I made this thread on reddit concerning the divide between what musicologists denote as Art or Popular music.
I will just copy paste the post there and inquire on your ideas on the topic:
I just want to narrow down how musicologists in general classify "Art" from "Popular" music.
The Wikipedia entries, which are asserted to come from reliable sources, state that "Art Music is music that implies advanced structural and theoretical considerations or a written tradition", and "Popular music is music with wide appeal that can be enjoyed by people with no musical training" (or something like that).
They also point out a general "triangle" of music into three categories: Art, Popular, and Folk music.
I just have some issues with this, that I need to clarify.
By saying that art music has by definition "advanced structural and theoretical considerations" - this implies that a given piece of music must inherently have complex theory behind it, right? But what about simple songs, minuets, and other basic forms that were developed but considered "Art Music"? These range just around a couple of minutes long and often have simple forms (Binary, ABA, etc.).
The article also states that "some forms of Jazz" are considered art music. This suggests that music does not have to be notated to be considered art music. It also implies that some popular music can be considered Art Music - I don't exactly know what kind of Jazz won't fall under Popular Music. This means there are music forms that can be considered both Art and Popular music.
I'm just into this because it seems important what sort of music is given a serious treatment and is included in books. I would like to clarify the divide observed by scholars that separates the two forms of music.
My own definition, based on what I observe:
- Art music refers to music that 1) belongs to a long, highly evolved musical tradition (by this I mean the music has undergone a lot of developments through the ages, say at least 50 years), 2) which has attained a high degree of complexity and 3) which has a systematised way of instruction and study.
This should fit Jazz (which is generally considered Art music today but not in the past) and non-Western classical music (e.g. Hindustani music which isn't notated but is complex and has a systematic way of instruction), justifying why not all "classical" (Western notated music) music is Art music.
This also negates some complex music (e.g. Prog Rock, grindcore, etc. which uses advanced techniques but isn't taken that seriously) which is not that old and does not have much systematic training and education behind them (the same applies to Bebop, which was only considered Art music once scholars put it on paper).
This will also imply that Art music is not based on inherent traits (e.g. Bebop or Erik Satie's music not being considered Art music during its conception) but on a "scholarly perception".
So, any ideas?
So, any ideas? Would want to know.
Regards,
cuberdrift