Taking music too seriously

mackg

later12 wrote: »

It's incomprehensible to some people how anyone doesn't like football or rugby.

I agree that music has broader appeal than sport, but it's still not quite like food - the source of life. It's just a past-time that a lot of people tend to enjoy at the end of the day.

I would think that music is quite different to sport in that sport is the appreciation of competition while music is stimulation of the senses, everyone has something they enjoy hearing just the same as everyone has something they find beautiful to look at, be it cars/scenery/sculptures whatever.

Dudess wrote: »

Objectively speaking, a piece of music involving more creativity, imagination, effort, originality is better. Subjectively, if a person prefers System Addict by Five Star to Pink Floyd's Comfortably Numb (I like both equally) it's just personal taste.

Never heard that before, gonna put it on for my housemate when he gets home he loves 80s stuff like that, have to say I have a bit of a soft spot for it too.

Dudess wrote: »

I don't understand the last bit but while I can understand objection to genuine music snobs, it's just as bad to attack people for simply saying they dislike certain popular genres. Maybe some of those dance music snobs are simply stating they dislike this type if music? I like some of it btw (Calvin Harris and some David Guetta).

Calvin Harris and David Guetta make some cracking pop music with broad appeal imo, great for a house party.

Ruralyoke

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

I actually think less of a person if they don't like Pixies.

You say that as if it's unreasonable or something

leggo

grindle wrote: »

1)You can, if 2) you do, and 3) it's not completely subjective, just partially subjective.

Yara Glamorous Rig wrote: »

Music is an art form, a craft. So saying the cookie cutter sh!te Simon Cowell peddles is on par with Aphex Twin is like equating an MS Paint drawing of a dick and balls to a Caravaggio.

But there is no direct and accredited criteria for meriting 'knowledge' of music. Do you know more if you're 1) au fait with multiple genres of music, individual band members, their discography, inspirations etc (like a movie critic)? Or are you more knowledgeable if 2) you've a deep understanding of musical composition, but little time for the trivia (like a movie director)? Or is your knowledge more impressive 3) if practical, e.g. you can spot musical trends before they happen, set the public agenda and find artists to sell records (like Simon Cowell)?

It changes depending on your perspective. If you're a critic, you'll say 1), if you're a composer you're more likely to go with 2) and if you're working with a record label sourcing, signing and developing artists, you'll say 3). All are valid arguments. All will have different perspectives and biases in their own arguments depending on what they, themselves, look to gain through music.

There is no definitive right or wrong answer. There is also no specific end goal for creating or critiquing music. Some artists may want to top charts, make millions and ride blondes. Some may want to win Grammys. Some may not want any commercial success and do it as a hobby. Likewise, listeners have completely different priorities to each other when listening to a song.

It's, therefore, entirely subjective.

grindle

leggo wrote: »

There is no definitive right or wrong answer. There is also no specific end goal for creating or critiquing music. Some artists may want to top charts, make millions and ride blondes. Some may want to win Grammys. Some may not want any commercial success and do it as a hobby. Likewise, listeners have completely different priorities to each other when listening to a song.

It's, therefore, entirely subjective.

There are times when the Venn crosses over between commerciality and art, but any music made without any original artistic thought or integrity whatsoever, is not art, it's product, like a McDonald's burger.
Some people just want to eat a burger, and quick! Fine!
But that burger is not a truly amazing burger.
Can't be.
Won't ever be.
Objectively.

Jim_Kiy

flutterflye wrote: »

Seems to be a general teenagery/early-mid 20's thing - then most grow some cop on.

'And people grow old, they get bored. They forget to take a risk'.

Thats a lyric from amazing Irish band Whipping Boy..but I expect many of you wont have heard it.
I take music seriously it keeps me young and not rutted in an 80's timewarp.
.I gonna rock 4 ever!
I wont even date a girl who does'nt take music seriously.

( Er thats not completely true depending on hotness obviously )

sink

Fact, every single human culture throughout history that we know about has had music. Music is as fundamental to being human as language. If you don't like any type of music there is probably a medical reason, just like someone who is unable to communicate.

