Poll: Is Music Art?

[Disaster Button]

I know a lot of pop music lately isn't considered art by some people mainly because of the general lyrics that consist of "BADADAPOKERFAAAACCEEABABOOMPOOWLOOVEEBANDERSNATCHFSAAAATCCCH"

Which I think is quite sad because when you look at music from the past (Beatles, Queen to name obvious examples) some of their songs were really artistic and meant something. Now it is a lot easier to be considered artistic when bands like that right their own music, play their own instruments, etc.

But why has Music of late (generally) not on par with those bands. Why does no one say: "That [band name] are great, like The Beatles, y'know?"

But about it being considered art, I find it difficult to name a more than a handful of examples of songs that actually count as "Artistic" in a profound sense beyond the obvous time and effot people put into it (in most cases) and even then those songs are limited to my personal taste.

So what do you guys all think? Is Music Art? Is Music as big or as memorable as it (arguably) used to be? And is the classification of art open to the interpretation of the individual?

Would also be nice if you could all post some examples of Music you count as Art too.

Edit: Oh don't get me wrong, I love modern music for the most part I was just referencing that some of it can be very superficial, and was only mentioning older generations as something easily comparable.

 

[LaBambaMan]

Music is art in the same way that modern art is art, that is to say it's not art anymore but a bullshit business designed to fool the stupid and get lots of money from the stupider.

Some bands still put out truly artsy stuff, but they're so few and far between and so unknown that it seems pointless to even include them in the argument anymore. It's like comparing XKCD to DaVinci.

 

[TheNamlessGuy]

DELETED

 

[Timotei]

It is said that for something to be art it has to have no funtion other than being pleasing to the senses. In this case music does fulfill these requirements.

 

[Crayzor]

"Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way that appeals to the senses or emotions" - Says wikipedia

I'd say modern music is art, yes.

 

[Frank_Sinatra_]

It is said that for something to be art it has to have no funtion other than being pleasing to the senses. In this case music does fulfill these requirements.

Thank you.

I don't want to come off as mean but really asking a question like that is like asking if comics are art.
Yes they are, it (art) doesn't need to be in a museum or gallery for it to be considered art.

 

[speedcoreXdandy]

IN B4 "RAP ISNT ART LOLOLOLOLOLOL"

Also anyone who has an internet connection and still thinks modern music is all terrible clearly isn't trying hard enough, just because the charts are terrible doesn't mean all of the millions of other bands out there who never chart are too.

And I just realised I haven't adressed the thread topic, so OT: yes.

 

[iJosh]

It takes a good artistic mind to make good music. So it must be art in a way.

 

[Disaster Button]

It is said that for something to be art it has to have no funtion other than being pleasing to the senses. In this case music does fulfill these requirements.

Thank you.

I don't want to come off as mean but really asking a question like that is like asking if comics are art.
Yes they are, it (art) doesn't need to be in a museum or gallery for it to be considered art.

Was inspired by an arguement actually, I was saying music is art, you can get hit with a lot of shit pop songs now and then but on the whole I think it's art and pretty good, I was just wondering about the opinions of people here. Incidentally I think comics are art too.

IN B4 "RAP ISNT ART LOLOLOLOLOLOL"

Also anyone who has an internet connection and still thinks modern music is all terrible clearly isn't trying hard enough, just because the charts are terrible doesn't mean all of the millions of other bands out there who never chart are too.

And I just realised I haven't adressed the thread topic, so OT: yes.

While I think you can get a lot of crappy, pointless songs now and then I still love modern music. But I've still yet to hear anyone compare the greatness of a band nowadays to a band pre-80s.

 

[Random Argument Man]

Art: The expression or application of human creative skills and imagination.

If you can fit things into this definition, it's art.

 

[ae86gamer]

Yes, music is art. Not all music, but most of it.

