Nobody in their right mind would ask if music is art, that's a prerequisite. Music and art are also not indicators of quality, just to get that out of the way

"Art is making something out of nothing and selling it"  ...yet another pearl of Zappa wisdom

Allow me to impart a few words of wisdom.

 

Let M be the set of all music.

Let A be the set of all art.

 

We have the following relationship: M ⊆ A, which means M is a subset of A.

In other words, for every element e in set M, e is also an element of A.

This is expressed in set notation as:

∀e ∈ M, e ∈ A

This can also be written as an implication

 

This is the relationship between music and art. I hope this addresses your concern.

 

Also, using the same type of argument, it can be shown that P ⊊ M , where P is the set of progressive music. This in turn implies that P ⊊ A.

The answer is 42. But what, exactly, is the question? 

Since we're discussing the artistic value of music, where did you get the animated gif in your signature?

I find it difficult to say that something is "art", and that something else is not. 

In general, for me, all EXPRESSION is a form of art or another. My main concern, is that rock music, because of commerciality, has to have LYRICS to tell you what it is about, and sometimes this is not a good idea. There are times, when the visual/sonic representation of it all is more important, and speaks a lot more, than any words that you could possibly put to it, but it is an "art form" to place the right words, in some music, and it becomes something that we all relate to and have appreciated for hundreds of years.

There is, a HUGE PROBLEM, here. And that is that a piece's fame, is usually tied to the memory of a moment, and people start identifying that piece of music or artistic work as representative of a particular event ... and this is one of the worst parts of the definitions of "progressive music" that must have keyboards as an example, and it takes away far more progressive and original other styles of music, that do not have keyboards and don't need it, since something else ... is of a much greater value and importance in its livelihood.

Things like "Reynardine" as done by Fairport Convention (Liege and Lief album), are very much "art" in that it's quality of the words, are so strong by the singing, as it is by the guitar representation ... and it's only both Richard Thompson and Sandy Denny ... no keyboards, bass or drums, and thus ... will never be considered "progressive" and neither will it be appreciated for such an amazing original content ... that most folks can't even listen to it ... or like RW would say ... one note played too long ... like it means nothing, Rick? 

In general, there is a feeling there, or it would not be there! And that is something that has a tendency to "define" art, and its ability to be appreciated and remembered.

That's me !...

Ok, maybe not. Not sure who giffed this one. There are many variations if you Google apache.gif. Feel free to cut and paste the image link from mine.

Here is its parent video. I can usually keep a straight face until the part where hi-hat sound is apparently coming from a floor tom. True art has know tangible connection to reality, right?

*drumroll*

Wow, that was truly horrendous. Excuse me while I pick up my jaw from the floor.

Also, I just learnt from you that this is a cover. Did not know that.

No worse than what the drummer appears to be doing.

Please refer to my previous comments, I think it was obvious I was trolling, lol

Music did begin as a ritualistic form of expression, then evolved into an artistic form of expression. Nuff said. 

That said, I really couldn't care less whether my statement is correct or not, after all I know just one thing about art: it's NOT about correctness. Better saying , art has NOTHING to do with correctness.

Finally someone hits the nail on the head. Art is something that is done on a computer. Paintbrush? What's that?

In the UK at least, during the 60s and 70s Art Rock had an Art College connotation rather than a more high-brow Art Music one. I have read somewhere that Pete Townshend was one of the first to make the association between Pop music and Art (remembering that prior to dropping out and forming The Who he studied Graphics at Ealing Art College alongside Ronnie Wood and Freddy Mercury), essentially putting the Art into Pop (as opposed to Warhol putting the Pop into Art). Though of course Townshend was not the first Art student to form a band and The Who weren't the only band in the mid-60s to be regarded as Art Rock. Pete Brown and Piblokto!'s album 'Things May Come and Things May Go but the Art School Dance Goes on Forever' is a classic example of that Art School/College heritage. From that perspective Floyd can also be regarded as Art College drop-outs (specifically Camberwell College of Arts and Regent Street Polytechnic), though Bowie is more guilt-through-association as he never attended Art School as such (he has 'O' Level Art, which was the secondary school basic qualification that 16-year old's attained in the UK). John Lennon is yet another Art School drop-out (from Liverpool College of Art). This "music made by Art students" was seen as something a little more educated (for want of a better word) than, as Micky would put it, the 'blue-collar' image normally associated with Pop music at the time. That social class distinction of Pop Music being uneducated working class and Classical Music (i.e. Art Music) being University-educated Upper Class is still prevalent over here today to some extent, with these (predominately) middle-class, Art School educated, Art Rock musicians caught in that 'neither one nor t'other' limbo between them, (which is where, as we know, Prog Rock developed from).

