Music is "art"

[eSmith]

Wait a second there, Who says jazz isn't fun? if you think that, your doing it wrong.....

Everytime you play a note of your own in a rock song rather than the recorded or written note, you are improvising music and that is a direct attempt at jazz. all musicians who improvise in any style are emulating Jazz weather they admit it or not.

Personally I think adding your own improvised parts when they are appropriate is one of the things that makes music fun.

Matticus, It comes down to the product. Musicians don't create instruments (in general) and dishwashers don't create dishes. Musicians create music, dishwashers create clean piles of dishes.

Drivers don't create the car, they create the winning race results so it comes down to what you interpert as the product.

Like race results, on it's own, you can't hold music in your hands anymore that race results unless in both cases, they are written down or otherwise recorded.

That said, the clean dishes you can hold in your hand so the dishwasher might be said to be the only one creating anything of substance at all.

-eSmith.

 

[OneMoreRobot]

The only bands that bug me as far as art music are:

-Velvet Underground. Because they suck. Not a matter of opinion there. That girl CANNOT sing.

-Sonic Youth. I love Sonic Youth. Only problem is, I was awoken this morning to Koncertas Stan Brakhage Prisiminimui III, a 27 minute long song that sounded like meowing cats were stepping on guitars. I'm almost POSITIVE that's what it was. Not really that cool. Just very annoying.

 

[eSmith]

Jazz Ad, you got me thinking....

The textbook definition of "ART" provided by Kirkowitz seems to come back to "Skill" being a central property of "ART"

So. what about the guy who simply throws paint randomly at canvas? How does this then qualify as art? Or the Jazz artist (not musician) who never learned the skills required to play an instrument, let alone at the level required for Jazz, and through a complete lack of knowledge or understanding, begins claiming they are Jazz Artists because they incorectly equate random unconnected sounds and noise to represent what they mistakenly think is Jazz Music.

Somehow, these people still consider themselves artists but are missing the one defining quality the dictionary definition of "ART" seems to require???

If we required skill to be an artist, we just put 95% of the working "Artists" on the planet out of a profession.

How do we resolve that without concluding that ART "IS" definable and also that 99% of people don't have a clue what art REALLY is.

-eSmith.

 

[trayner1]

Art is all about perception. My opinion of art is anything that appeals to the senses. Except smell and touch. People will say something isn't art because it doesn't appeal to them. It pains me to say this, but...Kenny G is...*gulp*...*shutter*...a-a-art....
My favorite genre is jazz. That's what appeals to me the most. But I like at least some of EVERY genre of music. I'm listening to Russian hip-hop right now. Sure, jazz is very artistic sounding, but music is like painting, in that all of it is art, whether it be the Mona Lisa or a stick figure.

 

[ggunn]

-Velvet Underground. Because they suck. Not a matter of opinion there. That girl CANNOT sing.

Lou Reed is a girl?

 

[grovest]

I agree, music snobs get on my nerves as well! That being said, I've never thought that all music was, defacto, art.

 

[MatticusMania]

The only bands that bug me as far as art music are:

-Velvet Underground. Because they suck. Not a matter of opinion there. That girl CANNOT sing.

-Sonic Youth. I love Sonic Youth. Only problem is, I was awoken this morning to Koncertas Stan Brakhage Prisiminimui III, a 27 minute long song that sounded like meowing cats were stepping on guitars. I'm almost POSITIVE that's what it was. Not really that cool. Just very annoying.

Those are two of my all time favorite bands.

 

[JPSBassist]

As a form of expression, music can be an art form... but ultimately it is the intentions of the person or people making the music that matters.

And I think most people who would call themselves "musicians" go through phases.

Music can also be about having fun, making money, creating social dialog, expressing an emotion, getting people to pay attention to you... etc...

I think anyone who wants to define what something should mean to you or what you should think or feel about something is a first-class douchetard (FCDT). They can be snobs or they can be the downtrodden of society.

Use your own brain and decide for yourself what something means. How many bands put out albums you love and yet the critics blast them and say the album is horrible? So who cares?

You, as a "musician", should decide what your goal/goals are when you make music, especially if you are making it for public consumption. And there's no right or wrong answer as long as the answer you have works for you.

Gene Simmons had goals that his music would be a vehicle for his commercial aspirations.

Bob Dylan wanted to create social discourse on a wide-variety of topics that bothered him during a very socially turbulant time in our Country's history.

Trent Reznor is interested in the evolution of music through technology and how the old business models no longer work... he's searching for new ways to reach listeners... he now gives his music away.

And many, many more want to make loud music, get lots of attention, have groupies, and do anything and everything which makes them feel good.

It's all good.

Me? I make music purely for the release. It's how I relax after a long hard day. It's how I find refuge from all the thousands of little crappy things that make life such a challenge at times.

Do I think what I do is art? No. Art isn't my desired end-result.

 

[Noseferatu]

As a form of expression, music can be an art form... but ultimately it is the intentions of the person or people making the music that matters.

