Talk:Art music

Jazz

I'm no musicologist but i am a performing jazz musician and I don't understand, based on the criteria illustrated in this discussion page, why any type of Jazz is considered art music. Can someone explain this in better detail? What "subgenres" of Jazz? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KjtheDj (talk • contribs) 01:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Jazz & The Concept of Art Music

Which sub-genres of jazz are (at least for the most part) considered art music? This distinction is incredibly important, especially if the article is going to assert Phillip Tagg's classification of music into art, folk and popular traditions. Certain types of jazz certainly do not fit into the popular and folk categories.

There really needs to be some sort of discussion of the discrepancies and debate between different definitions of art music. Strong arguments are made against the tenets of art music as described by Phillip Tagg. Jazz by musicians from Charles Mingus to Wynton Marsalis, again, are not pop or folk but still do not meet Tagg's rules for art music. Several other musical traditions are the same way. In fact, the category of art music has been attacked increasingly because what qualifies as "advanced structural and theoretical considerations" is a matter largely of opinion. Clearly the definition used in this article favors European tradition and makes little or no mention of the musical traditions of the rest of the world, many of which also do not qualify as folk or pop music. Just a mention of this would be greatly appreciated.

Math is nerdy

This music is associated with, and often compared to, fine art and high culture, sometimes leading to accusations of haughtiness

This does not contribute meaningfully to the article because you could just as validly make such a comment about all classical music (modern or not), serious theater, the visual arts, as well as just about any pursuit primarily occuring in educated circles or academic contexts (like conservatories and universities). If you keep the above sentence, you might as well add to the mathematics page that "Math is nerdy."

Michaeljancsy 17:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Experimental music and Contemporary serious music are not the same thing

I undid this edit: [1] because not all experimental music is contemporary serious music. There is a significant overlap between the two, but there is some experimental music that is not considered to be contemporary serious music.

Here is an example: When the Grateful Dead improvised in their renowned "space" sections of their concerts, they were certainly creating a form of experimental music. They were doing things that had never been done before, to make sounds never heard before, and their audience was enjoying it as a new and interesting form of music. While it's possible that some would consider that to be contemporary serious music, there is a significantly high probability that most musicologists would not classify it that way.

It seems to me that the article should keep that distinction clear.

I'm not refusing to consider your viewpoint, but if you feel strongly about it and want to make your edit again, please discuss your reasons here.

Thanks. --Parzival418 _Hello 07:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello, first, please excuse my crappy english, as this is not my mother's tongue.

Sorry, for editing your input without discussing it here first.

I'm a musicologist and I indeed don't consider Grateful Dead's music as art music.

In fact the problem is the general confusion about the " Experimental music" meaning. Basically in its strict meaning a the term is supposed to refer to contemporary music exclusively, but with the apparition of diverse experimental popular music ( such as Avant-rock, Avant-jazz, avant-garde metal), the terme seems to have been extended . Basically in Europe in the 50s the term was first refering to concrete, electronic and electoacoustic music and in a larger sense to any Avant-garde music (even though some reject the term) however in the United stated, in the 60ties the term was used in a more restrictive meaning, it was applied to art music which is freer and more unpredictable as opposed to the established avant-garde serious music . Btw the experimental music is regarded in that sense in the wiki article beside it is classified as a subgenres of contemporary music in the wiki article

I have checked my encyclopedias. And it seems to confirm that. Basically the "experimental music" word is supposed to refer to forms of contemporary music . However nowadays, some tend to consider the experimental music as an umbrella term including the experimental and avant-garde popular music. Here's the heart of the confusion, I think.

Anyway what I propose I propose is to deal to avoid confusion the following way:

As for the minimalist music, personnaly I would consider it as Art music, because it definitely descends from tradtional art music tradition, but I know there are a lot of controversy about this, because of the minimalist nature of the music which can be even more elementary than popular music.

[...]

• Classical music, whether European classical music or others appearing in the List of classical music styles
• Contemporary serious music, including electronic art music, experimental (art) music and minimalist music
• Some forms of Jazz, excluding most forms generally considered to be Popular music.

Btw I provided some source. As for the rest I agree with what you added, but I let you add some appropriate sources to the extra parts You've just added if you can. If I have time I'll try to fullfil some of them with some english speaking sources.

Regards

Alpha Ursae Minoris 16:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanations, your help with the article and the references is appreciated and your recent edits have made good improvements. I agree with your comments about keeping experimental music and minimalist music as part of art music and separate from popular music. Just because music is elementary, as you mentioned regarding minimalist music, that does not imply it is a form of popular music, it is still a form of Art music, even though it may seem too simple for that to some.

By the way, a short editing detail: I fixed the formatting on your bullet list. If you begin a line with a space as you had done, it creates a large box, like this:

* this is what a line starting with a space looks like.

So, when you use a * to make a bullet list, put it at the far left, or put a colon first to indent, but not a blank space. --Parzival418 _Hello 06:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah thanks for the explaination. Actually I used this stuff on purpose, I wanted to underline one thing. Whatever...I've just noticed I've unvolontary deleted some parts of my last message. So here I repost it here.

Considering minmalist music is art music and is part of contemporary music.

Considering when we refer to experimental in this art music context, we refer to the original experimental(art) music exclusively.

Considering this music is also a part of the contemporary music.

I suggest to classify the thing like this:

• Classical music, whether European classical music or others appearing in the List of classical music styles
• Contemporary serious music, including electronic art music, experimental (art) music and minimalist music.
• Some forms of Jazz, excluding most forms generally considered to be Popular music.

RegardsAlpha Ursae Minoris 13:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Traditional music or Folk music?

AUM, while I agreed with almost all of your edits so far, one of your edits did not match the organization scheme we've been working on at Music genres, so I changed that one. We've been trying to make our terminology more consistent across the various music articles, so we have been using the term "traditional music" rather than "folk music."

I would be interested in your thoughts on this. We made that change because since the 1960's, especially in the USA, Folk music has become part of Popular music and lost some of its original purity in the process. In other words, the traditional meaning of folk music, as music that is passed on through the generations usually by ear, is lost when a popular song that sounds like folk music is actually called folk music. This dilutes the meaning of the term folk music. So we are using the term Traditional music as a catagory that includes true folk music as well as traditional musics of other cultures. Your help with unraveling these confusions would be appreciated here or on any of the pages I linked in this note. Thanks. --Parzival418 _Hello 07:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, though the term "folk" may be often used as a synonymous, the term "traditional" is indeed the most appropriate and the most acurate. It is necessary to make that distinction clear.Alpha Ursae Minoris 13:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear editor: The terminology used to describe certain kind of music has become more and more blurred and confused than ever. As a musician myself I'd rather see more clearer and simpler terms, especially when the so-called Art music is concerned. I'll here give my 2 cents for your consideration:

1. The term Art Music(or Serious Music)should be used in general to describe any musicn that is composed, written, and notated in standardized western form of notation,includes music originated in ancient Greece and Rome, from the Medieval ,Baroque, through Classical,Romantic period,20 century music and onwards,that music is performed mainly by traditional yet standardized wenstern instruments such as violin, cello,trumpet, oboe, harp, and various forms of percussions,with basically bel canto singing style. Such types of music are not to be alterred,improvised in any considerable way other than is indicated or implied by composers themselves. In all, Art Music must have a relatively long history that is stuided, taught by most schools, and recognized in many parts of the developed world as such and have a true sense of lineage or legacy.

2. Under the above general term, Art Music can be devided in several genres: Baroque, Classical, Romantic, postromantic, and modern or new music; it can also be termed as Traditional Music, that is,composed and performed traditionally with traditional but standard western instruments by professionals, with traditional western form of notation, as comapared with folk music of various countries which is mainly done by memory by unprofessional folk musicians.

3. Obviously, most Art Music derived from various kind of folk traditions (or even popular music)from various countries. For example, a western composer may use a Chinese tune or melody for writing his orchestral work or art song, and you simply can't call it a "Chinese music" other than a variation on a Chinese tune or something. It still is a western Art Music, the same situation happened to Gershwin when he incorporated Jazz elements into his orchestral music. Borrowing other forms or elements of music in writing Art Music has been a long and strong tradition of most western Traditional Music composers.