I have a broad taste in music, but I am also particular. I can't listen to music I don't like without getting irritated. I also can't stand poor quality speakers and headphones, it's as irritating to me as having a persistent itch. That may or may not qualify me as a snob in some peoples eyes.

Dudess

Ok I dispute the existence of large-scale music snobbery - still convinced it's mostly just people unable to handle others not liking their taste/liking lesser known stuff... but "You wouldn't have heard of it" is... ew!

leggo

grindle wrote: »

There are times when the Venn crosses over between commerciality and art, but any music made without any original artistic thought or integrity whatsoever, is not art, it's product, like a McDonald's burger.
Some people just want to eat a burger, and quick! Fine!
But that burger is not a truly amazing burger.
Can't be.
Won't ever be.
Objectively.

Look, yeah, I'm not going to argue with your main point. There is no way that X Factor winners or contestants, for example, can truly be considered 'artists'. In theory, I agree with you.

But, even then, how do you say that one song doesn't have 'original artistic thought', without being in the mind of the producer as they compose it? What set guidelines is there to define it as 'amazing' or not? Does it have to follow a certain time signature? Must there be real instruments employed or can we include music made from laptops? Some would argue that any song with lyrics is instantly disqualified from being considered 'amazing', the lyrics make it too 'obvious' and so on. Others would argue that certain songs wouldn't connect with anyone, and is therefore nothing more than self-indulgent tripe. Some would argue that those same songs are merely 'challenging' and deserved of praise. And so on.

Even then, that is subjective. And the reality of it is that you have no more of a right to decide the credentials than a person who only ever eats in McDonalds.

sock puppet

mackg wrote: »

I would think that music is quite different to sport in that sport is the appreciation of competition while music is stimulation of the senses, everyone has something they enjoy hearing just the same as everyone has something they find beautiful to look at, be it cars/scenery/sculptures whatever.

Sport is far more than competition. There is an aesthetic element to it, teamwork in some cases, the adrenaline rush. Some people don't get these things just like they don't like music.

grindle

leggo wrote: »

Even then, that is subjective. And the reality of it is that you have no more of a right to decide the credentials than a person who only ever eats in McDonalds.

I get what you're saying, but as long as the writer of the song is only doing it as a pay-check, and for no other reason, it has no artistic worth.
Even if the public likes it.

There are plenty of these kinds of song-writers, just pop over to GearSlutz, or look at the charts. Check out Jessie J.
Artistically meaningless, fame-hunting, prostitution.

A prostitute can be great in bed, but I doubt they have the best mutually-inclusive sex in the world.

Squ

As i only listen to newstalk in the car, mtv doesnt play music anymore, and the fact that nothing in my vinyl collection has less than 140bpm, it takes a while for new bands to reach my ignorant ears..

We were over for a chinese in my mates house a few months back when Edel came on the stereo.. Cue the fighting when they realized i had no idea who she was. I was called a lier too..

languagenerd

Music is a huge part of my life. It's a constant presence and my life would be totally different without it. I'm constantly listening to it, or singing/humming to myself, or playing it, or talking to my friends about it, or going to gigs... I love how a song can instantly change your mood and how a song can be linked to so many memories. I also think that you can tell a lot about people by what music they listen to and their attitudes towards it.

But I hate music snobbery. I don't post on music forums (in general, not just Boards) or on YouTube because they're nearly always full of people who'll answer everything with "Oh this band are shit" or "They totally sold out, this is nothing like the old stuff" or "This isn't punk/metal/indie/whatever, it's soooo mainstream and crap". I hate when you mention a band you like and the first question is "New stuff or old stuff?!" like it can't be both, or when people insist that anyone who likes the newer stuff is a poser. I hate feeling like I have to justify liking certain bands or certain albums.

I admit that as a teenager I was a bit like that . Music forms a huge part of your identity as a teenager, especially when you're a 15-year-old who doesn't fit in with the majority of the fake-tan-wearing girls at school who are obsessed with drinking, the X-Factor, fashion, etc. But people who listen to mainstream music are equally snobby - I had years of people muttering "smelly rockeeeers!" as we walked past, telling us "Why do you listen to that ****? It's just noise, it gives me headaches! Put on a bit of Beyonce/Rihanna instead would you?" and saying that people who listen to rock are "emo freaks". I think it's a sort of never-ending circle - the more people single you out for listening to a certain sort of music, the more protective (and therefore snobby) you become about it. They'd slag off what I listened to, I'd tell them all their music was computerized crap. (This is a wide-ranging thing, it happens everywhere, not just Ireland).

