Music snobbery

[Fluttershy]

OK, I promised myself I'd hold this rant back until after I finished my exams, so here we go. What I'm about to say is not aimed at any particular person on this forum. Right.

One of the things I detest most is what I term 'music snobbery'. This is when someone is unwilling to listen to new genres of music, and looks down on people who don't have a similar taste in music to themselves. For instance: people who hate Skrillex. I'll be the first to admit that Skrillex is not the epitome of electronic music- recently he's become a little bit lazy in his production, reusing the same synths and the same tired old drum patterns- but there are some people out there who attack him for what they believe is his 'lack of talent', or blast him for not 'playing a real instrument'. I am referring, more specifically, to the statement 'no skrillex, a MacBook is not an instrument' that I've seen floating around the Internet. Well, what defines an instrument? According to Wikipedia, 'A musical instrument is a device created or adapted for the purpose of making musical sounds. In principle, any object that produces sound can serve as a musical instrument—it is through purpose that the object becomes a musical instrument.' Skrillex, and many other electronic musicians, use computers and other technology to produce music, therefore a laptop can be an instrument! In theory, anything can be an instrument, if you are using it in a way that will create sound. Even Lil Wayne's infamous siren can be termed an instrument (the question of talent using such an instrument, however, should probably be discussed separately). But listening to Skrillex's work, particularly the older material, his musical talent shines through; you can hear the intricacies of the melodies and the unique style that a lot of musicians have since tried to copy. Even the quality of his synths is exceptional. A lot of people might dismiss his sound as pure noise, but I have some experience in music production and I can definitively tell you that it is a lot more difficult than it looks. A lot of technical knowledge is required, mixed in with musical knowledge and inspiration. Writing off an artist simply because they use a computer to make their music is, for lack of a better word, snobbish.

To expand a little further, I'll take a bit of a wider perspective. There seems to be a lot of hatred for artists like Justin Bieber, Nicki Minaj etc. etc. Some people scorn pop music listeners as mindless sheep, following the crowd- it goes on and on. But has it ever occurred to anyone out there that perhaps some of these people might actually like the music for the music, rather than to conform or because they find the musician attractive? Often, what I find is that because people dislike the artist's personality, they attack that person's music, even if that music is decent, or dare I say good... Justin Bieber haters are a prime example of this. They ridicule his music, not seeming to realise the 'sappy lyrics' are similar to a lot of pop music lyrics out there, or his 'whiny voice', ignoring the fact that they most likely would not be able to sing nearly as well, given the opportunity. Now, before I get attacked here, I'd like to state that I'm not a Belieber; I am completely ambivalent to all of Bieber's work, and I don't like nor dislike the guy personally. I am just stating my (hopefully) objective opinion on what seems to be an underlying issue with the people I meet- the strong dislike of artists or genres based on very superficial reasons.

Wow, that's probably the most I've written in one go since the English exam. I think I'll stop here for now, I'm running out of steam, even though I wanted to also address some other things. Sorry for the rant, I had to get it off my chest, and apologies if I went off topic. Also, my personal opinion on the entire issue is that music is an art form to be enjoyed. Constructive criticism is great, but just attacking an artist on unfounded reasons, or attacking a person for listening to certain genres of music should not be tolerated. What music we like is different from individual to individual, and we should respect each other on that front. Personally, I really like most electronic music, but I also like rock, some metal and rap, orchestral from time to time, and I'm always open to new music! Feel free to leave your thoughts.

[availn]

Art music (also known as serious music, legitimate music (often shortened to legit music), concert music, or erudite music) is an umbrella term used to refer to musical traditions implying advanced structural and theoretical considerations and a written musical tradition. The notion of art music is a frequent and well defined musicological distinction, e.g., referred to by musicologist Philip Tagg as one of an "axiomatic triangle consisting of 'folk', 'art' and 'popular' musics." He explains that each of these three is distinguishable from the others according to certain criteria. In this regard, it is frequently used as a contrasting term to popular music and traditional or folk music.