4. True, there may well be some other styles of music that can classified as "Art Music", but they are either remote branches or imitations of the original; then there are also mixtures of both styles, especially when we speak about the modern day music activities, where various types of musicians that would come together to combine traditional, folk, or electronic instruments for the kinds of music we may call modern or experimental. Those are beyond the scope of the term I discussed. It is for the very reason that some say that the real traditional Art Music may have already died after the end of 20 century.

Thanks very much.

A musician from the east124.162.118.207 (talk) 06:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Musical modernism

Concerning the musical modernism, there's here another misunderstaning. Yes the term "modern music" may often be used to refer to early 20th century music such as impressionism music, late romantism or neoclassical music notably. ( Debussy, Ravel, Mahler, Strauss, Bartok, the six and so on) But the term "musical modernism" on the other hand is also frequently used to refer precisely to the avant-garde music aesthetic that succeeds this period, composers such as Schoenberg, Webern, Boulez , Babit, Cage or Partch, etc.... By the way if you check the article you'll see these names mentioned.

That is to say all the post tonal musical movement which precedes the post-modernism music. Now that movement includes concrete music,electronic music, Electro-acoustic, Experimental music,dodecaphonism, serial music, Stochastic music, etc... but excludes however Minimalist music which often regarded as part of the post-modernism. That very term "post modernism" btw is employed as opposed to the radical modernism of the avant-garde music.Alpha Ursae Minoris 12:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Art rock

I'm sorry I had to delete the edits concerning art rock. Despite the name, this tendency indeniably remains popular music. No matter how experimental some popular music such as Art Rock may be, it is not sufficient to be art music. Don't be misguided by that name "art rock". It is NOT art music. And from what I've been taught at the university and from the sources I have art music only includes Classical, contemporary and to some extent some subgenres of Jazz, nothing else.

Of course I'm not denying art rock may be inspired by classical, contemporary or jazz. Of course it is, but being inspired or borrowing some traits doesn't necessarily make them art music.

Moreover being experimental or using more complex rythm structures doesn't necessarilly make a music be erudite music.

As I already argued in the avant-garde metal discussion page, "the term erudite music is NOT a vague notion,it has strict criteria. And metal and rock (including their experimental forms) don’t match them. Metal and rock definitely come from a popular tradition. Experimentation doesn’t automatically make some music be some "erudite music". That's a misconception. Art music is characterized by very high compositional, musical language and theoretical exigencies, whereas avant garde popular music are freer in their compositional approach and they don’t have any specific theoretical concerns. They just use their instinct just like most of the popular music.

On the other hand erudite music is linked to strict written tradition and strongly refers to strictly defined theoretical considerations.

For example every erudite avant-garde composer from contemporary music has a clear theory of his own musical language before composing (for example Boulez or Xenakis), it responds to a certain number of empirical observations. They have a perfect mastery of musical theory and a deep conscience of the historical evolutional process in music.

While popular music works with instinct rather than with strict theory. This is one of the main differences between popular and erudite music/art music. Even progressive rock or metal, despite some more advanced knowledge in musical language than the average popular musicians, can’t be considered as erudite.Alpha Ursae Minoris 23:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Sonic Youth for instance

I don't understand where you are talking about. Sonic Youth for instance is heavily using scordatura, free improvisation, minimal musical instrumental composition, following the microtonal patterns of Glenn Branca and are mainly influenced by proto punk AND art music created after 1945 (they did a 2000 tour covering John Cage, Morton Feldman, Steve Reich). What makes you think they are just following their instinct? I think your definition is discriminating and far too selective. SY isn't coming from a popular tradition (They were involved with the No wave scene, the opposite of being popular). If Art music is only for classical music, this definition must be deleted from wikipedia because of it's subjectivity.Houtlijm 17:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Sonic Youth is absolutely not art music.

And Art music isn't only classical music:

• The article never stated this.
• I never stated this.

So I wonder why you seem to understand I try to reduce art music to classical music.

Besides the notion is clearly defined in many referential musicological encyclopedias. I've sourced. And I never found any reference to Art rock in those articles dedicated to it.

I'm afraid you don't seem to understand what the very essence of art music is.

I repeat it:

• using unconventional tools or material doesn't necessarilly make a music erudite. Because you use microtonal scales for example doesn't mean you play art music. Even though that's generally art music which is interested by those scales. Some popular and many traditional music use other scales than the 12et scales and they are not regarded as art music.
• Getting influences from Classical, Contemporay or jazz music, doesn't necessarilly make it erudite music.
• Covering art music tunes doesn't necessarilly make it erudite music. Many popular musicians did cover famous classical music or jazz tunes.

All these stuffs are just material, these are not crucial cirteriosn which define art music they are not the core of that music itself.

The very essence of art music is the theory(technical/aesthetic,and historical issues), a deep compositional knowledge implying a high conscience of different compositional techniques like counterpoint, knowledge of the different harmonic languages ( tonal, modal, polytonal, atonal, dodecaphonism, serial, concrete, spectral, etc...), knowledge of the different material and orchestration, and knowledge of architectural structures.

Art music notion refers to music that have theoretical, architectural concerns. Read for instance the theories of real art contemporary composers such Iannis Xenakis, Yvan Wyschnegrady, Pierre Schaffer or Pierre Boulez. Just analyse the architectural and mathematical structures implied in works of Xenakis or Boulez. Just analyse the deep architectures of the 9th symphony of Beethoven. Just analyse the complex counterpoint of Bach or Schoenberg. And then you'll realize Bands like Sonic Youth, (without any disrespect to them)are nowhere near to that complexity of thought and organisation of art music. They are influenced by it, but it doesn't mean they are art music. Alpha Ursae Minoris 18:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The fact that musicological encyclopedias aren't mentioning art rock is not prooving it's not art music. They are ignoring it, but that's not prooving it is not art music, because there is nowhere written art rock IS NOT art music. Something else: According to line 6 of this article contemporary classical music is art music. Glenn Branca is contemporary classical music. (see Contemporary_serious_music#Minimalism and post-minimalism. What exaclty is de difference between Glenn Branca and Sonic Youth which makes Glenn art music and Sonic Youth not? Their early work has the same microtonal, minimal structures.Houtlijm 19:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I repeat it, apparently you don't seem to understand that using microtonal scales or minmalist structures are not what make music erudite.

Microtonal or minmalist structures are JUST tools and material. they are not defining criterions. They can be used either by art music or popular music.

what makes music erudite is the the written tradition, the theoretical and historical considerations and the advanced knowledge in harmonic languages, composition techniques, architectures. These music don't have any of these.

Musicological ignore art rock? What is it? A conspiration against Art rock? Musicologist are incompetents?

I'm a musicologist, I do not ignore avant-gard popular music such as art rock or avant-garde metal. The point is they just do not respond to the strict criterions that make a music erudite. The problem is you don't understand that this is not the material they use that make them erudite. But the theory and the knowledge implied behind this music.

That's simple as that.

If you think otherwise, I dare you to point me the published theories of Sonic Youth... what kind of specificlanguage they use? according to which historical-social-technical considerations they choose and develloped it.

I'm a specialist of microtonality (most particularly the microtemperaments). I wrote my thesis dissertation on it. And most of true art music microtonalist composers publish theories about these scales. See Carrillo, see Wyschnegradsky, see Partch, see Foker, see Haba, see Darreg, see Jean Etienne Marie, See Pascale Criton, see Ohana, etc... Just point the specific theories of SY. What ar their approach of the microtonal scales. Their appreciations of the different colour and harmonicty of the scales they use?...Alpha Ursae Minoris 20:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

To answer your dare: Here's a short excerpt from the SY article, take also a look at the mentioned link. It's a list of a few hundred different alternate tunings they've used the past 25 years. Is that theoretical written down enough to regard it as conceptual art music? (consider making an article Conceptual art music: Sonic Youth "used modal tunings, open tunings (ones we made up), octave pairs, two or three strings tuned to the same note, same gauge strings in different places or even half step tunings like pair of D strings and then a pair of D sharps." The latter examples (such as D and D# alongside each other) are very rarely used in pop music, and offer a distinctly jarring dissonance, imparting the teeth-rattling quality so especially prominent on the group's early albums.