But now? I listen to the stuff I like; music I find meaning in. There are certain genres that I just hate, but I don't care anymore if that's what other people like. As long as we aren't forcing music on one another, it's fine!

Canis Lupus

Flicked through the music channels there the other day and it was literally: ****, change chan, **** change chan until I got one playing top 1 hit wonders of the 80s. I think I've passed the age threshold where the majority of new music just sounds ****ing awful....

Or maybe current popular music is simply awful and a band somewhere will emerge to show us the way and every xfactor 'star' that's overweight with low self esteem with an entire family suffering terminal cancer who looks like an absolute failure but sings opera alright will **** off back under the stairs.

Doesn't look likely though...

LH Pathe

Let people listen to what they want, nobody said you have to know them. So sieze the opportunity and everybody will get along just fine

I don't even listen to music anymore, may watch a performance as it's important I can see instrumentation. Listenings not enough anymore besides they're very good at making 'puter generated stuff sound like instrument now so I have to see it to believe it

grindle

languagenerd wrote: »

But I hate music snobbery. I don't post on music forums (in general, not just Boards) or on YouTube because they're nearly always full of people who'll answer everything with "Oh this band are shit" or "They totally sold out, this is nothing like the old stuff" or "This isn't punk/metal/indie/whatever, it's soooo mainstream and crap". I hate when you mention a band you like and the first question is "New stuff or old stuff?!" like it can't be both, or when people insist that anyone who likes the newer stuff is a poser. I hate feeling like I have to justify liking certain bands or certain albums.

Lack of music snobbery is likely the reason for boards's "slow" music forums though.
There never seems to be a back and forth, so it's best to go to a proper music forum where you will get one.
Filled. With. Snobs Elitists.

sink

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Flicked through the music channels there the other day and it was literally: ****, change chan, **** change chan until I got one playing top 1 hit wonders of the 80s. I think I've passed the age threshold where the majority of new music just sounds ****ing awful....

Or maybe current popular music is simply awful and a band somewhere will emerge to show us the way and every xfactor 'star' that's overweight with low self esteem with an entire family suffering terminal cancer who looks like an absolute failure but sings opera alright will **** off back under the stairs.

Doesn't look likely though...

Don't listen to pop music tv/radio stations. I guarantee there is music out there you have yet to fall in love with. There are so many great artists from many genres that would never get played on MTV. These are all songs released in the last 3 years, they may not be your taste, but they are very far removed from the The X Factor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6P8lMoNUWcU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oi6-bssNG3A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pt2YuvrWYE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiAznGarlPA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWcyIpul8OE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfySK7CLEEg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFHlK8ZXgvE

LH Pathe

I think the charts are a relection of society. A watered down snapshot of what's really going on and I think it very much falls on the entertainment side now.. which will obviously introduce more 'fun' with less appliance of the actual art. More kids with less adults, more flirtation with less instrumentation there was a healthy balance in them eighties and slightly either side of em but what we have arrived at here is mostly kids fronting with xxx with zero instrumentation.. Like pied pipers of teh 'illuminati' like I says either this is a reflection of democracy attained or beyond democracy, fused with the kids born into capitalism finding their feet it's so crass nowadays they make Crass look like mozart.

Maybe life, like music just too comfortable now. too polished, with too little rough around the edgedness n sufferation producing little genuine, heartfelt raaaayge.. no musical militants anymore. In teh charts. The clash were a watered down ideal but stuff like Sandinista would be censored out of the top 20 now. I think there's less music to be taken seriously now

Irish Guitarist

I love music. I don't get upset whenever someone doesn't like one of my favourite bands or artists or spend my time arguing on music forums though. I don't look down on people who don't listen to 'real music' either.

