills in a paint by the numbers picture. Does READING a novel make you a creative writer? What if you read it out loud and enunciate the words differently, are you a creative writer creating ART then?
Joey said "Define "art"."
Well, my point is you can't. Am I wrong? I Don't think so, anyone can claim anything as art. Music is different. Music is measurable. My point was related to the quote I did put in my post in which the poster said he plays in (Tonal)Colours.
Now, regarding that, I think any attempt to quantify that statment is going to fail on the basis of there being no measurable corelation between music and color.
If we took the visible color spectrum and put it alongside the detectable sound spectrum and corelated it so a specific colour was equated to A440 then perhaps we would have a method to take any frequency of colour and determine it's equal frequency in the sound spectrum. Then, if you said, play red, we could do that. Until we do, red to me could be at the opposite end of the sound spectrum than it is to anyone else. This renders a compairson between music and colour completely meaningless.
Music and color.... Music and art.... Music and wine.... Music and jellyfish, all the same, no relation.
Art is just a word that means "I created something and myself and others like it even if we don't have reasons why" Which is just fine.
And to the guy asking if sculpture is art (???) of course it can be considered art, but it CANNOT be considered music.
ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING can be considered "ART" Which is EXACTLY why it means NOTHING.
Respectfully,
-eSmith.
I never once quoted Jeff Berlin so you are mistaken to suggest I Misquoted someone I haven't quoted. Anyone who followed Jeff's posts knows full well he reserved all comment regarding anyones "ART" and limited his comments to the measurable aspects of music. This is in no way incorrect and is all I am referring to.
Classical musicans do not create ART any more that a child who fills in a paint by the numbers picture. Does READING a novel make you a creative writer? What if you read it out loud and enunciate the words differently, are you a creative writer creating ART then?
Joey said "Define "art"."
Well, my point is you can't. Am I wrong? I Don't think so, anyone can claim anything as art. Music is different. Music is measurable. My point was related to the quote I did put in my post in which the poster said he plays in (Tonal)Colours.
Now, regarding that, I think any attempt to quantify that statment is going to fail on the basis of there being no measurable corelation between music and color.
If we took the visible color spectrum and put it alongside the detectable sound spectrum and corelated it so a specific colour was equated to A440 then perhaps we would have a method to take any frequency of colour and determine it's equal frequency in the sound spectrum. Then, if you said, play red, we could do that. Until we do, red to me could be at the opposite end of the sound spectrum than it is to anyone else. This renders a compairson between music and colour completely meaningless.
Music and color.... Music and art.... Music and wine.... Music and jellyfish, all the same, no relation.
Art is just a word that means "I created something and myself and others like it even if we don't have reasons why" Which is just fine.
And to the guy asking if sculpture is art (???) of course it can be considered art, but it CANNOT be considered music.
ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING can be considered "ART" Which is EXACTLY why it means NOTHING.
Respectfully,
-eSmith.
Music is a subcategory of art.
Art isn't a subcategory of music.
I saw a red car, that doesn't mean everything which is red is a car...
I'd say both are art. Just because they are following boundaries, doesn't mean the end result isn't an artistic expression.
The reading analogy is a bit crass, of course reading doesn't make you a creative writer. Just like listening to music doesn't make you a musician.
Also, if someone gets a degree in music. The vast majority of the time it's a "Bachelor of Art".
Hmmmm...not sure about the point your trying to make here.
Music is an inherently artistic activity in that it is creative...anybody who composes or interprets a musical idea is engaging in the act of creativity (though often to different degrees). Classical musicians generally are interpreters, jazz musicians, at least the real heavies are generally creators, but they all engage in the creation of art.
I'm not sure what you mean by "Art is indefinable, but music is not..."
The best definition I've ever heard for music is by Edgard Varese - "Music is organized sound" Any other meaning is purely subjective -- for some Mozart is music, Hendrix is not. For others Georges Antheil is music and Lawrence Welk is not.
As far as color<->music. The term 'color' is not usually meant literally when referring to music. It usually refers to a particular mood or timbre that a piece of music imbues. I don't think there's any basis for a literal comparison of colors in relation to music.
bigtiny
I don't separate art from entertainment. The best of both has aspects of both.