The November 2004 WSES Official Newsletter for Acoustics, Science, and Technology of Music mentions that "bands from Sonic Youth to Art Rock Circus have written music with non-standard and microtonal guitar tunings."

A complete list of the tunings Sonic Youth has used for their songs is accurately written down on their ghostsite .Houtlijm 20:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This not what I call theorisation (part I)

1. Let’s be clear, because apparently you don’t understand this, there is no question that SY is innovative and experimental…OF course they ARE at least for popular music. But I repeat it: :being innovative isn’t necessarily what makes you erudite music. Certain classical composers weren’t experimental or innovative, yet their music is regarded as erudite music.

2. You really don’t seem to understand what I’m referring as theory. You actually just share the general perception of popular musicians of what musical theory might probably be...

Of course scales and tuning are part of musical theory. But this is just the material of the theory. Not the theory itself. And listing scales is not what I call a personal theoretical essay made by a real art music composer .

When I refer to true art music microtonalist personalities such as Partch, Harrison, Wyschnegradsky or Carrillo and so on. That’s because they wrote entire personal essays concerning all the possibilities of these scales.

• They analysed their structural acoustic.
• studied their mathematic ratio,
• determined their specific colours.
• The type of harmony language those scales are the best adapted to.
• The kind of instruments which are the best to be used with them
• the different ways to obtain given microtonal scales on instruments
• and so on

Listing scales and tuning can be done by any popular musicians with a minimum of basic knowledge. There are countless of popular virtuoso who know which scales they use, that doesn’t them art music however.

3.I asked you which kind of harmonic language they use. You didn’t reply to me. Because you apparently don’t know. Probably because SY themselves don’t even know. How don't worry, me,I know which one they us, but do you? Do they?

• Yes, you said they use minimalist structures, fine…But minimalism is just an aesthetic orientation not the harmonic language itself used in it.
• Yes, you said they use microtonal scales, fine … But microtonal structures are tunings and acoustic systems not the harmonic language itself used with them.

Any art music composer is aware of what language they use. But generally not the popular musicians..

I insist: DO read real theoretical essays by true art music composers and you’ll see the huge difference.

This list is not what I call a personal essay written by SY themselves. Just a list of tuning that fans have noted according interviews or personal observations during gigs. Which is not what I call a strict serious theorisation work made by a serious erudite music composer.Alpha Ursae Minoris 08:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

On a side note, just like many popular with a limited knowledge of strict musical terminology, the guy who wrote the list used words like “atonal” in a improper meaning. Using inharmonic sounds thanks to open string strumming has nothing to do with being “atonal”. That the most frequent misconception of people who lack strict theoretical knowledge. Atonality is a harmonic language used by such composer like Schoenberg which has nothing to do with inharmonic sounds. Alpha Ursae Minoris 08:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

1 Indeed, I don't understand why Certain classical composers weren’t experimental or innovative, yet their music are regarded as erudite music. and SY and Glenn Branca are not (I mention Glenn extra because they are equal to me and they worked together)

2. You actually just share the general perception of popular musicians of what musical theory might probably be... Yes, I definately do.

:When I refer to true art music microtonalist personalities such as Partch, Harrison, Wyschnegradsky or Carrillo and so on. That’s because they wrote entire personal essays concerning all the possibilities of these scales. So you mean without an essay it is never art music?

:*They analysed their structural acoustic. SY did when they worked for Glenn :*studied their mathematic ratio, They use adapted scordurata to create new openstring possibilities and chord-progressions. That's mathematical to me. :* determined their specific colours. They cluster strings in D and D sharp for instance. :* The type of harmony language those scales are the best adapted to. Again the scordurata. :*The kind of instruments which are the best to be used with them Because of SY Fender began reproducing Fander Jaguar en Fender Jazzmaster. They've used hundreds of different guitars and amplifiers selected for their specific timbre. :* the different ways to obtain given microtonal scales on instruments See the list of alternate tunings and the article 3rd bridge guitar

::3.I asked you which kind of harmonic language they use. You didn’t reply to me. They alter the timbre and the harmonic structure by using tonal clusters of octaves and sometimes clusters of different tones to create dissonant or consonant harmonics. And they make use of overtoning scales, tailed bridge guitar and the extended technique of single coil-microphonic feedback and acoustic feedback.Houtlijm 09:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This not what I call theorisation part II

1 Indeed, I don't understand why Certain classical composers weren’t experimental or innovative, yet their music are regarded as erudite music.

You don't understand because I repeat again and again: experimentation and unconventional tool are not the criterion to define art music. The criterion is the advanced theorisation, the advanced compositional knowledge, the written tradition… and so on…

Basically the art music term was only applied to traditional Classical music back to the time. So has Mozart anything to do with experimentation like Zorn or Branca? No.I don't car you discuss the accruacy of the word art music. it is a clearly admited musicological term.

2. You actually just share the general perception of popular musicians of what musical theory might probably be...

Yes, I definitely do.

That’s precisely why you don’t understand the essence of what art music is. I mean the official and admitted sense of art music.

3.So you mean without an essay it is never art music?

When I’m talking about microtonality art music at least, yes I do but that’s the case of most of the contemporary (art) composers in general too…unless they refer to established elaborated classical theories.

I say if you don’t have a clear defined theorisation behind your aesthetic + high knowledge compositional, structure and harmonic language you’re not art music indeed .

SY doesn’t

*They analysed their structural acoustic.

SY did when they worked for Glenn

Oh probably but where are the result of their analysis? Where is the essay justifying their approach?

*studied their mathematic ratio,

They use adapted scordurata to create new openstring possibilities and chord-progressions. That's mathematical to me.

That’s here again a naïve popular conception of musical theory. Of course that’s mathematic. But that has nothing to do with the deep and complete theories made by true art composers using mathematic like Partch, Harrison, Xenakis, Boulez. I insist READ their theories to understand the difference.

* determined their specific colours.

They cluster strings in D and D sharp for instance.

You still don’t understand what I mean. I implied the specific acoustic properties of microtonal scales different acoustic system such as 1/4tone as opposed to say 1/3 tone system

:* The type of harmony language those scales are the best adapted to. Again the scordurata.

You obviously don’t understand what I mean by "Harmonic language". Scordurata is a not a harmonic language. This is alternate way of tuning a instrument. That has nothing to do with harmonic language….

*The kind of instruments which are the best to be used with them

Because of SY Fender began reproducing Fander Jaguar en Fender Jazzmaster. They've used hundreds of different guitars and amplifiers selected for their specific timbre.

You didn’t understand what I mean, because of an obvious lack of knowledge of microtonal orchestral issues. Of course SY have their own instruments selected for their purpose. I don’t deny this! Appart from guitar or bass? Where is their essay explaining their different acoustic approach conception of such instrument based on acoustic science?

* the different ways to obtain given microtonal scales on instruments

See the list of alternate tunings and the article 3rd bridge guitar:

Sorry but you’re here again didn’t understand what I mean. Of course that’s a hell of a list. Alternate tuning (no matter how many they are) is only ONE way to make microtones.

3rd bridge guitar is a second one.

But guess what? there are other options than alternate tuning to make microtonal music. I agree alternate tuning is the most simple. But there are many different ways to create microtones without alternate tuning.

A serious theory would review every possibility and examine the pros and the cons of each possibility.

4.I asked you which kind of harmonic language they use. You didn’t reply to me.'