I also reserve the right to enjoy music now that I previously disliked. I loved rap when I was in my teens and then grew sick of it. I recently started listening to Ice T and NWA again. There was no reason for this other than a few months ago I got some rap songs stuck in my head and needed to hear them again so I bought some CDs that I had already bought years ago but had given away.

What I hate is when I dislike a band or artist and someone says "you've only heard his singles, listen to his albums". No I bloody well won't. If I hate every single Eminem song I've ever heard on MTV why would I listen to one of his albums for an hour? I have plenty of CDs that I love and don't need to force myself to listen to more music. If I naturally change my mind about music I'll buy the album but I won't listen to something because someone else thinks I should.

I don't think you can take music too seriously. You can be too concerned about other peoples opinions on music though.

dave3004

WAHOO ! Go music.

I like the bands that are famous because I don't have enough time on my hands to get ahead of the game. So normally people say "Hey Dave listen to this".....I do and if I likes I keeps.

Recently I like a band called The Mystery Jets

That is all from me.

Oh and I love to play songs on the piano and sing. Any requests are welcome !

Herb Powell

JerryHandbag wrote: »

As the first comment under this says...."Music heals"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKDXuCE7LeQ

That's pretty funny, it's class

minidazzler wrote: »

Remember the primary reason that Queen were loved was because they were great entertainers, they were never the best in the world with lyrics or music, but they put on a really truly great show

Gotta disagree there, they were all great musicians

enfant terrible wrote: »

Just because a song is more complex doesn't mean it's better.

Indeed, but he was referring to bands with that post, as opposed to songs.

af_thefragile wrote: »

As a form of expression music is very weak. All music can do is stimulate certain emotions within the listener but it rarely brings the audience to think and reflect upon itself. Imo poetry is the strongest form of expression, then comes prose, then film and other visual arts and finally there's music. The poetry of Robert Frost or the words of George Orwell create a much greater impact upon the reader than any form of music can. Sadly we're increasingly becoming a society of watchers and listeners. We try to gain our knowledge and inspiration from films and music and very few of us have any time left to reflect upon any words of poetry or prose. We'ld rather watch a movie than read a book and we'ld rather listen to a musician performing his music than a poet reciting his poetry.

Completely disagree, I feel music is so much stronger than literature. Music evokes emotions and thoughts that I have never seen described eloquently.

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

I actually think less of a person if they don't like Pixies. There, I said it.

Ahahhaha, I was listening to "Hangwire" there as I was reading. Pixies rule.



Musician here, I take music very very seriously.
RE people defining themselves and restricting themselves by genre and associated culture, what the **** kind of person am I if I love all of these?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yin0i3q46

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMzAmrNS164

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5A1QElOkOg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_B0rOLvAOo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KU_wQb1qs-4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OJsYwLs7yE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcdSWfWSqGE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNrcvqxlf6E

****, there's so much there, including SUPERGRIND, but I feel like there is so much I have left out. That really is the tip of the iceberg for me, I could go on all day.

Dudess

Another form of snobbery tbh. You're too cool to discuss music when busking - how "keeping it real" of you.

conor360

Im a teen and I love music.

Although i have gone through horrible phases of where I listened to music I knew i didnt like but everyone else listened to so i felt i had to, music really does take some of the stress out of your life..

how the f*ck can you not like music? Any music sounds ok to me, as long as it isint some comstant overplayed sh*t :pac:

the_syco

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sHaQxEMM_g

Listen to the first 7 minutes for the song, and the rest is a documentary.

The Jammy dodger

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Do you take music too seriously or do you know anyone who does.

When these sort of people ask what sort of music Im into I say I don't like music to their bewilderment.

Then I guess you would have to ignore all creation. Birds sing, animals sing and are musical. the rustle of the trees and the howling wind that is music too.

I dont believe a word of what you have just said tbh.

Mance Rayder

the_syco wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sHaQxEMM_g

Listen to the first 7 minutes for the song, and the rest is a documentary.

Dude! loving that solo! (All of them!):D

BUBBLE WRAP

I like to think I don't think I take music to seriously.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQ947250o-w

But, when ever I listen to this song, I spark up up a fag, I then repeatedly bang my head off the wall. While putting out the fag, by forcing up up my ass. It hurts but its all about the ROCK & ROLL lifestyle...:cool:

Logical Fallacy

grindle wrote: »

I get what you're saying, but as long as the writer of the song is only doing it as a pay-check, and for no other reason, it has no artistic worth.
Even if the public likes it.

