Posts: 34
Threads: 34
Joined: Apr 2011
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?"
Posts: 34,111
Threads: 3,390
Joined: Jul 2010
not sure that there is a definitive answer to your questions, its more an individual preference thing....no im not trying to sit on the fence!!
to me music is either good or bad, sometimes i like something to sink my teeth into lyrically, other times im happy just listening to people like Katy Perry,Gaga etc
...i havent really given you an answer at all have i?.....maybe i should again try to become a politician LOL
"BTO....Bachman,Turner,Overweight
They were big in the 70s....for five minutes,on a Saturday,after lunch..." - Me 2014.
Posts: 5,551
Threads: 146
Joined: Jan 2008
They should freely co-exist. If an artist's muse is to produce something demanding, then that's as it should be, and similarly lightweight entertainment doesn't need to be anything else.
"Writing about music is like dancing about architecture"
Unknown
Posts: 13,359
Threads: 236
Joined: May 2011
27-06-2011, 18:33
(This post was last modified: 27-06-2011, 23:54 by SteveO.)
Recently I have been attracted to the pop music scene - Jessie J, C Low Green, Bruno Mars, Adele and yes Lady GaGa. This music serves an important purpose - it entertains and brings joy to a majority, myself included and introduces them to music! Afterwards they may branch out to other genres. This music makes me feel good and is very accessable...around us all the time.
The Beatles attracted a world wide audience with pop songs ! Pink Floyd didn't go that route so they are not as well known albeit the exception Dark Side Of The Moon and The Wall which imo was a slight change in direction for the band......just one example. Another may be Genesis from Gabriel to post Gabriel. Geez I still meet people who think Pink Floyd is a male singer !!!!
I'm wondering if the thread of how music affects the brain explains this phenomena better. Like CH, I am answering your post,Cathy, but I don't feel I am answering your question !!!!
If your definition of "art music" is non-commercial music then my answer is "to each his own ". I appreciate all types of music and feel somewhat daft at times listening to Arvo Part and then The Monkees but that's the way my psyche is constructed......lol
The ultimate connection is between a performer and its' audience!
Posts: 9,650
Threads: 255
Joined: Jun 2010
OKCATHY1 Wrote: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?"
I agree - an artist should remain true to their own vision, otherwise it just a cop-out in order to become more acceptable to the mainstream. Great leaps in the progression of music are nearly always made by those who create the unusual. Then everyone else follows and they create a 'commercial' version in order to appeal to the masses.
Posts: 2,223
Threads: 359
Joined: Oct 2009
Nice to be able to go back to trust and friendship!!!!!!!!!
It's a mixed up sensation this being alive
Oh! it wears a man down into the ground
It's the strangest elation
I can't describe it
Oh it leaves a man weary
It makes a man frown..............................Chris Simpson ( "Mixed Up Sensations" 1975 Martin's Cafe )
Posts: 6
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2011
There's no reason why it can't do both, or why we can't enjoy both types. Also, if a piece of music is written to fulfill one type, there's nothing stopping us from appreciating it for the other reason.
Posts: 17
Threads: 1
Joined: Jul 2011
It should be on a curve from one piece to the next, and composed so that the major work is interesting.
Posts: 13,359
Threads: 236
Joined: May 2011
![[Image: m.jpg]](http://hotlink.myspacecdn.com/images01/64/ef89081eeef4051d89b141640d2d62f7/m.jpg)
Listened to this fabulous classical accordian player last night on national radio !!!!! JELENA MILOJEVIC
The ultimate connection is between a performer and its' audience!