' They alter the timbre and the harmonic structure by using tonal clusters of octaves and sometimes clusters of different tones to create dissonant or consonant harmonics. And they make use of overtoning scales, tailed bridge guitar and third bridge guitar and the extended technique of single coil-microphonic feedback and acoustic feedback.Houtlijm 09:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I’m not asking you what musical material/tool they use to create their distinctive sound, I’m asking you what harmonic language they use. Only one word is sufficient to describe that language. The problem is popular musicians generally have no idea what the hell harmonic languages are. While any art musician does. And you just confirm it what I thought.Alpha Ursae Minoris 11:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

And see also : 3rd bridge guitar (especcially the musical theory about string resonance and moodswinger which is based on Ranaldo's screwdrivertechnique.Houtlijm 20:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Linguistics

Linguistics: (Rock is music) + (Art) = (Art rock) is (art music). Mathmatical: (x=y) + (z) = (xz = yz)

The definition art music is poorly chosen in the past. The article must mention this lack, otherwise this discussion will take place over and over again in future. I think a good suggestion is to make a few articles with new names:

• Art music is all music which is mainly artistic (instead of mainly being entertainment such as top40 music (commercial) or dance-music).
• Classical art music, the classical selection.
• Erudite music Classical + jazz? Houtlijm 20:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is not followed by the musicologists because that’s original research and POV!

Sorry, but you just can’t twist admitted musicological terms just because it would arrange your personal theories better. Officially, the term Art music is an interchangeable synonymous of erudite music and serious music. We may find this terminology debatable, I agree. But that’s the official definition anyway.

The term is clearly defined by several referential musicological encyclopaedias (sourced). What you wrote is interesting and makes sense…But that’s not the admitted official meaning of the term.

Your reflection is original research including many unsourced POV.

I agree art music terminology is debatable. On a side note, I personally find the word art music extremely pejorative and elitist as opposed to popular music. But actually the origin of the use of words such as art or serious music has nothing to do with your personal comprehension of the term art (dichotomy Commercial vs artistic).

The cleavage commercial vs artistic music wasn’t even existent yet when the term of serious/art music was coined.

Actually the term art music refers to the ancient elitist point of view of ancient classical theoreticians who considered popular coming from the lower class population(=uneducated/not serious musicians) as opposed to the educated upper class who play serious music/ real artistic music, classical that is .

Frankly speaking, I generally prefer using erudite music term, because the word is more objective and without implicit pejorative meaning. So this has nothing to do with your appreciation of art music.

Oh btw since we are discussing about using terms properly. Your appreciation is not an issue about “linguistic”. It’s just a simple issue of terminology. I’m currently working on the subject of musical expression, meaning and emotion, and I notably have to refer in my work to sciences cognitive psychology and linguistic. So I can assure you that the terms “art music” isn’t a conceptual term of the linguistic science (none of its branches). “Art music” is a concept coined and used by aestheticians, music theoreticians and musicologists.Alpha Ursae Minoris 10:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I aggree on most parts. Except that musicology is above the dictionary. The first rule is to define terms with a dictionary. After that, people (musicologists) can define what the term exactly is. Erudite has the same problem. Erudite means you've read a lot/know a lot about one topic. Frank Zappa or Sonic Y are definately erudite about making music and art, so that term is not very much better. Serious music is probably the most inaccurate chosen term of all 3. I start reading definitions before I'm making up terms. Maybe that's a good suggestion for the musicologists. Please don't copy their lacking vocabulary and try to think out a better definition for the title:

My suggestion is: Theoretical art music That's not interfering with art rock and other popular music.

A similar dictionary problem appeared before on the topics Contemporary music and Contemporary classical music.Houtlijm 10:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH/ NO POV

No offense but I don't care about your personal suggestion concerning new definition and terminology. Wikipedia is not a place FOR ORIGINAL RESEARCH and personal appreciation of what should be better.

I have provided clear and referential musicologist sources. And they are definitely above your approximate dictionary generalist definition. As for your issue concerning musicologist/dictionary. I clearly do state that specialist definitions are above generalist definitions such as dictionary.

When scientist researchers define a new scientific concept, is it the researchers who define it or the dictionary ?

I bet on the scientific ...

When Medical researchers found a new definition of symptoms is it the researchers or the dictionary who define them first? I bet on medical researchers ...

Come on Dictionary doesn’t establish notions they just refer to already established notions in real life.

Musicologists and music theorist are the ones who define conceptual music terminology not the dictonary prior. Who created a basic conceptual musicological term such as “tonality” for example? A dictionary or a music theoretician? Guess what? a Theoretician: Choron. ies

Yes I do claim musicologist terminology is above generalist short descriptions by dictionary . Just like in any domain. In linguistic that’s a linguistic researcher Saussure who create a modern definition of a concept like signification. Which is now admitted by dictionaries?

So I remind you Wikipedia is not about original research. You may not like these definitions. I’m not either ecstatic about their names. But these are the commonly admitted official definitions (sourced) . And you just can’t twist these definitions as you wish with some twisted dictionary definitions that you don’t even state.

Provide serious sources otherwise your edit will always be considered as original research and as POV I don’t think twisting basic definitions of dictionary to legitimate your

I really don’t think dictionary mentions art rock, primitive music, etc … as being part of art music. I think You do. This is your own interpretation. And you twist and interpret in your way dictionary basic definitions to legitimate your personal views.

I really don’t think that Your dictionary clearly states that art music is about a cleavage between Commercial/ artistic motive. That ‘s an original research. Alpha Ursae Minoris 12:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

To editor:

You discussed the concept of modern music previously, and you were right about the confusion it brought about. But to me it is not too much of a problem to solve. Most people know that in any period of human history people can call the music of the day "modern music", simply because it was being composed and played right there by the people of that time. But now after so many centuries had gone by, we just can not treat those types of music as modern. But the term "modern music" as we know today should have a new meaning to it. The music is "modern" not only because it is up to date, but more so because it is new and hard to understand for most people who happen to listen to it. The other similar term is "contemporay music", which should have the same meaning: music that is being composed new and experimental for most people. Of course, "modern music" belongs to traditional "serious" music, yet too "serious" that no one can understand it. So deep in my heart, and believe me, in many people's heart, Art Music, or serious music has died with the birth of the so-called "modern music" long ago. Fortunately, it left us with a long legacy of musical tradition that will be part of mankind's history and will be long lived for generations to come.

Thanks very much

124.162.118.212 (talk) 10:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)A musician from the east

Hello, well, I don’t think this is the appropriate place to discuss offtopic subjects here… This place is no forum. But oh well, whatever….First, I need to specify I entirely respect your personal tastes… and you’re perfectly entitled to like or dislike whatever you want. I would never discuss anything about this. But I find it a bit normative and excessive to claim that “no one” can understand this music… Because you(or people like you) don’t understand it doesn’t necessarily mean no one does. I understand many people who’ve been educated with conventional traditionnal musical language norms and paradigms fail to understand this music. It’s perfectly comprehensible since this music doesn’t refer to these norms. But saying no one can understand it is not correct. For my part, I understand it and I know many other musicologists and specialists who do. Of course I’m not saying I’m right and you’re wrong to dislike it, rather am I saying that to understand it (and perhaps like it) one needs to refer to appropriate criteria.

Just like many other cultural aspects over the world, there’s not only one absolute truth in music. Correct musical appreciation depends on which cultural criteria and perspective you refer to. Personally I enjoy traditional classical music, extra-occidental music as much as I enjoy avant-garde art music. The thing is I don’t judge them with the same criteria. To understand this music, one has to leave their normativism and prejudices aside and adjust their point of view according to the cases. Also it requires familiarization. The problem with avant-garde music is many people try to judge them with inappropriate traditional criteria. So obviously they just fail to appreciate it. Anyway…even if you consider Avant-garde as musical death, saying that Art music has died with it is not correct. As a matter of fact, even if you don’t like modernism, there are still neotonal postmodern and neoclassical art music today… These musics got back closer to traditional music, so why saying art music is dead? There are several tendencies in art music...not everything is avant-garde. Anyway feel free to dislike modernism as much as you want. I have nothing to say about this. This your taste, not mine. Greetings Alpha Ursae Minoris (talk) 18:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Contemporary classical music

According to the topic contemporary classical music#Art rock influence John Zorn, Branca and all other mentioned rockcomposers are contemporary classical. In this article contemporary classical music is art music. So this makes Zorn and Branca art music. If Zorn is art music, Residents, [Half Japanese]], Pere Ubu, Frank Zappa and again Sonic Youth are also. This topic isn't following 1 direction.Houtlijm 10:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

At last an interesting and sensible point! Let me reply to this.

As discussed with Pazival, minimalist music is debated as being part of art music because of its structural simplicity. Personnaly I still do consider minimalist music as art music only because it is a branch that descends directly from Art music and is its basic principle are based on strurctural theories.