Also, a great pop song is better art than a pompous concerto that stinks.
Some people do overestimate the importance of it though.
But don't compare a serious musician with someone who just wants to do it for kicks. That's like comparing a backyard game of wiffle ball to the World Series.
Also, a great pop song is better art than a pompous concerto that stinks.
Some people do overestimate the importance of it though.
But don't compare a serious musician with someone who just wants to do it for kicks. That's like comparing a backyard game of wiffle ball to the World Series.
i disagree
...here's why.i'll have a stab at defining art: it's people expressing meaning through a medium.
you can also get meaning from people reinterpreting an existing work - like classical musicians playing a piece written by some long-dead hairy dude. it'll be different each time.
...or 12-bar blues. how many times has that been played? but each time, the people who are playing it are saying something slightly different.
the word 'art' sometimes gets people's hackles up IMO because there is a lot of baggage and pretension that goes with it. but it's a basic word for everything from cave paintings to rock 'n' roll.
oh and the dog/lawn thing is not a goer
...not any of the 'works' i've seen, anyway...
Consider This:
Thats my point. You can substitute in just about any subject and it means the same.
I see your point BigTiny regarding colour being used instead of the word dynamics which is a correct and proper musical term. However I do see it as a less decriptive substitution.
And your quote that "Music is organized sound" Well, I completely agree there and that could be a whole discussion on its own. "organized" is very definable and we can look at traits in music and define CLEARLY what is "organized" and what is not. To me, this is not a good example to use if you are describing music as "Subjective"
To Mohawk, if you think it all the way through (as well as consider your statment that
EVERYTHING produced EVER is a subcatagory of Art.
Now when something is as wide open as that to interpretation, then it is called a GENERALIZATION. And holds no real specific meaning.
"That music is artistic" doesn't mean anything, Your wasting your breath and just filling the silence with noise to say it out loud.
"That music is in the key of Dm" on the other hand actually says something and imparts information that is useful.
Don't get me wrong guys, It's not at all important to me that anyone agrees with me or even if I am the correct one here.
I would welcome anyone to correct me by giving me a concrete reason to consider ART a meaningfull description of anything. I would love to see where the line is drawn that determines, without question what is good and what is bad art. Sadly, there is none I am aware of.
Seriously though, I'm board at work, almost at the end of my day, my tasks are done and I'm killing time. I find it interesting to "Debate" in a friendly manner and it may seem I'm ALWAYS playing devils advocate but please understand I am never ARGUING with you.
I really find a one sided discussion where everyone is agreeing with each other to be pretty boaring to read, but that doesn't have to ever be personal.
Have a great day guys!
-eSmith.
Thats my point. You can substitute in just about any subject and it means the same.
I see your point BigTiny regarding colour being used instead of the word dynamics which is a correct and proper musical term. However I do see it as a less decriptive substitution.
And your quote that "Music is organized sound" Well, I completely agree there and that could be a whole discussion on its own. "organized" is very definable and we can look at traits in music and define CLEARLY what is "organized" and what is not. To me, this is not a good example to use if you are describing music as "Subjective"
To Mohawk, if you think it all the way through (as well as consider your statment that
, Then
EVERYTHING produced EVER is a subcatagory of Art.
Now when something is as wide open as that to interpretation, then it is called a GENERALIZATION. And holds no real specific meaning.
"That music is artistic" doesn't mean anything, Your wasting your breath and just filling the silence with noise to say it out loud.
"That music is in the key of Dm" on the other hand actually says something and imparts information that is useful.
Don't get me wrong guys, It's not at all important to me that anyone agrees with me or even if I am the correct one here.
I would welcome anyone to correct me by giving me a concrete reason to consider ART a meaningfull description of anything. I would love to see where the line is drawn that determines, without question what is good and what is bad art. Sadly, there is none I am aware of.
Seriously though, I'm board at work, almost at the end of my day, my tasks are done and I'm killing time. I find it interesting to "Debate" in a friendly manner and it may seem I'm ALWAYS playing devils advocate but please understand I am never ARGUING with you.
I really find a one sided discussion where everyone is agreeing with each other to be pretty boaring to read, but that doesn't have to ever be personal.
Have a great day guys!
-eSmith.
