Music: Art or Entertainment?

Setun

Is music an art form, or just entertainment, or both?
Should it be either?
This topic came to mind through an essay I've just finished (ah the relief! )
Any thoughts?

BaZmO*

It's definitely both. That's one of the reasons why it's regarded as the best of the Arts.

Rigsby

Music is what ever you want it to be IMO. It can be a comfort when you are feeling low , a challange ( e.g. playing an instrument ), can bring back memories you thought you'd long forgotten, and can add enjoyment to an occasion. To pigeon-hole it into an "either "-- "or" situation is missing the point IMO.

John

Well do you call a musician an entertainer or an artist?

Tar.Aldarion

Depends on the music, and what you get out of said music. I think it is both, either, or none.

Setun

Yeah, I think it's an interesting topic. For example I'd definitely call modern mainstream music entertainment (on the most part, I'd call it bad entertainment).

I'd say any music where they're not compromising their creativity to earn a quick € and trying to do something new would be art.

mike65

Its all art/Art it just depends if its capital A or not! Stuff that might be dismissed as 'entertainment' still needs to be artful if its to stand more than a single listen before being discarded.

Mike.

Setun

mike65 wrote:

Its all art/Art it just depends if its capital A or not! Stuff that might be dismissed as 'entertainment' still needs to be artful if its to stand more than a single listen before being discarded.

Mike.

True, but I feel a lot of the music we hear on 2fm for example during the day is just mindless advertising for the record companies - with a lot of it being music I'd definitley rather not listen to a second time. Many pop musicians, even if they actually have talent and not just a winning smile, are ruined by their company who don't give them a chance to make their own music. Profitability estimates are the golden rule, it would seem. Or am I too cynical?

mike65

It was always thus, the Monkees had actual talent but were'nt alowed to use it. I bet Elvis proberly could have knocked out very decent southern blues but there was no way Tom Parker was going to allow that to happen!

Mike.

Setun

Damn those record company execs with their authentic leather wallets and their profitability graphs.

EMI should take a bit of inspiration from Wilson's Factory records

Karl Hungus

First of all, thanks for an interesting topic, Daddio.

Anyway, music is subjective, it's malleable to a person. For some, it's merely something to dance to, for others it's something in the background, and for some it's something transcendental, spiritual, but for some it's mathmatical, strings vibrating at different speeds. So for some, it's art, and for others it's entertainment, and that goes for the people listening as well as the artists/preformers.

Personally, I think this and this is art, but a more cynical person may call it pretentious garbage. All I know is that when I listen to it, the incredible passion stirs me in a place that nothing else in the world can. Another person could be completely disinterested because it isn't something they can dance to (Well, you might dance to it if you're a ballet dancer), you know?

Thoughts? I'd be very interested in what other people think of the music I've linked to. What do you make of it? Is it art?

BaZmO*

Daddio wrote:

Yeah, I think it's an interesting topic. For example I'd definitely call modern mainstream music entertainment (on the most part, I'd call it bad entertainment).

I'd say any music where they're not compromising their creativity to earn a quick € and trying to do something new would be art.

There are plenty of what you would consider "traditional" artists that are in it just for the money. Andy Warhol was notorious for not paying people in cash, instead he would just knock up a piece and use that for payment instead. Does that make the rest of his work any less credible?

With regards to music, I'd say that it's all art and that it just depends to what degree you choose to judge it as art because it's so subjective.

Setun

True, it seems that it's almost impossible to define arts relation to music, as it also breachs the "what is art?" argument. And then there's also the "Was what Andy Warhol did art?" argument.
Andy Warhol imo was questioning people's conceptions of art, he isolated something as banal as a Campbells soup can or a kitchen knife, basically asking "is this not art?" I don't think Louis Walsh puts that much thought into his work tbh.
As for being paid in Warhol originals, I'd say they're laughing now.