But minimalist music definitely is a case that blurrs the frontiers between popular and erudite music.

That's also the case of such postmodernist composers originally coming from popular music and mix it with erudite music. Composers such as Branca or Ben Johnston are the kind of people which are somewhere between popular and erudite music. This is the kind of modern artists who indeed blurr the line between popular / art music admittedly. Besides guys like Ben Johnston (composer) provided clear theorisation of their music. Branca to some extent as well.

As for Zorn and Zappa that's much more debatable. Even though Zappa had connections with official art music Boulez and avant-garde art music never considered him as a real art music composer, even though they kind of have a certain respect to him.(actually they regarded him as a good opportunity to popularize avant-garde music to pop music circles)

However I disagree with your equation SY= Branca. SY was strongly influenced and oriented by Branca indeed. But Branca approach (in works like his symphonies) is much closer to Erudite music aesthetic thought than SY is. SY still have very clear popular music structures despite their unconventional aesthetic. WHatever that's besides the point. I still don't consider that Art rock as erudite music.

But some composers that lablled as such can cross indeed that line. though not all.

anyway if we considered art rock influenced music as being part of contemporary classical music (which is debatable), then you don't need to add it aside of contemporary classical music entry which is already mentioned anyway. Alpha Ursae Minoris 12:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, concerning that particular issue. I've made an edit that might hopefully lead us to some agreement concerning art rock.Alpha Ursae Minoris 13:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Very good, I agree on your vision. Thanks for clearing this up. I learnt a lot from it.Houtlijm 13:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Glad we came to an agreement.RegardsAlpha Ursae Minoris 14:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Earliest European art music

I've removed the implication that Renaissance music is the earliest music in this category. Hildegard of Bingen predates the Ranaissance substantially.--Peter cohen 12:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree Medieval composers like Josquin Des Prés or Dufay for example were already writing a very complex and erudite musicAlpha Ursae Minoris 14:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Frank Zappa

Wouldn't he qualify as a serious musician? He certainly had a deep understanding of musical language and used it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.67.195 (talk) 02:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

No, Zappa’s music is not strict serious music. Actually Zappa is the perfect example of how the limits of popular and art music can sometimes be blurred.

Yes, he was influenced by serious music composers such as Varese or Stravinsky. Yes he even had the chance to collaborate with Boulez. But while his music is different and is heavily influenced by Contemporary serious music, his music is still rooted in rock music ( that is to say popular music). Anyway Zappa himself said he doesn’t consider himself as a composer of contemporary music (nor as rock musician, btw). He is just something different and intermediary.Alpha Ursae Minoris (talk) 08:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I assume his orchestral work would probably count, right? As we are probably talking about works too, not just individuals. Would guys like John Zorn count? Hell, Gershwin definitely drew on popular music. The lines of "art" or "serious" music and "popular" music are being slowly decimated and may not be really applicable to most artists today no matter their roots/influences. comment added by 64.252.67.195 (talk) 02:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.0.56.211 (talk)

what is art music?

Why is Jazz art music? And why are styles like heavy metal, art rock, progressive metal et c. no art music? I just don't see it. If those styles aren't considered to be art music, then jazz shouldn't be either. I hate the term art music anyway, I think it is aterm made up by old-fashioned, narrow-minded, stubborn people, who know absoutely nothing about contemporary music. So, I'm asking you: Why are a few people who improvise something with their saxophones considered art music, while such complex songs like "One" from metallica are not? By the way, if you're so smart, I hope you realised I was using traditional, latin and greek stylistic devices such as the trikolon and the klimax. I really don't want to offend anyone, I just don't see why jazz is art music. Why do you have to discern between popular music and art music, anyway? every kind of music is meant to entertain. Orrelax in some cases. Please excue my bad english, it's not my native language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.5.155.191 (talk) 13:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again with the same issue and the same(psychological) denial from fans of popular music concerning art music over and over again.

Anyway…

Look, the distinction between art music/ popular music/ traditional (folk) music is a long standing and admitted musicological classification. You disagree? No offence but your opinions and your feeling concerning such classification don’t matter here. Wikipedia is not a place for opinions and personal appreciations. This article is sourced with published authoritative musicological and encyclopaedic sources. If you disagree with such a classification and you think it is not appropriate then find some other musicological sources that question the content and propose some hypothetical more modern view.

For the record publications like Oxford companion to popular music include heavy metal as popular music(p.260), Encyclopaedias like Encyclopedia Americana also classifies Rock’n’roll, hard and metal as popular music as opposed to art music like classical music(Encyclopedia Americana reedition 1993 article “music”p.647). Encyclopedia Britanica (15th edition micropeadia, article “popular music” p.611 ) classifies any music descending from rock and rhythm ‘n’ blues as popular music . And note Online Encyclopedia Britanica and Oxford companion to popular music also consider heavy metal as a genre of rock music. Even contemporary authoritative musicologists like Nicholas Cook and Nichola Dibben deny heavy metal is art music but popular music. (Cook, Nicholas, and Nicola Dibben (2001). "Musicological Approaches to Emotion," in Music and Emotion. p 58)

Yet Nicholas Cook is far from being an opponent to popular music. And Dibben is even a specialist of popular music. She even is the editor of a musicological journal dedicated to popular music.

On a side note you say you don’t want to offend anyone? But don’t you have the feeling that calling generations of respected musicologists, encyclopaedists and music theoreticians “old-fashioned, narrow-minded and stuborn who know absolutely nothing about contemporary music” is offending? For my part, I find it at any rate presumptuous and naïve if you ask me.

Plus it seems we don’t have the same use of the term contemporary music here. Contrary to the folk use of the term, “contemporary music” is often used in musicology and music history to refer to modernist avant-garde period of art music also called contemporary classical music. Such a music is completely ignored by fans of popular music, most of them don’t even imagine such a music exists. So I find ironic you say musicologist and theoreticians are ignorant of contemporary music when most of the fans of rock music absolutely don’t know anything of contemporary music and the complexity generally implied by this music.

Have you ever tried to compare contemporary music like Boulez’s integral serial music or Xenakis Stochastic music to contemporary standard popular music (including technical popular music like progressive metal or shred)? There’s an immense distance of complexity between such art music and popular music like heavy metal. It is really not comparable.

As an aside, before claiming a song like "One" is complex, I strongly suggest you to get familiar with high compositional techniques and languages such as Palestrina's polyphony, Bach’s art of the Fugue and counterpoint, Mozart and Beethoven’s sophisticated art of motive development, Wagnerian complex chromatic language, Debussy’s innovative and complex harmony with extended chords, Milhaud’s polytonal techniques, Schoenberg's dodecaphonic techniques, Messiaen’s non-retrogradable rhythms, Boulez serial music, Xenakis' mathematical approach, or even more recent movement like the New Complexity.

Then you’ll understand what complexity means in terms of composition and why One is not complex in comparison to these techniques.

And please don’t make wrong conclusions about me. Because I’m stating this, doesn’t mean I’m anything biased against popular music or metal. Things are not that simple. Metal remains one my favourite music, I’m a fan of Metallica, (at least of their first four albums). (By the way note, the example “One” is certainly not the most difficult piece you could choose in their catalogue, pieces like Blackened or Orion with their large use of odd times signatures and frequent time signature changes are much more complicated . And in terms of Speed of execution a song like Battery is indubitably far from being the most simple song to play. ) and yes Metallica sophisticated thrash was a precursor to some of the practices of Progressive metal.

But even while I’m fan of heavy and thrash metal, on a strict musicological approach I have to stay objective. People in progressive metal think things like the use of odd time signature is the ultimate degree of sophistication and of novelty. This is really naïve. Composers like Stravinsky or Holst already used them almost one century before. Yeah that’s certainly innovative for rock and metal, but it is far from being new for art music, it is even seen as “has been” for the most radical avant-garde art music composers.

While Progressive metal/ rock are certainly ones of the most technical music in popular music, they are nowhere near to the real complexity level some contemporary composers can achieve. Frankly speaking comparing popular music (like heavy metal) to art music is like comparing a comic book (no matter how good it is) to a master painting.