And I think most people who would call themselves "musicians" go through phases.

Music can also be about having fun, making money, creating social dialog, expressing an emotion, getting people to pay attention to you... etc...

I think anyone who wants to define what something should mean to you or what you should think or feel about something is a first-class douchetard (FCDT). They can be snobs or they can be the downtrodden of society.

Use your own brain and decide for yourself what something means. How many bands put out albums you love and yet the critics blast them and say the album is horrible? So who cares?

You, as a "musician", should decide what your goal/goals are when you make music, especially if you are making it for public consumption. And there's no right or wrong answer as long as the answer you have works for you.

Gene Simmons had goals that his music would be a vehicle for his commercial aspirations.

Bob Dylan wanted to create social discourse on a wide-variety of topics that bothered him during a very socially turbulant time in our Country's history.

Trent Reznor is interested in the evolution of music through technology and how the old business models no longer work... he's searching for new ways to reach listeners... he now gives his music away.

And many, many more want to make loud music, get lots of attention, have groupies, and do anything and everything which makes them feel good.

It's all good.

Me? I make music purely for the release. It's how I relax after a long hard day. It's how I find refuge from all the thousands of little crappy things that make life such a challenge at times.

Do I think what I do is art? No. Art isn't my desired end-result.

Best post of the entire thread, by far.

 

[DaveKirkpatrick]

I don't know about art, but I know what I like

 

[Dark Barn]

My first post.

Music IS Art.

What is art?

Well, to cover all the bases art is:

Anything created that infers to the audience the subjective will of a/the creator/s.

Any more rarefied analysis of what art means is generally elitist and subjective. There is no right answer that will suit the needs of every audience, I'm sure even mine will be called out as too narrow by someone here shortly.

Hello Talkbass

 

[bigtiny]

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"

....snip snip snip....

-eSmith.

Hmmmm....I would suggest to you that ALL music is organized, it just might not be organized in a traditional or well-understood way. I mean, composers like Varese and Antheil were interested in pushing the boundaries and using machines to create music (Antheil actually wrote for engines and such). Now, you may not LIKE their music, and one may not recognize the organization of their music because it's not traditional, but I guarantee you that after spending months or years composing a piece, the music is DEFINITELY organized.

I've spent years playing completely improvised music as a trumpet player. I've often heard people comment that the music doesn't seem to have any form. I tell them that the music, when performed well, always has form, it's just not a form that people are generally used to hearing...it takes a little work and openness to experience. But the form is there. Having form, or being organized doesn't mean that music has to adhere to classic or traditional forms...

bigtiny

 

[baalroo]

"Art" is subjective, but that doesn't make it a worthless term. Rather, "art" is a term that describes intent. Anything can be "art" if the intention of it's creator was to make art. If you don't understand that fundamental concept then IMO it's your own loss.

That being said, an endeavor doesn't have to be "art" to have worth, obviously. Personally I prefer music that is intended as art, it just resonates with me better. I would also openly state if asked that I didn't like a particular song if I got the impression from listening that artistry was not occuring. I've often been in this exact situation and as a result been called a "music snob," but quite frankly, the only thing that makes someone a "music snob" is putting down other people for the kind of music they like. IOW, someone who thinks thinks there's something deficient about me for only liking "artsy music" is the actual "snob" because they believe their opinion of music is superior to mine.

 

[vlado]

all musicians who improvise in any style are emulating Jazz weather they admit it or not.

I respectfully disagree!

What about all the musicians through the centuries who have created so much of their music through improvisation (Chopin) much before jazz existed?

What about all the traditional music from all over the world based on improvisation for centuries (Indian, Mongolian...), composed and played by people who never had any idea about jazz?

 

[djero44]

Shirley MacLaine spoke at the opening of the New Mexico School of the Arts opening last Tuesday, which i'm fortunate enough to say my daughter is attending. She gave a definition of art which was quite striking (though she did say she got it off the web somewhere!).

"Art is mans attempt to preserve his imagination against time."

I like this a lot!


This is a very interesting thread. I met a guy a few days ago who was planning on going to art school but decided he didn't want to be immersed in a bunch of people all taking themselves too seriously, so he continued with other pursuits. This seems to exemplify some of the different approaches to music described in the original post. I tend to be one of those types of "artists" who gets carried away with the "higher" intentions, but I also think making music for fun is very much an art, and not one less worthy. I also agree that we should do what we feel called to do, and what makes us feel complete as musicians/artists. That is going to be very different from one person to the next! As for whether it is in tune or not, one need only look to more ancient forms of music that have very different tonalities than western music to derail that qualification. "In tune" is relative term, indeed. I personally see art in nature; though I suppose it is only my human perspective that gives any definition to what art is. I'm not so sure it is entirely limited to only our species though. That is something i'd like to look into more...

I love thinking about this stuff.

 

[Rudreax]

You guys do all know that music is a performance art, right? It's an art, plain and simple.

 

[Deluge Of Sound]

What about Merzbow? How do things like that factor into the discussion?