Talk:Art music

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Art music article.
Article policies
Art music is within the scope of WikiProject Music, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to music. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Music
Portal
Art music is within the scope of WikiProject Music genres, a user driven attempt to clean up and standardise music genre articles on Wikipedia. Please visit the project guidelines page for ideas on how to structure a genre article and help us assess and improve genre articles to good and 1.0 standards.


Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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
Frédérick Duhautpas 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.
RegardsFrédérick Duhautpas 13:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Traditional music or Folk music?

Frédérick, 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.Frédérick Duhautpas 13:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] 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.Frédérick Duhautpas 12:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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.Frédérick Duhautpas 23:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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. Frédérick Duhautpas 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?...Frédérick Duhautpas 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."[1] 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)

[edit] 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.Frédérick Duhautpas 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. Frédérick Duhautpas 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)

[edit] 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.Frédérick Duhautpas 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)

[edit] 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.Frédérick Duhautpas 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)

[edit] 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. Frédérick Duhautpas 12:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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. Frédérick Duhautpas 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.Frédérick Duhautpas 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.RegardsFrédérick Duhautpas 14:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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 musicFrédérick Duhautpas 14:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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.Frédérick Duhautpas (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)

[edit] 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.
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 suborn 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. Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 23:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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. Frédérick Duhautpas (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. Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 19:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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. Frédérick Duhautpas (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)