[jojoju2000]

Yes, what would Beethoven or Brahms think of film music, and what would they think of composing film music?

Every man or woman in charge of the music of moving picture theater is, consciously or unconsciously, a disciple or follower of Richard Wagner – Stephen Bush, film critic, 1911

Please write music like Wagner, only louder – Sam Goldwyn to a film composer

If my grandfather were alive today, he would undoubtedly be working in Hollywood —Wolfgang Wagner

 

[jojoju2000]

I don't agree with your premise.

The genre of classical music describes a repertory of music that is part of a tradition going back to the 9th century. It encompasses a variety of styles, but the audience for this music has remained fairly constant and specific. This is why a composer's intention of writing a work in that tradition is an important distinction, as is his intended audience as the same one who attends concerts of classical music in general.

Also there are compositional techniques and forms in classical music which classical composers are trained to use when composing a work. But the bottom-line is that a composer works from his internal aesthetic to create music according to his needs, not any outsider's.

The genre of film music describes a repertory of music which was written for use in a film. The kind of movie soundtrack which is a compilation of songs is a subset of film music and an entirely different sort of animal.

There are specific techniques related to dramatic usage of music to enhance a narrative sequence. A film composer is hired to score a film and is limited regarding the kind of music the director wants for his movie. Sometime a director will offer examples of the kind of music he wants composed. The film composer works from an external aesthetic to create music according to someone else's needs, not his own.

The bolded part has never been part of the academic definition, and would exclude well..... Incidental Music for Plays, Masses,

But no one would deny that Mass Music is part of the Classical Canon.

Would this be Classical Music ?

Or this ?

 

[HansZimmer]

I was suggesting that it would be extremely hard if not impossible to determine a set of intrinsic properties of all classical music. Your post linked above does not discuss intrinsic properties at all.

Well, if you want we can create a new discussion to determine the boundaries of classical music (where it begins and where it ends), because it goes beyond the purpose of this discussion.

My argument is very simple: as the general word to indicate classical music is basically an extension of the more orthodox meaning of classical music (art music of the classical period), it's clear that the music of the classical period is the core of classical music.
The music of the classical period and around consists of determined compositional practices, which translate to a determined and recognizable aesthetic. @YusufeVirdayyLmao wrote that the composers consciously wrote music in a determined aesthetic that they considered as "superior", therefore the aesthetic is a intrinsic part of the art music of the classical period, not a casuality.

When more composers agree about the value of a determined aesthetic and create different pieces of music with common denominators, it's called "MUSICAL GENRE".


Now, what I'm saying in this discussion is that the so called "cinematic classical" derivates from that genre, the core of classical music. The definition of "classical music" of the worldnewencylopedia says that the music rooted in classical music, is classical music, and since cinematic classical in most cases derivates from the core of classical music, and not from peripheric forms of classical music, I don't have to define the boundaries of classical music to support my argument.

I think that @Aries should stop listing exclusionary criterias, because there are not. The composers of the classical period and around used their musical genre to compose many different pieces of music for different functions: some of them were more complex, some others were less complex. Some others were written for entertainment, some others for the religious services.
The different pieces, written for different functions, don't share so much between each others, except for the aesthetic. So, it's the aesthetic alone which define their musical genre.
If someone says that classical music was not used for "direct entertainment", maybe he forgets that Mozart wrote collections of minuets (which, I suppose, were used to dance) and Dvorak composed the slavonic dances.
Except for the aesthetic, what do the slavonic dances of Dvorak share with his symphonies?


So, if you want you can say that the music for soundtracks written in that genre is not classical music, but it's not that the names change the intrinsic properties of objects. If you call "man" a boy, it's not that the beard starts to grew on his face.
If you refuse to call determined film scores "classical music", they don't lose their intrinsic properties. The properties remain where they are.

 

[Luchesi]

I had a conversation with a friend about this. He's not a musician. He said that when he hears FM it sounds like FM. There's something about it that makes it sound like FM. He didn't know why and it was curious to him.

And we puzzled, isn't this like someone hearing FM and saying it sounds like CM?

When we hear FM and it sounds like FM we can go to the score and see why (if we can’t hear why it is, without the score).

….I re-read this and I’m not sure if it makes sense to contributors here. I guess you had to be there. It was a party and there was alcohol.

 

[mmsbls]

Well, if you want we can create a new discussion to determine the boundaries of classical music (where it begins and where it ends), because it goes beyond the purpose of this discussion.

I guess I thought this thread was about how people determine whether film music falls within the boundaries of classical music.