The idea that Art Rock was a loftier ambition that purported to elevate music out of the musicologist "Pop Music" classification and into the " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_music" rel="nofollow - Art Music" classification that is generally associated with Classical Music, is a later association in the UK, and one I suspect is an import from the USA where Prog Rock and Art Rock were indeed synonymous. As they switched their allegiance to the Punk Rock upstarts in the latter quarter of the 1970s, that British rock journalists regarded Prog Rock as 'pretentious' can be seen as part of that class divide that was then present in Pop Music rather than a dismissal of the notion that Pop Music can be Art (Music). {Muso-Journalists later disdain of Prog Rock was never about the music - it was a faux class-war}.

Hi,

Nicely written, Dean.

It's hard to discuss this in America, because things here are way too commercial, and the music scene has been so since Woodstock, when a few folks realized ... half a million sales? And there is the famous story of the follow up, for the greed and what not. Check the Tom Dowd story in his early days, for more on this!

In Wisconsin (Madison, specifically) we went to see Steve Miller, Ben Vereen, Otis Redding (sadly never arrived as the plane fell into the semi frozen lake), Jimi, Janis, Doors, Chicago, not because they were "art", but because they spoke for us a lot more than the bubble gum rendition of the AM radio band that ran the gamut ... FM, did not really start kicking here until probably 1968 and 1969, when all of these folk's music kinda disappeared from the AM band, and turned up in the FM band, along with a lot of new things few people knew and got happy and attached to.

This has been my experience.

I ONLY reflect some of the works as art, when the ambition, is much further away from us in terms of the literary/art/music history ... a work that sticks to your mind and will not go away. For me, for example, Passion Play, TFTO, TlLDOB, Tommy, and many other things, are ambitious works that in many ways went beyond the idea of just a pop song, even if some parts or pieces became so famous, as was the case with Tommy.

By the end of the 60's (in America!), I really thought, and still do, that rock music (includes folk and jazz -- kinda meaning stuff done by our generation) was becoming a lot more inventive and creative than the majority of classical music, which ended up re-starting the "hero" and "fame" routine for many of its most well known musicians (not that some were not already well known before ... just like movie stars!), and totally forgot the music itself ... even Leonard Bernstein (earlier) had gone "rock" (so to speak) with West Side Story, which had very little to show for "classical" and a lot to do with "movie musical" and a lot more inventive in the emotional side of things, which was one of the major ideas in rock music, not necessarily pop music. The NY dance and theater scene was incredible and had a lot of well developed things as well, even if defining these as art, would have a lot of people going ... you're kidding me ... and force an evaluation of what art really is, as is the case with Andy Warhol! Turn on the camera and watch two people sleep! Paris and London were no different.

The perfect image for me on this, is Jethro Tull's cover for "Passion Play" ... it felt to me like classical works were over and it was time for something else ... and it was OUR GENERATION that stood up and pretty much blasted the rest of the music waves ... to our great appreciation.

My definition of art, is spotty, and like everyone else's can be easily dismantled ... with only one difference ... for me "art" is not about my preferences! And I think this is an important point to be made about it all. I was not a great fan of Miles Davis, but 50 years later, I can see almost the same rebelliousness that Pablo Picasso had ... I do what I want kind of thing ... and some of it is transcendental for many of us, even if we sometimes think that this kind of reactionary work does not necessarily fit to be described as "art".