Don’t misunderstand me there’s nothing despising in what I’m claiming. I don’t particularly value complexity in music, I couldn’t care less whether music is complex as long as it is expressive, I’m just making an objective observation.

Concerning Jazz. I’m sorry but the fact you reduce jazz to improvisation is very simplistic.

Jazz doesn’t necessarily use improvisation all the time (Encyclopedia Americana reedition 1993 article “musical forms and genres”p.641 ) This is a caricature to think so.

Oh and I have to specify another thing about it, as in your argument you seem to imply that because jazz uses improvisation, it is a lower form of music. As if you thought improvisation in jazz was some kind of lazy and easy way to create music; as if Metal was superior and more artistic because it is based on composition rather than on improvisation. No offence but such a view would be simplistic to say the least.

Improvisation in jazz is certainly not the simplistic act of playing music you seem to think it is. On the contrary it is a technical performance which requires a perfect mastery of musical theories, of the ear and of the instrument. It also requires to be constantly careful to the harmonic context. If you think by improvisation a jazz player just plays random notes without really caring or controlling, then you’re completely mistaken. As Wayne Shorter famously said “Improvisation in jazz is sped up composition” and “Composition is improvisation slowed down”.

Plus you seem to think jazz is a simple form of music compared to heavy metal but many forms of Jazz in terms of composition are far more complex than anything Metal does. Just compare the basic harmonic use of power chords in metal (made of only two different notes) with the very extended (often altered) chords (+ 6 notes different chords) jazz uses.

However, there’s one thing in your arguments I’m open to discuss this is the status of Jazz as art music. The issue is indeed debatable. But it is more complicated than it seems, basically there’s no doubt jazz comes from popular music, jazz is often considered as a form of popular music. But complex forms of jazz like Bebop or free Jazz don’t belong to standard popular music. Their complexity and technical is far above standard popular music hence the fact some have considered certain jazz forms as a form of art music. This is only for this reason it is mentioned here. But in my opinion, I think it would be better to classify them as something intermediary between art music and popular just like composers like Zappa, Blanca or Zorn and certain tendencies of Art rock. This is precisely in such case where borders between Erudite music and popular are blurred. Alpha Ursae Minoris (talk) 23:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I hate to add to this conversation, I really do, I am not a musicologist, and I am aware that I may well be wrong here. But, it's been bugging me a while; there are two, Dream Theater pieces which I cannot see how they're not art music: 'The Dance of Eternity', 'Six Degrees of Inner Turbulence'.

'The Dance of Eternity', I nominate for a few reasons: one, its chaotic mess of time signatures, almost certainly carefully thought-out. Two, its very clear jazz influences, and the way it lurches between jazz, metal, and weird synths. Three, the fact that in begs the listener to interpret it as a series of events or emotions.

'Six Degrees of Inner Turbulence' is a simpler matter in my mind. It is highly and rigidly structured, deconstructing the train-of-thought song format.

As for jazz, I am curious as to why Gerschwin is considered art music. I am currently learning the first of the three preludes, and it doesn't seem to have any complexity beyond the occasional polychord and synchopation. The Wikipedia page itself acknowledges that it has one main theme embellished only with chords and the occasionaly display of virtuosity. 143.92.1.33 (talk) 03:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The way I understand Alpha Ursae Minoris, it's really all about the context, the tradition in which music is written, i. e., essentially a cultural, social division, nothing inherent to a concrete piece of music. Strictly speaking, you cannot take a recording, analyse it, and determine its tradition: in fact, a performance of a modified or at least re-arranged traditional folk or classical piece (i. e., a new composition based on such a piece, or a re-arrangement) can be popular music, for example, and vice versa (and this kind of crossover is not exactly rare, after all). For example, the rock adaptation of Grieg's "In the Hall of the Mountain King" by Ritchie Blackmore is solidly popular music, even if the original piece is not.

Therefore, by adducing complexity, you are missing the point. Ravel's Boléro is famously unusually simple for art music, but it is still considered art music. Minimalist compositions are deliberately simple. An even better example is probably John Cage's famous 4'33": Regardless of who came up with the original idea of a silent piece of music, which is an extreme example in that no simpler piece of music can be possibly imagined, but his theoretical reflection and justification, that the piece actually consists of the ambient noise(s) including that made by the audience, and the tradition in the context of which he wrote or came up with the piece, is what makes it art music. There is actually a score for it!

Dream Theater do not compose in the art music tradition (even if at least some of the members have a background including classical training), but in the rock music tradition. They do not pump out scores after scores and music theoretical treatises to explain and justify why exactly they have written their compositions this way and no differently; they release recordings, with liner notes, if you're lucky, and scores at best an afterthought.

Tarja Turunen usually releases recordings that clearly contain/constitute popular music, despite being informed by her academic training, but she also pursues classical projects and (while most of her projects are crossover at most) occasionally performs as a pure classical musician and has even released pure classical music recordings (I know of, and happen to own, at least one undisputable example, Noche Escandinava), and possibly even composed classical music (her own Ave Maria would seem to count, because of the tradition in which it was written, and the academic piano/voice Liedgestaltung training she has, even though she does not seem to have completed a degree, just like the Dream Theater guys). I am not aware of any compositions by John Zorn that were, score-first rather than recording-first, produced in the hoary and stuffy academic tradition, although I also admit that his approach appears to blur the lines.

As a convenient mnemonic, you could say that the primary medium of art music is the score (whether traditional notation or graphical notation), the primary medium of modern popular music is the (studio) recording, and the primary medium of traditional folk/"ethnic" music are the performers, their memory, or the performances themselves.

To my understanding, jazz can be classified as either of the three, depending on how the piece in question came about: if it's live or a live recording of a jam session or (partly) improvised (pre-existing) piece, it is essentially traditional music; if it's recorded in the studio, it's popular music; if it's deliberately composed and notated (by musicians trained in the art music tradition) before it is published (premiered) as a complete work, then it would be art music. (This picture may be somewhat idealised.) That's the reason for the hybrid, ambiguous nature of jazz. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:41, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Section titles

I notice that there have been a couple of reverts on the section titles. Wikipedia:Manual of Style discourages including the article title in section titles.--Peter cohen (talk) 08:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is already fixed. The compromise proposed is ok for me as it is. Alpha Ursae Minoris (talk) 12:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Good. I wasn't sure whether you had seen that version or not, and is the language of the last edit struck me as upping the temperature, I thought that it was best to put a merker down in the talk page to pre-empt a revert war from escalating.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No worry, I know the 3-revert rules. I generally prevent myself from engaging into sterile edit wars. Yes, the language of that message wasn't particularly civil and I found it a bit rude. But I care the solution not the way it's worded. Alpha Ursae Minoris (talk) 19:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite

I am in the process of a rewrite for the article to take out the pov.68.148.164.166 (talk) 17:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I find quite radical and drastic to change the entire content considering many parts are properly sourced and you could just have changed parts that (you feel) don't match Wiki criterias. Anyway I'll see your version, if it is really better than this one, we'll keep it. Otherwise we'll discuss. Alpha Ursae Minoris (talk) 17:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC).

I'm done my "rewrite"; it turned out to be an assessment of the article. I tagged the section(s) and article accordingly and provided the edit summaries where it was necessary.68.148.164.166 (talk) 05:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

This "article" takes forever to say nothing.

I don't fault the editors, rather the very concept of "art music" vs "popular music" as it currently exists. It seems entirely arbitrary and subjective, relying on the Texas Sharpshooter and Moving The Goalpost fallacies. It's clearly nothing more than elitism and classism.

CM Smithers Jr (talk) 14:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but this is your pov. You may think this concept is subjective, but the concept of art music has been perfectly admited by musicologists for centuries. And musicologists aren't reviewers (as some people often tend to mistake), they don't rely on their own taste or common sense to study music, they refer to methodological tools.

And there's no elitism implied here. This concept isn't used to state the superiority of a music over another one. This is a pure misconception to think so. Yeah I know that's always the same: people, when they hear the word "complexity" or "advanced" in music, tend to hear "superiority" instead. But complexity doesn't mean superiority. Who said that? Plus just because you write music on a paper doesn't make you any superior. No one said that. Authenticity and sensitivity are better criteria to judge music. And such qualities can be found either in art music or popular music.