My argument is very simple: as the general word to indicate classical music is basically an extension of the more orthodox meaning of classical music (art music of the classical period), it's clear the music of the classical period is the core of classical music.
The music of the classical period and around consists of determined compositional practices, which translate in a determined and recognizable aesthetic. @YusufeVirdayyLmao wrote that the composers consciously wrote music in a determined aesthetic that they considered as "superior", therefore the aesthetic is a intrinsic part of the art music of the classical period, not a casuality.

When more composers agree about the value of a determined aesthetic and create different pieces of music with common denominators, is called a genre.


Now, what I'm saying in this discussion is that the so called "cinematic classical" derivates from that genre, the core of classical music. The definition of "classical music" of the world newencylopedia says that the music rooted in classical music, is classical music, and since cinematic classical in most cases derivates from the core of classical music, and not from peripheric forms of classical music, I don't have to define the boundaries of classical music to support my argument.

I think that @Aries should stop listing exclusionary criterias, because there are not. The composers of the classical period and around uses their musical genre to compose many different pieces of music for different functions: some of them were more complex, some others were less complex. Some others were written for entertainment, some others for the religious services.
The different pieces, written for different functions, don't share so much between each others, except of the aesthetic. So, it's the aesthetic alone which define their musical genre.
If someone says that classical music was not used for "direct entertainment", maybe he forgets that Mozart wrote collections of minuets (which, I suppose, were used to dance) and Dvorak composed the slavonic dances.
Except for the aesthetic, what do the slavonic dances of Dvorak share with his symphonies?


So, if you want you can say that music for soundtrack written in that genre is not classical music, but it's not that the names change the intrinsic properties of objects. If you call "man" a boy, it's not that the beard starts to grew on his face.
If you refuse to call determined filme scores "classical music", they don't lose their intrinsic properties. They remain where they are.

You have repeated this argument over and over and over and over. I understand your view. I certainly hope everyone here understands your view since you've posted it so often. I know you think the issue is aesthetics and intrinsic properties of the music. I have even said I think it's a reasonable view to take. My understanding from people with expertise in the field that I know personally and from the vast majority of those I have read online is that classical music is not defined by an aesthetic or even multiple aesthetics. It is defined more by a tradition of composition. That is why they consider music as varied as Bingen's Ordo Virtutum and Ferneyhough's String Quartet No. 6 both classical music.

But we all understand your view. You can talk about intrinsic properties and aesthetics for years, but it's just outside our view of what constitutes classical music. I asked people who they feel should decide what constitutes classical music. I look to those who have spent a lifetime in the field.

 

[SanAntone]

Out of curiosity I looked up Wikipedia's list of 20th century classical music composers. Film composers were not included unless they had also written concert works outside of their film work. Composers such as Hans Zimmer, James Horner, Randy Newman, and others who only wrote for films were not included. However, most were classical music composers who had written a few film scores.

Here's the list:

Gilbert Amy
Geoffrey Burgon
John Corigliano
Don Davis
Jerry Goldsmith
Ron Goodwin
Arthur Honegger
Nihad Hrustanbegovic
Joe Hisaishi
Wojciech Kilar
Erich Wolfgang Korngold
Carter Larsen
Mladen Milicevic
Ennio Morricone
Fred Raymond
William Susman
Tan Dun
Mikis Theodorakis
William Walton
John Williams

 

[Bulldog]

My argument is very simple: as the general word to indicate classical music is basically an extension of the more orthodox meaning of classical music (art music of the classical period), it's clear the music of the classical period is the core of classical music.

That makes no sense at all.

 

[HansZimmer]

Well there's only one Composer in the Film World today, who writes exclusively by hand.

With "today" do you mean literally "today", or do you mean "last decades"?

 

[HansZimmer]

I guess I thought this thread was about how people determine whether film music falls within the boundaries of classical music.

Yes, this is infact what I'd like to do in this discussion. We can take the core of classical music and analyze the INTRINSIC PROPERTIES. Then we take the film scores which are considered "cinematic classical" and we do the same thing. Finally, we can compare the differences between the INTRINSIC PROPERTIES of the two and we can determine if they exclude film music from classical music.

This would be a reasonable process, while to investigate the boundaries of classical music it would be probably pointless, because the categories are not rational. The categories are not rational because humans are not rational. So yes, in the periphery of classical music you will find many strange works that have been accepted inside the category for arbitrary reasons, but this doesn't cancel the fact that classical music has a core, which is quite well defined in terms of intrinsic properties.