Michelangelo painted the Sistine Chapel for the pay check, it's still pretty awesome.

I don't think you can draw a divide like that with regard to any form of art. If you want to dedicate your life to something you want to get paid for it, and often times doing something just for the money will fund what you want to do as a passion.

Like Steve Buscemi, he admits he has done movies he doesn't like that much that would be mainstream in order to get the money to produce the indie stuff he wants to get made.

af_thefragile

Herb Powell wrote: »

Completely disagree, I feel music is so much stronger than literature. Music evokes emotions and thoughts that I have never seen described eloquently.

Evoking emotions is all music does. Sure it can bring a person quickly to joy or sorrow but that's as much an impact music can have on the person.

Good literature requires the reader to think and reflect upon what he's just come across. Its when a person is forced to reflect upon the poet's or writers words that they materialize into powerful ideas which can change the state of nations and the course of history. Literature requires an active intellectual process from the reciever to benefit from it and hence if it can captivate the attention of the reciever, it becomes a very powerful tool.

Whenever I see a musician trying to influence an audience through his music, it never perpetuates. In the moment when the audience is experiencing the music, they are surely captivated by the rhythmns and sounds but shortly after the performance is over, the intoxication quickly begins to vapourise away. Eventually music is nothing more than a drug for the entertainment of the masses rather than a tool of expression and propagation of ideas which an artform at its highest level should be.

leggo

CiscoStudent wrote: »

I used to busk in town on my electric and at about 1 am in temple bar one night some D4 type stumbled over to me with his posse and his bird in tow and, getting uncomfortably close said; "Wow like, who's your idol?" To which I replied "I don't have an idol". He then said "No like who's your inspiration?"
and I said; "the landlord and his rent book". Then he followed; "No like, whats your favorite music, who's on your iPod like, right now?"
and i answered; "If I could afford an iPod do you think I would be busking?" Exasperated he blurted; "Just give me a band you like!" and I said, "To be honest, I hate music" and then continued my Satch solo .

That's a really arsey thing to do, tbh.

Logical Fallacy

af_thefragile wrote: »

Evoking emotions is all music does. Sure it can bring a person quickly to joy or sorrow but that's as much an impact music can have on the person.

Good literature requires the reader to think and reflect upon what he's just come across. Its when a person is forced to reflect upon the poet's or writers words that they materialize into powerful ideas which can change the state of nations and the course of history. Literature requires an active intellectual process from the reciever to benefit from it and hence if it can captivate the attention of the reciever, it becomes a very powerful tool.

Whenever I see a musician trying to influence an audience through his music, it never perpetuates. In the moment when the audience is experiencing the music, they are surely captivated by the rhythmns and sounds but shortly after the performance is over, the intoxication quickly begins to vapourise away. Eventually music is nothing more than a drug for the entertainment of the masses rather than a tool of expression and propagation of ideas which an artform at its highest level should be.

While I understand your point I think there are too many broadstrokes in your argument. You are basing things entirely off your own experience but putting that experience forward as if it is universal.

I've had plenty of experiences with music that are with me to this very day. I also think that music is a more universally accessible form of art...all you need to do is listen to it, you don't need any kind of advanced knowledge or understanding to be affected by it. Often times with literature you do.

I would also question the merit of the statement about music being entertainment for the masses, as while this is certainly true with regard to some music it is also true for some literature.

Basically anything you have said with regard to good literature can also be applied to good music and every you said about bad music can be applied to bad literature.

Dudess

The Jammy dodger wrote: »

I dont believe a word of what you have just said tbh.

+1

Mance Rayder

leggo wrote: »

That's a really arsey thing to do, tbh.

I am nice to 95% of the people but some people deserve it when they start invading my personal space, falling on me, trying to take my guitar and generally being rude. The person in question was one of those people.

grindle

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Michelangelo painted the Sistine Chapel for the pay check, it's still pretty awesome.