I don't think that all music is art, as a line must be drawn somewhere. It all depends on where you draw that line. I just like to draw it way up there, as things are a lot more muddled when it comes to popular music.

[Fluttershy]

I see what you're saying, but ultimately I think what defines 'art music' varies immensely from individual to individual. I guess an example that might straddle the line between music and something else is '4'33"' by John Cage, which is 4 minutes and 33 seconds of silence. Now, some people might think it's pretentious and pointless, and not a musical work at all. Others, such as the composer himself, might believe that the piece has a deeper meaning- in this case about how any sounds can constitute music (actually, this ties in well with my main point, which is absolutely coincidental! )

Now, if we move to pop music, who's to say that pop music today is not an art form, at least to some people? Reading the Wikipedia article on art music, it seems that the definition of art music is music that is descended from classical music, and is 'more challenging' than pop music to interpret. I don't claim to be a musical expert at all, but personally, I think this definition is a bit rigid. So basically if it's not hard enough to interpret and isn't written using formal musical notation, it isn't art? As I said before, art is subjective, what some consider art might not be to others. To reiterate my previous statement, respect for each other's musical tastes and opinions is very important. I don't really like the way that some people can so definitively draw that line to say 'no, that piece isn't art' and 'yes, that is art'. But hey, that's just me, I guess!

[Panicmode]

I understand your point about unfairly judging artists music base on the prejudice against the artist themselves, but what about when that dislike is warranted? For example, my friend refuses to listen to Chris Brown because she just can't stand him as a person. She doesn't insult his music, but refuses to listen to him. Would this fit under your music snobbery definition. 

[Fluttershy]

I understand your point about unfairly judging artists music base on the prejudice against the artist themselves, but what about when that dislike is warranted? For example, my friend refuses to listen to Chris Brown because she just can't stand him as a person. She doesn't insult his music, but refuses to listen to him. Would this fit under your music snobbery definition. 

No, I don't think that would be 'music snobbery'. I'm talking about when a person dislikes and insults music based on their perception of the artist or takes a limited view on a piece of music because of, for instance, the way it was created (electronic music). Boycotting music because of the artist's personal life is perfectly reasonable though, in my opinion.

[JellyDonut]

Art music is probably the biggest case of music elitism in the music universe. The insinuation that music being art rests on the difficulty on the form is ridiculous. Its other aliases like serious or legitimate music is similarly as partronising.

Without going into definitions of art, I do think that some works have more or less artistic merit relative to others and that many of us can agree to a large extent on where the line lies. I'd say that a lot of pop music, just in terms of how its produced, is made with entertainment as a primary goal.

[Fluttershy]

Art music is probably the biggest case of music elitism in the music universe. The insinuation that music being art rests on the difficulty on the form is ridiculous. Its other aliases like serious or legitimate music is similarly as partronising.

Without going into definitions of art, I do think that some works have more or less artistic merit relative to others and that many of us can agree to a large extent on where the line lies. I'd say that a lot of pop music, just in terms of how its produced, is made with entertainment as a primary goal.

I do agree with your summation of art music, but with regard to art in general, couldn't you say that pop music, as a form of entertainment, is art in itself? I assume here than we are talking about fine arts, which by definition is primarily for 'aesthetics and/or concept' according to Wikipedia. So technically, and I realise here that this is probably a really minor point, entertainment loosely fits into the category of aesthetics and/or concept, and therefore pop music could be considered art. Now, that's just what I think, but I'm in no position to enforce that belief on anyone else. But, yeah, food for thought

[MonsieurHulot]

I do agree with your summation of art music, but with regard to art in general, couldn't you say that pop music, as a form of entertainment, is art in itself? I assume here than we are talking about fine arts, which by definition is primarily for 'aesthetics and/or concept' according to Wikipedia. So technically, and I realise here that this is probably a really minor point, entertainment loosely fits into the category of aesthetics and/or concept, and therefore pop music could be considered art. Now, that's just what I think, but I'm in no position to enforce that belief on anyone else. But, yeah, food for thought

In my opinion, anything can be viewed as art. It's a subjective view, so no-one else can tell you whether something is art or not. Pop music has as much artistic value as the most experimental boundary-pushing genre.
Also, as pop music is usually made for easy, pleasing listening, it may even better fit the definition of art as the pursuit of aesthetics. If you listen to 'art music' or avant-garde, it's often not particularly aesthetically pleasing.