You have repeated this argument over and over and over and over. I understand your view. I certainly hope everyone here understands your view since you've posted it so often. I know you think the issue is aesthetics and intrinsic properties of the music. I have even said I think it's a reasonable view to take. My understanding from people with expertise in the field that I know personally and from the vast majority of those I have read online is that classical music is not defined by an aesthetic or even multiple aesthetics. It is defined more by a tradition of composition. That is why they consider music as varied as Bingen's Ordo Virtutum and Ferneyhough's String Quartet No. 6 both classical music.

But we all understand your view. You can talk about intrinsic properties and aesthetics for years, but it's just outside our view of what constitutes classical music. I asked people who they feel should decide what constitutes classical music. I look to those who have spent a lifetime in the field.

The question is always the same, and no one has replied to it. If I wanted to create a big database of film music and I had the necessity to distinguish between the different genres, how should I call the category which refers to the kind of music about which we are speaking? You can not tell me that a name doesn't exist, because everything has a name... and if we don't have a name to indicate a concept, then we must invent a new word. So, I'm open to suggestions.

I'll start to give a suggestion to myself. What about "neoromantic" for the score of Star Wars and "neoclassical" for the score of "Sense and Sensibility"? Try to thing about this, Hans: your database would even be more specific and you would be able to wash your hands with that pointless debate about what is this BIG CONTAINER called "classical music", which might not be logically coherent as you think.
Good suggestion, my dear alter ego! Now I will tell my friends of the discussion about your idea.


Ok, I have come to a conclusion: the score of Star Wars and of The Age of Innocence is neoromantic music, the one of Sense and Sensibility is neoclassical music. Some other film scores might be in some modern styles of that BIG CONTAINER that you call "classical music".
I don't have so much interest in determining what do romantique and Classical music (note the capital C) have to do with the strangest works of modern music. IMO when a category is filled with so many different things, it becomes impossible to define it because it loses any kind of rationality, and therefore the category dissolves.

So, if I say that this piece is neoclassical music (more specifically, it sounds like an Adagio of a piano concerto of the classical period) do you oppose my definition? To be sure that no one can drag me in an other discussion about ambiguity, I might be even more specific and say that it's neogalant music.
As for the question of understanding why the galant music has been put in that BIG CONTAINER called "classical music" together with that strange avant-garde stuff, I leave it to you. I don't care about definitions not based on RATIONAL INTRINSIC PROPERTIES and I have to say that I don't like classical music, but I'm here specifically for baroque, Classical and romantique music (precise musical genres that I like).

 

[HansZimmer]

Now, about the question of what is classical music and what are his boundaries, as I said it goes beyond the purpose of this discussion, so we should create a new discussion about this.

However, my 5 cents about how to break the problem is the following:

• Eliminate the word "classical music": use it simply for defining the music of the classical period. It's not a good thing to have two words which indicate two different things: it creates confusion.
• Use the word "art music" to define the big container. Art music is not a genre of music, but a collection of different musical genres (including classical music) just like popular music.
• Wash you hands about the problem of defining "art music". The distinction between "art music", "popular music" and "folk music" in itself is quite pointless. All of them are poorly defined and definable, this is why I don't care too much about the determination of what is and what is not art music.
• Finally, baroque music, classical music and romantique music can be placed in the category of "Common Practices Music"

I have to say that I'm not in this forum for "art music" in general, but for Common Practices Music. For me it's important to define the specific styles, not the big container, because I don't care so much about the latter.

My point (see my previous post) is that the style of a determined kind of film music derivates from Common Practices Music. Simply this. Dont't drag me in endless debates about the sense of life.

I also think that, despite the fact that we often speak about medieval music or modern music, the Common Practices Music is the core of art music. If you would eliminate the music of Bach, Beethoven and Mozart from art music, the community of "art music" would collapse. If you would also eliminate from it the music of Vivaldi, Chopin, Tchaikovsky and many others, the community of art music would almost completely dissolve.
It must also be noted that almost everyone here agrees about the value of the original Common Practices Music, while modern music (including neobaroque, neoclassical, neoromantique music) creates a lot of division between the users of this forum.
This is the reason for which the original Common Practices Music is incontestably the core of art music.

 

[HansZimmer]

Yes, think about its recent origin and why it's different than CM. Why it needs to be different than CM.

If you think it sounds like CM to you, learn the intention of the composer. They should know.

I don't know, but do any decriptions of film composers say they're writing CM for films?

I don't understand. Does Patrick Doyle has to send you a letter to explain you that while writing this piece for the film "Hamlet" his intention was to compose music based on the Common Practices Music? It's like if while listening to a rap song, you asked "Are we sure that the intention of the author was to create rap music?".