I don't think you can draw a divide like that with regard to any form of art. If you want to dedicate your life to something you want to get paid for it, and often times doing something just for the money will fund what you want to do as a passion.

I didn't draw a divide like that. I have no problem with artists getting paid. I'm not one of "those".
I said it was a Venn diagram, with commerciality, art, and a great big mix of the two in between.
In order for the Sistine Chapel to work in your example, it would have to be a bad example of art, but instead, it was a pushing of the limitations of what could be done with paint, design and perspective at the time.
Trying to introduce logical fallacies to my point, Logical Fallacy, or logical autofellatio?
Look at music that's designed to swallow money, rather than express a genuine feeling, like the opportunism of the Black Eyed Peas.
The went from being an old school, funk-sampling, conscious hip-hop act, to spotting a trend for dance music finally breaking through in America in a massive way.
There is zero art to what they do now.
No statement, no pushing of any sort of creative envelope, just them going "Hey, Deadmau5 and Guetta have a huge pull on crowds, so let's take advantage."
If they used the money made to make better art on the side (as Diplo has done), I'd call them artists, but they don't, so they're not.
They're just mincing up musical meat, adding a pinch of salt and black pepper, and plonking it in between the sugary buns of overproduction, to be marketed and sold the same as a Big Mac.
It's not like I'm saying people can't like it if they want - I eat McDonald's occasionally but I don't pretend it's good, or that it's art, just because all opinions (apparently) weigh equal.
Opinions can be, and are regularly, wrong.

Logical Fallacy

grindle wrote: »

I didn't draw a divide like that. I have no problem with artists getting paid. I'm not one of "those".
I said it was a Venn diagram, with commerciality, art, and a great big mix of the two in between.
In order for the Sistine Chapel to work in your example, it would have to be a bad example of art, but instead, it was a pushing of the limitations of what could be done with paint, design and perspective at the time.
Trying to introduce logical fallacies to my point, Logical Fallacy, or logical autofellatio?
Look at music that's designed to swallow money, rather than express a genuine feeling, like the opportunism of the Black Eyed Peas.
The went from being an old school, funk-sampling, conscious hip-hop act, to spotting a trend for dance music finally breaking through in America in a massive way.
There is zero art to what they do now.
No statement, no pushing of any sort of creative envelope, just them going "Hey, Deadmau5 and Guetta have a huge pull on crowds, so let's take advantage."
If they used the money made to make better art on the side (as Diplo has done), I'd call them artists, but they don't, so they're not.
They're just mincing up musical meat, adding a pinch of salt and black pepper, and plonking it in between the sugary buns of overproduction, to be marketed and sold the same as a Big Mac.
It's not like I'm saying people can't like it if they want - I eat McDonald's occasionally but I don't pretend it's good, or that it's art, just because all opinions (apparently) weigh equal.
Opinions can be, and are regularly, wrong.

You said if an artist does something strictly for money, it's not art.

It's a fairly open statement that can be interpreted a number of ways.

Also, the Sistine Chapel does not need to be a bad example of art to work in my example. Michelangel hated the job, he actually legged it from the site on two occasions and was brought back to finish it. Painting it allowed him to follow his true passion of sculpture.

The heart of your point was motivation, not end result. Michelangel lacked the former but produced one of the greatest works of art in history.

What you actually appear to be saying is "if i don't like something it's not art - and here is a thinly veiled reason for my own subjective opinion" which is hardly ground breaking...it's what we all do with regard to our likes and dislikes.

dgt

Music...

I love music, I wouldn't be as big into it as some people but I HATE bad music on the radio. While some would stick it out, I just change the station or put on my own cd...

What I don't understand is how people listen to such tripe these days? Alright fair enough if a few people like a certain song I don't like, different folks, different strokes. But when most people like this bloody awful crap? I can't understand it, why?!!

Latchy

I think lots of people in the thread are pretty much saying the same thing and it also depends on your own age group to ,like I love nothing better than watching Jules Hollonds show to catch up on both old and new artists , preferably groups and artists that play instruments but I can also appreciate somebody like Rumer who's stuff might be described as easy listening .

grindle

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

You said if an artist does something strictly for money, it's not art.

It's a fairly open statement that can be interpreted a number of ways.