Yes, sure there always are many elitist idiots that may use this category to state the superiority of their music. I know certain classical composers despise popular music. Many Jazzmen feel their music is superior, many metalheads feel their music as superior, many rappers feel their music is superior.

Anyway this classification here (in the musicological approach) has nothing to do with this attitude today, it is just a large classification used as a guide between the different large types of traditions. Besides it is clearly wrong to think of art music as opposed to popular music. Because there are countless examples where art music gets inspired from popular music. And vice-versa.

On a side note, many musicologists also noted these distinction has been sometimes blurred because of these frequent blend (as noted in the article). So you just can't argue these people are are elitists, or try to make classism.Alpha Ursae Minoris (talk) 09:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the definition is skewed toward a particular technical definition rather than the generally accepted definition.

In my view the term "art music" usually refers to music which requires significantly more work to appreciate than typical popular music and I therefore think Catherine Schmidt-Jones provides a more useful definition: Popular music is, by definition, music that appeals to many people. You don't have to know anything about music to like a pop tune - it's "catchy". Art music is a catch-all term for any music that is enjoyed by a smaller crowd. This can include the more challenging types of jazz and rock music, as well as Classical. Most people agree that the appreciation of art music requires some study, careful listening, or other extra effort. See http://cnx.org/content/m11421/latest/ I consider that the majority of the contributors to this discussion ( as well as most reasonable people with an interest in music) would agree with the general thrust of these views so I have commenced to edit the article accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pibroch1 (talk • contribs) 03:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

What was the "particular technical definition"? Hyacinth (talk) 01:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

It appears that the material Pibroch1 objected to back in December 2008 has now been boiled down to just "advanced structural and theoretical considerations". It was originally a somewhat longer quotation or paraphrase from Jacques Siron, and constituted the entire opening definition. It looks like Pibroch1 spent quite a lot of effort on that paragraph.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Material cited to Siron appears unchanged [2]. Hyacinth (talk) 22:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Pibroch1'a edits were confined to the lede, where Siron's material was cut to about a third of its original presence, and several alternative points of view were added.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Original research

How and where does this article contain original research and how should it be cleaned up? Hyacinth (talk) 22:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Almost the entire content of the sections headed "Characteristics", "Relationship with popular music", and "Relationship with traditional music" is unreferenced, and much of it reads like a travel guide instead of an encyclopedia article.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTGUIDE would apply then, not WP:OR. A paragraph lacking a source isn't necessarily OR, nor is a paragraph with a cited source not OR. Hyacinth (talk) 10:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me. I really should learn the distinctions between and among shades of meaning for the hundreds of banner templates used on Wikipedia. It is more than a little confusing.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Some of them I guess, and the acronyms certainly, but these two don't seem that confusing. My university music textbooks and my facebook wall are fairly distinct. If I take a featured article and remove its citations that doesn't magically make it original research, while if I make something up and pretend to support it with citations that don't they won't make it not synthesize material promote a position.

As often, I'm simply attempting to make sure the presence of at least a few of a couple of these hundreds of tags are explained and thus justified. Thanks for the help! Hyacinth (talk) 01:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure. I'm just trying to say I'm sorry for having used the wrong banner, which has caused you some unnecessary trouble.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I have deleted the banner now, but the problems in the article should of course be addressed. --WikiPBia (talk) 10:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Tagg's definition

I made some preliminary cleanup I hope you approve of. Also I'm concerned about the fact that the first paragraph is built largely upon the theory's of one musicologist - Philip Tagg. Is his theories commonly accepted, and if so shouldn´t that be stated in the article?--WikiPBia (talk) 13:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for the cleanup. Well as explained before in this talk page, this category is nothing new under the sun. Even though lay people are generally not familliar with it, this is indeed a long standing classification in traditionnal musicology. And no, this is not Tagg's own theory... Please note; in his article he actually refers to this usual classification.... in order to contest certains aspects of this said classification.. (just like many specialists of Popular music). Please just read the full article, and you'll see... It's available in the musicological journal "Popular music". Also remember that Tagg is a specialist of popular music.(rock, heavy metal, pop music, original film soundtrack) he has no interest using classifications that might legitimate any elitist point of view, if that's what you believe or imply. - I know many people who aren't fammiliar with this classification believe so- On the contrary, he's been one of the very first musicologist to defend musicological study of popular music as a academic field since the end of the 70s...In a time where Musicology was merely interested -almost exclusively- with art music. And while this classification is indeed commonly accepted, of course it is sometimes challenged, most particularly by "New Musicology"(critical musicology) and sometimes Ethnomusicology. More exactly what is challenged about it, is not the classification per se, but the old elitist implications that used to be associated with it before (and still is sometimes). But even people criticizing these aspects happen to use this classification including Tagg, McClary, Dibben...Alpha Ursae Minoris (talk) 19:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response! I have none of the problems with the definition you suggest. And Tagg's account certainly in my mind have a valid place in the article. My concern is only as I wrote above that the general acceptance of the theories could be stated even if it is of course implied by the present formulations; and (perhaps more importantly) that even if the concept is satisfyingly defined in the musicological context it may perhaps be more ambiguous in present non-academic usage. --WikiPBia (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

After contemplating on your answer I saw that I actually had misread the paragraph a bit. I made same minor additions in the purpose of making the text clearer. I hope you approve!? --WikiPBia (talk) 20:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This all looks like good work to me, WikiPBia. If it helps any, the New Grove does not have an article titled "Art Music", but routinely uses the term for a major division of larger articles, mainly on national musics. For example, Nino Pirotta's article on "Italy" and Richard Crawford's article on "USA" are each divided into two sections, "Art music" and "Traditional music". J. Peter Burkholder's article on "Borrowing" is divided into 15 large sections (1. "Types of borrowing", 2. "Medieval monophony", 3. "Polyphony to 1300", etc.), with section 13 being "Art music after 1950". Another English term once widely (now less often) used as a synonym for "art music" is "serious music"—the translation of the standard German term "Ernstmusik" (in contrast to "Unterhaltungsmusik", meaning "entertainment music"). Perhaps these terms (and their frequently encountered abbreviations, "E-Musik" and "U-Musik") ought to be mentioned parenthetically in this article somewhere.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. In the light of the German influence on art music I don´t think that that is a unreasonable suggestion! I have some additional thoughts about the present article which I will present below. --WikiPBia (talk) 21:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Historical aspects

I think that an account of the historical contexts of the concept could be added. The relation to the concept of the arts and art itself and their historical development could be explained. Furthermore it would be interesting to know when the term was first used. In the article on classical music we learn that "The earliest reference to "classical music" recorded by the Oxford English Dictionary is from about 1836." Were the concept of 'art music' used before this? --WikiPBia (talk) 21:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, I have no specific source in mind, at least I can trace it back to the first part of 20th century in aesthetic literature, (Adorno), as for musicology, I can trace it back at least to 1950 with Deryck Cook's works. But I'm not an english native speaker, I'm more familiar with french musicology litterature. One thing I'm quite sure is the modern (musicological) meaning of "popular musi"c isn't older than 100 years. As what we call "popular music" generally refers to this musical tradition which emerged during the 20th century with record industry, most specifically after 1950s (but the term was already employed before to refer to it ie. Adorno on popular music"). Before such a tradition is apparently blurred with oral/ traditionnal/folkloric music. Alpha Ursae Minoris (talk) 14:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

---

Nothing to do with what you requested, but I think it might help: I searched in the data base of our Musicological university department and found quite a few interesting articles dealing extensively with the subject. Well, I don't have much time to work the wikipedia article extensively for the moment. But at least here's an extract of an article Gregory D. Booth and Terry Lee Kuhn, "Economic and Transmission Factors as Essential Elements in the Definition of Folk, Art, and Pop Music" in The Musical Quarterly, Vol. 74, No. 3 (1990), p. 418. Hope it could be of any help.

