[jonathanjong]

In the "young people ruin music" thread, someone mentioned that music is entertainment rather than art nowadays, which led me to think, "Yea OK, so what?" So, I want to know what you look for in music. Do you just want to be entertained? Or do you care about the compositional process, about how heartfelt the words and lyrics are to the artist? Or do you listen to music mainly for the religious or political or philosophical (etc.) message, and think that music is (or ought to be) primarily the medium for such messages?

I lean towards wanting to be entertained myself, with the message and personal expressiveness of a song (or piece) coming secondary to my enjoyment. That said, it is the case that the message of a song and my perception of the heartfeltness of the artist feeds into my enjoyment.

 

[EnOYiN]

Music can be all of those things for me I think.

It's entertainment when I'm coming home after work or school and I'm trying to relax. It's entertainment when I'm in a discotheque or at a party.So I guess that comes first for me as well.

Still, that doesn't mean that while I'm looking for entertained the music isn't art any more all of a sudden. If it is artistic it might just contributes to my entertainment.

Same goes for the lyrics/message. If I can relate to what people are singing, because I've been in the same situation, I am more emotionally involved which might contributed to my entertainment even more. I think music can be enjoyed in different ways.

If I'm listening to Nirvana's Where did you sleep last night I am not looking for a brilliant composition. Same goes for songs like Radiohead's Creep or Rage Against the Machine's Wake up. Those songs are about the message. I might be entertained by those songs if I can relate to or agree with that message.

When I'm listening to Beethoven's late string quartets I am looking for a great composition. I am aware of the brilliance of his work and because of that I'm entertained. I think I'm more entertained or at least in a different way because I can understand the music/composition then somebody who is not able to do so. I think Being a musician myself plays a significant role in that.

Lastly, I would like to mention Jimi Hendrix. When listening to him you can't deny that making music can be art.

I think everyone has his own way of enjoying music. I don't think you can say that one way is better or worse than another. Either way. We're lucky we won't have to do without.

To quote Nietzsche:
Quote:

Ohne Musik wäre das Leben ein Irrtum. (Without music life would be a mistake.)

 

[tintin47]

I definitely view music as an art form, but an entertaining one. I want to enjoy it first, and think about it second.

 

[krmathis]

Voted "Other" since music can be all those to me...
/me think you should allowed us to vote for more than one item.

 

[Meliboeus]

It's mainly a form of art for me, as long as a musical piece shows some talent, originality either in songwriting or in instrumental technique, it classifies as "art" for me. There is no genre boundary, every kind of music can be art when it's composed and performed by real musicians, whose main aim is to create an actual work of art, that is to say putting their own ideas and skills into it. Commercial pop music is not a form of art, but it is not intended to, it is mass produced, industrially, in order to be consumed, downloaded, bought, airplayed, enjoyed for a short while on an ipod by teenagers, casual listeners of any age, then disappear all of a sudden. This is definately not art.

 

[esien]

entertainment in the first place, but can be many other things as well

 

[mark_h]

Surely all three, individually or concurrently?

 

[Barock]

Music can be all of the above, but primarily an entertainment when you get down to it.

 

[Fallen]

It's ALWAYS art for me. The only question is if it's good art or bad art.

Same goes for books, movies, paintings, etc... ALL or it. Rodin vs. some gift store figurine still comes down to good art vs. bad. Mozart vs. Spears, same thing.

 

[Kees]

Quote:

Originally Posted by krmathis /img/forum/go_quote.gif Voted "Other" since music can be all those to me... /me think you should allowed us to vote for more than one item.

X2

 

[MaZa]

It is entertaining art with a message. So, all of them.

 

[Fallen]

It's ALWAYS art for me. The only question is if it's good art or bad art.

Same goes for books, movies, paintings, etc... ALL or it. Rodin vs. some gift store figurine still comes down to good art vs. bad. Mozart vs. Spears, same thing.

 

[zotjen]

We listen to music primarily to be entertained. Music is an art form though but not all art is entertaining. No one ever looked at a Monet or Rembrandt and commented on it's entertainment value. I suppose people could find an artist like Picasso entertaining though.

 

[dreamwhisper]

damn, I voted entertainment quickly without thinking,
because i would've voted artform if i seen it there

though I am entertained by good artform so both are true for me

 

[jonathanjong]

I get the desire to vote "All 3", but I did ask about primacy. Which do you care about most? Entertainment value? The extent to which a piece expresses the artist's (or artists') thoughts and feelings? The message?