Also, the Sistine Chapel does not need to be a bad example of art to work in my example. Michelangel hated the job, he actually legged it from the site on two occasions and was brought back to finish it. Painting it allowed him to follow his true passion of sculpture.

The heart of your point was motivation, not end result. Michelangel lacked the former but produced one of the greatest works of art in history.

I shouldn't have left my statement so open, sorry.
Michelangelo had no motivation towards painting, but that payday allowed his sculpture.
What is the Black Eyed Peas equivalent of sculpture in this?
They used to make good, slightly samey, music, and started making infantile, meaningless, posturing product.
If Michelangelo can use his craft and talent to create the Sistine Chapel, why aren't the Black Eyed Peas using theirs to create something of equal worth?
Even Will.I.Am would admit that their music is now about partying and has a basic craftless vapidity to it that his earlier work didn't.

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

What you actually appear to be saying is "if i don't like something it's not art - and here is a thinly veiled reason for my own subjective opinion" which is hardly ground breaking...it's what we all do with regard to our likes and dislikes.

No. I hate other bands as much if not more than the Black Eyed Peas, but can see why people might like them.
I hate Guns'N'Roses (music, don't care about the people), but they do create art - just not art that appeals to me.
I believe that Axl Rose means to create something of value, however turgid it sounds to me, but Will.I.Am, nowadays?
Totally, objectively, "No".
Which is a pity, because he used to be listenable.

Herb Powell

af_thefragile wrote: »

Evoking emotions is all music does. Sure it can bring a person quickly to joy or sorrow but that's as much an impact music can have on the person.

Good literature requires the reader to think and reflect upon what he's just come across. Its when a person is forced to reflect upon the poet's or writers words that they materialize into powerful ideas which can change the state of nations and the course of history. Literature requires an active intellectual process from the reciever to benefit from it and hence if it can captivate the attention of the reciever, it becomes a very powerful tool.

Whenever I see a musician trying to influence an audience through his music, it never perpetuates. In the moment when the audience is experiencing the music, they are surely captivated by the rhythmns and sounds but shortly after the performance is over, the intoxication quickly begins to vapourise away. Eventually music is nothing more than a drug for the entertainment of the masses rather than a tool of expression and propagation of ideas which an artform at its highest level should be.

Perhaps I should have said emotions AND thoughts. I know it can do this, because I've felt it.
I'd agree really with what Logical Fallacy said. Good music IS one of the best forms of art there is.
I would say the problem you stated (of people not being fully engaged with music, as it is more passive than literature) really lies in people, rather than the medium of music itself. I know I think a LOT when I listen to music, as with reading. Some people don't really think while doing either. I had another point to make, but I've completely forgotten it :P
If you haven't before (though I suspect you have) you should check out Gil Scott-Heron. He was primarily a poet, but he performed music.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWitRABYVBk

paddyandy

O.P. That is interesting that you don't like music i'd like to understand it . Fascinating . I don't get horse racing at all .I'm utterly puzzled by it and sport seems ridiculous even comical .I used to pass a jazz pub every day in london trad. stuff and used to wonder how they could possibly enjoy that racket .I do love music though i think people take the artists far too seriously .Outside their music they are mostly unremarkable people with a talent that sometimes kills them .Music is a kitchy tacky business .

evolving_doors

The ultimate serious music.... government commissioned "art music"...
If you want to get explore the piano the just get into it..

iamstop

Music is the linchpin of my life. Has been since I was a wee lad listening to tapes on my walkman. I didn't even know what a walkman was until my older brother wanted one for xmas and i did too.
I was listening to heavy metal from my oldest brother, Madonna, Specials and Bob Marley from my sister, classical and blues from my Da and rave from my other brother.
Now I own about 6000 records and DJ on the regular. I'd hate to be without music.

Mr.Biscuits

later12 wrote: »

I agree that music has broader appeal than sport, but it's still not quite like food - the source of life.

Love is the source of life and a great man once wrote that music was in fact it's food.

I believe him correct.

paddyandy

Love the source of life ?????? Music it's food ?????? don't know where those ideas are from ." if music be the food of love " a side dish maybe but not the main course .