[Fluttershy]

In my opinion, anything can be viewed as art. It's a subjective view, so no-one else can tell you whether something is art or not. Pop music has as much artistic value as the most experimental boundary-pushing genre.
Also, as pop music is usually made for easy, pleasing listening, it may even better fit the definition of art as the pursuit of aesthetics. If you listen to 'art music' or avant-garde, it's often not particularly aesthetically pleasing.

Well, it really does depend on what you think 'aesthetically pleasing' is. Just as I like dubstep, speedcore and other hard electronic genres, so too could some people be into minimalism, deep house, experimental genres and other things like that, that I find quite frankly uninteresting. I guess, as you said, it's a purely subjective issue. My original point is to respect people no matter what their musical preferences, rather than to put them down and insult others or the artists themselves for listening to/creating what they believe are works of art.

[JellyDonut]

I do agree with your summation of art music, but with regard to art in general, couldn't you say that pop music, as a form of entertainment, is art in itself? I assume here than we are talking about fine arts, which by definition is primarily for 'aesthetics and/or concept' according to Wikipedia. So technically, and I realise here that this is probably a really minor point, entertainment loosely fits into the category of aesthetics and/or concept, and therefore pop music could be considered art. Now, that's just what I think, but I'm in no position to enforce that belief on anyone else. But, yeah, food for thought

This

Also, as pop music is usually made for easy, pleasing listening, it may even better fit the definition of art as the pursuit of aesthetics. If you listen to 'art music' or avant-garde, it's often not particularly aesthetically pleasing.

along with this are good points because I did leave out aesthetics as my idea of art is predominantly conceptual. I'll admit a subjectivity where a case can be made for any type of music as art but I don't think this implies a free for all. Something about saying Far East Movement or Nicki Minaj has the same artistic merit as Wagner or King Crimson still doesn't sit well with me.

[MonsieurHulot]

along with this are good points because I did leave out aesthetics as my idea of art is predominantly conceptual. I'll admit a subjectivity where a case can be made for any type of music as art but I don't think this implies a free for all. Something about saying Far East Movement or Nicki Minaj has the same artistic merit as Wagner or King Crimson still doesn't sit well with me.

I know what you mean, but I disagree. As art is a purely subjective concept, the definition will vary from person to person. Therefore, the artist that best fits that definition will also vary. No person's definition is any more or less valid than yours or mine. I'd say that the majority of people would consider Wagner or Schubert more 'artistic' than Nicki Minaj, but that's because of the wide acceptance of definition of a concept that resists an objective definition.

[JellyDonut]

What do you mean by 'resisting an objective definition'?

[Mao]

My music library of 20k tracks and 4k albums entirely consists of sub-genres of electronic music made with a computer.

And I still hate Skrillex.

[Mao]

To elaborate more, artists like Skrillex, Nicki Minaj and Justin Bieber represent a small popular breakthrough of their respective music genres. People tend to subscribe to those artists because they are popular, but make little effort to explore the rest of genre for other artists who produce work of equal if not higher quality.

Popularity does not imply quality. People who subscribe to popularity rather than sampling other artists are, quite frankly, lazy and do not appreciate music for its quality. This is not a statement about the artists; through talent, hard work and luck, they have achieved popularity where others had not. This is a criticism of their listeners who know little outside of popular radio.

[MonsieurHulot]

What do you mean by 'resisting an objective definition'?

I mean that it is impossible to create a definition that holds true for everybody because everybody has a different interpretation of what art is.