What defines 'art' in music?

[DJ Skrudge]

I was recently on a forum (not this one) and was discussing music as an art form. I was linked to the Wikipedia article for 'art music' which seems to suggest that not all music is art, and that pop music in particular is different to art music. Can someone correct my lack of musical knowledge here, if I'm wrong? Am I interpreting that entire article in completely the wrong way? Or am I correct in assuming that this is what the article suggests? Personally, I find that music is subjective, as is art. I don't think you can really put definitive labels on what is and isn't art. But meh, feel free to correct me if I'm off track and spouting nonsense.. here's the link to the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_music

[itroitnyah]

It's more of a formal type, or genre, of music, invites technical and detailed deconstruction and criticism, and demands focused attention from the listener.

Pop music, on the other hand, is more of vocals that are about sex, money and drugs, with drum loops.

[DJ Skrudge]

So art music is actually a genre? But then who's to say that pop music can't be complex and can't be technically deconstructed, etc etc?

[Dr_Dissonance]

I think art music is music you write with the ultimate desire for it to stimulate the listener.
Pop music is not art music because it is written primarily as a 'product' instead of 'art'. Whether you like it or not, pop music is written to sell more than to engage the listener.
Art music is written to evoke an emotional response. The wikipedia article is basically going down the elitist route of 'it needs to be musically complicated'. Whilst this effectively comes to the same conclusion as me, I think it needs a better definition, because there's plenty of simple things that are arty.
Take this for example:

Not exactly complicated is it? Performance-wise, it is, but the actual piece isn't. It's just rhythms juxtaposed over each other.
But why is this art music? Well, because it engages the listener in thought. All art music does. From old skool classical to contemporary classical, from jazz to even dubstep (well, depends who you listen to really), art music is music as it should be.
Other music, such as pop, can't be classified as art music because it is written as a product that fits the parameters needed to sell well. In a way, it's not about the music, but about the product they're selling.

And as a finality:

But then who's to say that pop music can't be complex and can't be technically deconstructed, etc etc?

Well you could do that, but if you made complex pop music, would it be pop music anymore? You could deconstruct 20 pop songs and get very similar results from each one. Personally I'd get very tired after the first few.
And who's to say pop music can't be these things? Well, if you call it pop music, then you are. Labelling it immediately puts it under restrictions that must define it as such. Calling it pop music means it must conform to the idea of pop music, otherwise it isn't.

[Fimbulin]

Art music is formal and should be considered as such. The great composers stretched the boundaries of the technical rules for music during their time, but doing that they created more flexibility in their music, expanding the rules.

Art music is most often labeled 'classical' or 'orchestral' to most people. Not as much folk or pop music is said to be art music- even though it can be analyzed- because it follows the rules of folk and pop music. It's easy to pick up a guitar and play folk music, and generally easy to pick up drum loops and create pop music. Art music is artistic for the quality of how the intervals and timing act together, the chord structures throughout a movement leading onto the next, the broad idea that the music is conveying, and portraying the concepts that the composer has constructed in his mind. That usually means training or applied interest and focus on musical theory and studies. All three of these groupings are acquired tastes. Some people like Beiber. Some people like Haydn. Some people like reels.

Here's a small list that's not 100% accurate for all songs but is generally correct:

Folk music: storytelling, jigs, simple chord sequences etc...
Pop music: emotionally performed, chord loops, determinable structure...
Art music: intellectually inspiring, creativity through musical ideas...


<edit: Dr. D beat me to it>

[XXDarkShadow79XX]

"Art" music?

Dafuq? Isn't all music art?

[DJ Skrudge]

"Art" music?

Dafuq? Isn't all music art?

This is what I first thought. In fact, it's still my belief now. But I can also see where Dr. Dissonance and Fimbulin are coming from, I guess. I just don't really like the idea of there being a line between music being art and being a product. Can't a musical work be both? But I suppose it really is a subjective area. Personally, I'm in favour of allowing every individual to decide for themselves what they consider to be art.

[ChocolateChicken]

All music is art. Whether it's good or not is an entirely different subject.

[Dr_Dissonance]

This is what I first thought. In fact, it's still my belief now. But I can also see where Dr. Dissonance and Fimbulin are coming from, I guess. I just don't really like the idea of there being a line between music being art and being a product. Can't a musical work be both? But I suppose it really is a subjective area. Personally, I'm in favour of allowing every individual to decide for themselves what they consider to be art.

Well, if you find the middle ground, then you're doing it right!
But there are plenty of pieces of music that occur on both ends of the spectrum. Whether you like it or not, that's how music is these days: either considered so arty it alienates a lot of people, considered a product so it sells well at the sacrifice of making something emotionally thoughtful, or anything else in between those two extremes.
Rather than argue my case, I'll let the big music databases do it for me.
Here is a paragraph on the article about art music from Grove Music Online:

"Today the terms “art music” and “classical music” frequently appear in quotes, one indication of their fraught status. While classical radio stations continue to cultivate audiences whose listeners they identify as more refined, the repertoire they play is significantly broader and more eclectic than what Mason or Root had in mind, even as the notion of its excellence and durability persists."

(Mason and Root are both musicologists who established the notions of 'folk', 'art' and 'popular')

So whilst the ideas of 'art' music are blurred compared to a few decades ago, they still exist. There are still boundaries. Some music, even with the blurred lines, just does not fall under the term of 'art' music.

[XXDarkShadow79XX]

Last time I checked, these were all art.

[Evine]

Art music is an umbrella term used to refer to musical traditions implying advanced structural and theoretical considerations and a written musical tradition.

Read the topic, this isn't about what constitutes "art" but rather "art music" as a separate genre.
I'll get back to this. When time is on my watch.

[DJ Skrudge]

I'm really sorry for any confusion I might have caused, I wanted to actually start a discussion about both music as an art form and art music, as I wasn't too sure on the differences between them. I don't really mind where the thread is going, this is actually really interesting!

[Dr_Dissonance]

Last time I checked, these were all art.

'art' music.

Two different things.

[DJ Skrudge]

Thank you for definitively clearing that up. Also, congrats, Dr. Dissonance, on 666 posts!

[Fimbulin]

Dr_Dissonance has 666 posts.

Mayan calendar.

Coincidence?