''Art Music

"The differences between folk musics and art musics result primarily from different systems of economic support. Instead of collective suspension and agreement with little direct economic support, art music requires a concentration of the society's nonsubsistence income for the support of a relatively small number of specialist musicians. Direct patronage by monied individuals or institutions-most commonly nobility, aristocracy, institutionalized religion, or universities-drastically alters the boundaries of what is musically possible. The results may be heard in the structural complexity and, more especially, the structural variation and elaboration that are characteristic of art music. Such music tends to stretch grammatical boundaries with personal innovation. Extended, formal performances that frequently focus on an individual's creativity are an important feature of art music traditions. The musicians in an art music system are professionals, the products of intensive (and intentional) training over a period of many years. Apprenticeship and a family association with music activity are both common. Unlike folk music, the lines between audience and performer are clearly drawn in art music although there are many cases of individual patrons being dilettante performers as well. Familiarity with the musical repertoire of an art music tradition is often divided along socioeconomic class lines. Art music patrons, because of their economic status, absorb the music and its complexities through self- and class-selected

listening. An individual patron who wants to listen can afford to listen; subsistence requirements are no impediment."'

Note that the article is mostly critical concerning this trichotomic catagory.Alpha Ursae Minoris (talk) 14:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. The economical conditions for art music is indeed interesting. I have some experience of the conditions today, at least in Sweden. --WikiPBia (talk) 10:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

wrong name?

You call it art music, though, I think you all refer to the musicality and technicalities of the music. Art, imo, is about feeling - not complexities.

Also, it seems like anything that you all consider not "good" is ruled out in this so-called "art music", no matter how much feeling the music actually has in it.

So in short, I think another name then "art music" (which only shows how little you all actually know about art - though you all apparently think you know so much) should be implied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gfx 2 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear Gfx2,

I understand that you are shoked by this term, especially considering the potential elitist implications (toward popular music and traditional music). But, I'll have to clarify certain misunderstoods: 1. You speak to us, as if you assumed that the content of this article necessarilly reflect our opinions. If so, you're wrong. Many musicologists including myself do not support this term either... But I can work on an encylopeadia's article without subscribing to its content. 2. I believe you are not very familiar with Wikipedia's principles. Your mention of "imo" says it all: you obviously imply pov and normative appreciations with regard to the content of this article, this is where you are mistaken. No matter how inappropriate you feel it is, it is a fact that this term is used in musicology and other scholar fields. Wikipedia does not work with user's personal conceptions or criteria of art, but with sources... It's not up to us to decide whether this term is appropriate or not. No, we just report use of this term. Period. On a side note, this is not just a problem of terminology, but a problem of classification and social implications . Some musicologists, including the ones associated with "new musicology" have often been critical not only with the term, but with the very distinction opposing high and lower cultures.

On a side note, you claim that art is about feeling not complexity. I agree that emotional expression has often been an important criteria in music. But who said that feelings are necessarily opposed to complexity, as you seem to suggest? Who can claim that composers such as Beethoven or Wagner's music lack of emotion? Such a duality (Emotion vs complexity) is just too simplistic... Aesthetic considerations in music are a little bit more complicate than that. Alpha Ursae Minoris (talk) 12:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, not only is it the purpose of Wikipedia articles like this to explain the actual use of a term, but the objections to its appropriateness are already discussed at length and a number of alternative terms are presented in the very first sentence. None of these, of course, completely satisfy everyone (hence the objections), but this is a fairly comprehensive list of the terms in current use—although I have my doubts about "erudite music", and I hope someone can come up with a source verifying its use in English, to add somewhere in the main body of the article. It might also be helpful if a section were added discussing the comparable terms used in other languages (kunstmuziek, Ernstmusik, müsica culta, musica colta, musique savante, akademicheskaya muzika, etc.), since the need to translate such common terms used in other languages is one factor in producing the variations found in English.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Recursion

From the article

"While often used to refer primarily to Western historical classical music, the term [art music] may refer to:

• The classical/art music traditions of several different cultures around the world;
• Modern and contemporary art music, including serialism, electronic art music, experimental (art) music and minimalist music, as well as other forms;"

The term art music may refer to contemporary art music? Really? That's... that's mindblowing, guys, mindblowing.

On a more serious note, I'm not actually sure what to replace that second bullet with, but it's worth discussing here. 175.38.207.46 (talk) 01:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Why would it need replacing? Hyacinth (talk) 01:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Because it's hilariously redundant. You have said that art music can refer to contemporary art music; this is obvious through the term 'contemporary art music'. No need to insult the intelligence of the reader. Worse still, it's included in the section titled 'definition'. 175.38.207.46 (talk) 01:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. It was a piped link to "contemporary classical music" anyways. Hyacinth (talk) 08:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

'Serious' and 'legitimate' music

Okay, you're gonna need to cite 'also known as legitimate music'; I suspect some subtle trolling is going on there. As for 'serious', the citation seems to me to use the term with a hint of irony; is there another source? 175.38.207.46 (talk) 01:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Sources added for 'legitimate music' (as well as the commonly heard 'legit'). I can only assume from your skepticism that you are not much into jazz, which is the context in which the term is most often used. If you really think it necessary, I should be able to find twenty or thirty extra citations for 'serious' (the usual English translation of German Ernstmusik), without breaking a sweat. It is a very common term.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I should have checked the article more carefully: not only has someone tagged the term 'serious' in the lede, but it is also cited twice in the body of the text, from the sources by Siron and Adorno. By normal Wikipedia standards, those two citations would be sufficient cause to remove the footnote from the lede.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Let me just point out that Ernstmusik is not used in German to my knowledge, only Ernste Musik is.

I realise that terms are what they are and only conventions, but legitimate music (which is new to me) is a terribly misleading term. It does imply, after all, that all other forms of music, including traditional music since the origin(s) of music, are illegitimate.

As an aside, I think academic music would be far superior to all the alternatives listed, but then, I do not know if anyone actually uses that term in this sense. It does seem to encapsulate the point of the concept, which refers to a scholarly tradition, better than any other term for it I've encountered so far. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:13, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

The distinction "serious" versus "popular" is equally spurious. Mozart's muisc was wildly popular in his day -- and one might even argue, since. Conversely, there are rock, jazz, and folk genres, bands, and pieces which are known only to very small insular cult followings -- which hardly qualifies them as "popular".

A much more useful distinction, and one which I have encountered from numerous composers and music educators since the 1980s, is "formal music" and "informal music". With formal music the intended outcome of the piece is more or less tightly specified by detained written notation, and the amount of discretion allowed to the performer is minimal.

With informal music, there are few, if any written or elaborately preconceived directions for producing the music. Direction is either skeletal, vague, or non-existent. This would include music transmitted from musician to musician primarily by aural tradition (e.g., "folk" music); non-notated music that takes shape primarily during performance (e.g., much "rock" music); music having only vague or skeletal notation which must be fleshed-out in performance (e.g., music performed from lead sheets or fake book notation); music that is wholly improvised; etc.

One can, of course, find exceptions to any definition. But some definitions has outlived their usefulness more than others. "Art music" is one such. "Serious music" is another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 21:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, well, if reliable sources can be found, then they should be added to this article, to demonstrate the bankruptcy of the terms. The corresponding German terms, ernste Musik (serious music) and Unterhaltungsmusik (entertainment music)—commonly abbreviated E-Musik and U-Musik) probably should be mentioned here. The word Unterhaltungsmusik at least avoids the confusion of "popular" = "of the people" and "popular" = "widely enjoyed or consumed". One problem by the way, with "informal music" is that the term has been well-established in a rather different sense since about 1960 to refer to music with a loose, alterable, or completely absent structure (with particular reference to John Cage's indeterminacy and certain aspects of aleatoric music). This definition may entirely exclude music transmitted by oral tradition, performed from lead sheets, or even "wholly improvised" (assuming it nevertheless follows preconceived structures, such as a twelve-bar blues).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I might add that improvisation is not a useful criterion: Early music has often only relatively vague and skeletal notation which must be fleshed-out in performance. I have heard comparisons to jazz. That said, there was no popular music industry back then and the boundary between traditional/folk and art music may not have been as fixed as it is now. I have suggested above that (per the way I understand Alpha Ursae Minoris) the distinction is more sociological than material. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)