 

[rainman2203]

As with all art forms, there is high art, and there is low art. Unfortunately, its low art music that dominates the charts and rakes in the piles of cash. There are plenty of fantastic bands out there that put out great work that have to hold normal jobs to support their craft. Its sadly the way it is.

 

[Abominus]

It's hard to give a definite answer on this topic. Some bands and artists are definitely trying to create something worthy of the title, while a lot more are just trying to make money.

from an artistic standpoint insofar as trying something new or different, something to engage the listener, then yeah, then albums like Thrice's Alchemy Index Vol I-IV and Sigur Ros' Heima dvd sure are, but i wouldnt lump in stuff where people just try and find new and uninteresting ways of rhyming the words "Girl" "heart" and "money"........

 

[Woodsey]

Is anyone else bored of hearing about the "old greats", whilst newer artists being slagged off because they, yano, do different songs?

I'd be willing to bet that if a song from the 70's got released for the first time now (one of the "greats" obviously) it'd get a lot less recognition then it did then. Even if it was sung by the original band that sang it.

 

[300lb. Samoan]

But why has Music of late (generally) not on par with those bands. Why does no one say: "That [band name] are great, like The Beatles, y'know?"

Technology. It's easy to churn out music with no artistic intent (which is the true definition of art, to apply our creative skills and resources with intent to enlighten thanks to drum machines, synthesizers, sequencers, beat matching, auto tuning, quantizing, limiter maximizing, pro tools pro tools pro tools...

Back in the days of Queen and the Beatles, artists needed to prove themselves before they had the privilege of playing on the world's stage. Now any lame fuck with Fruity Loops can make a hit as long as he gets 10mil+ views on youtube.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

I know a lot of pop music lately isn't considered art mainly because of the general lyrics that consist of "BADADAPOKERFAAAACCEEABABOOMPOOWLOOVEEBANDERSNATCHFSAAAATCCCH"

Which I think is quite sad because when you look at music from the past (Beatles, Queen to name obvious examples) some of their songs were really artistic and meant something. Now it is a lot easier to be considered artistic when bands like that right their own music, play their own instruments, etc.

But why has Music of late (generally) not on par with those bands. Why does no one say: "That [band name] are great, like The Beatles, y'know?"

But about it being considered art, I find it difficult to name a more than a handful of examples of songs that actually count as "Art" and even then those songs are limited to my personal taste.

So what do you guys all think? Is Music Art? Is Music as big or as memorable as it (arguably) used to be? And is the classification of art open to the interpretation of the individual?

Would also be nice if you could all post some examples of Music you count as Art too.

First of all, tell everyone what art really is.

Give us the only true and proper definition of what art is, and we can begin discussing the subject at hand...

 

[Frank_Sinatra_]

Was inspired by an arguement actually, I was saying music is art, you can get hit with a lot of shit pop songs now and then but on the whole I think it's art and pretty good, I was just wondering about the opinions of people here. Incidentally I think comics are art too.

Ah, well sorry for attacking you.
My beliefs are that any music is art no matter if you hate it or not.

 

[Disaster Button]

Is anyone else bored of hearing about the "old greats", whilst newer artists being slagged off because they, yano, do different songs?

I'd be willing to bet that if a song from the 70's got released for the first time now (one of the "greats" obviously) it'd get a lot less recognition then it did then. Even if it was sung by the original band that sang it.

I dunno if you were directing that at me but I'm gonna answer anyway.

I'm not slagging off modern music. A lot of my favourite bands are modern or relatively modern and I only mentioned 2 "old greats" as The Beatles are generally called the best band ever (from what I've seen anyway) which I don't agree with. Was trying to say why does no one from relatively recent times get the same treatment

 

[DeadlyYellow]

Is anyone else bored of hearing about the "old greats", whilst newer artists being slagged off because they, yano, do different songs?

Tchaikovsky 4 Life.

Okay, I'm just going to apologize for that. It's really hard to find a current sound I really like, which is why my tastes are generally for older music.