27-06-2011, 10:10
I think art music strives to reach new depths while at the same time ridding itself of any entertaining aspects that music could have. Commercialism in art music is seen as a detrimental force. To a large extent, I agree. I think composers should remain true to their own artistic convictions, and if that means writing dissonant and complex music then they should have the opportunity to "get it out there".
On the flip side, I'm sure there are very few people in this world who don't like some form of music that entertains. This could be popular classical (a category that demands debate itself!), jazz, close-harmony singing, pop, rock, etc.
The situation we have is that art and commercial music are travelling in parallel lines, but travelling miles away from each other. My question to you is this: "Should art music be able to entertain and should commercial music try to reach new depths, or should the two musics just stay separate as they do now?"
On the flip side, I'm sure there are very few people in this world who don't like some form of music that entertains. This could be popular classical (a category that demands debate itself!), jazz, close-harmony singing, pop, rock, etc.
The situation we have is that art and commercial music are travelling in parallel lines, but travelling miles away from each other. My question to you is this: "Should art music be able to entertain and should commercial music try to reach new depths, or should the two musics just stay separate as they do now?"