The point is that the composers of the so called "cinematic classical" don't have to do a press conference to explain the obvious, but I've already posted the interview in which John Williams compares his film scores to the Common Practices Music. If he thought that his music is rap he would probably compare his film scores to the music of Eminem, don't you think?

 

[HansZimmer]

Classical music fullfills at least 2 of the following 3 requirements:

• complexity
• non-electric sound generation
• no backbeat

Updated criteria (2 out of 3 required):

• non-electric sound generation
• no backbeat
• no adequate possibility to sing along for laypersons

Please, read my post #3'570: Why do many people think that classical music composed for film scores is not classical music?

Are you trying to find exclusionary criterias for "art music", for "classical music" (music of the classical period) or for Common Practices Music (which includes, in my definition, baroque music, classical music and romantique music)?
It's important to understand what we want to define before to start any debate.

If you are trying to find exclusionary criterias for "art music", I think it's pointless, because the word is poorly defined and difficult to define. Humans have inserted so many different things in the category that it's now basically dissolved.


On the other hand, if you want to find exclusionary criterias regarding to Common Practices Music, I agree with non-electric sound generation (which is obvious, because electronic didn't exist at the time) and I'd say that it is correct to say that the usage of a backbeat was not a common practice, but maybe someone would be able to give examples of works which use a backbeat.

In regards to complexity, you should give a definition of the word and give us clear demarcations criterias to distinguish complex music from non complex music.


No adequate possibility to sing along for laypersons ----> this is the strangest criteria that I've heard. For example, I'm able to sing this movement of Mozart. Does this mean that it's not Common Practices Music (or, more specifically, classical music, or even more specifically, galant music)?
And what about the Common Practices Music written specifically for human voice, or movements of instrumental music which are explicitly signed as "cantabile"?

Your idea that "direct entertainment" is an exclusionary criteria for "art music" is also strange. What else are the "german dances" of Beethoven, if not "direct entertainment"?

Finally, if you think that "art music" must not contain "entertainment", why don't you expel from it all the works with nice melodies? The distinction between "works with nice melodies" and "works with bad melodies or without melodies" is probably even more relevant than the distinction between "dance" and "symphony" in regards to the entertaining power.
At the end, if the logic is to expel entertaining music, the consequence would be to expel classical music from the category (as the music of classical period is usually very melodic) and keep inside "art music" only the most strange forms of modern music, the ones which make the masses run away from art music.


At the end, the point is quite simple. We don't know what is "art music", but we know what it contains.
It's basically a container of musical genres, like the big container of popular music.
"Galant music" is an example of a specific genre of music which has been incorporated inside "art music" and the logic is quite simple: every single piece of music composed inside "galant music", it's art music. It doesn't matter the function, the entertaining power and all the rest. As any musical genre which is inside "art music", it contains many different kind of works.

Finally, I don't see what's the purpose of inserting the waltzes of Strauss in the category of "light music" when the word "waltz" in itself already describes what it is. The word "symphony" and "waltz" are already perfect to describe the differences and the different functions of the two kind of works, so why should we bother in creating other words which would only create endless debates?

 

[fbjim]

I had a conversation with a friend about this. He's not a musician. He said that when he hears FM it sounds like FM. There's something about it that makes it sound like FM. He didn't know why and it was curious to him.

And we puzzled, isn't this like someone hearing FM and saying it sounds like CM?

When we hear FM and it sounds like FM we can go to the score and see why (if we can’t hear why it is, without the score).

….I re-read this and I’m not sure if it makes sense to contributors here. I guess you had to be there. It was a party and there was alcohol.

This is a legitimately interesting question I think - sometimes I hear composers and compositions described as "sounding like film music", especially the likes of Wagner and Mahler. I wonder what it is about those works that makes them sound that way? Is it just similarity to "standard" orchestral film music in style (or to say, it's what "standard" film composers copied in the 60s or so)

 

[Luchesi]

This is a legitimately interesting question I think - sometimes I hear composers and compositions described as "sounding like film music", especially the likes of Wagner and Mahler. I wonder what it is about those works that makes them sound that way? Is it just similarity to "standard" orchestral film music in style (or to say, it's what "standard" film composers copied in the 60s or so)

I think I could find in the score where it sounds like FM to me. Then defining in words for another musician - what the composer was doing at that time.

 

[mmsbls]

Yes, this is infact what I'd like to do in this discussion. We can take the core of classical music and analyze the INTRINSIC PROPERTIES. Then we take the film scores which are considered "cinematic classical" and we do the same thing. Finally, we can compare the differences between the INTRINSIC PROPERTIES of the two and we can determine if they exclude film music from classical music.

I think most of us thought you wished us to explain why some people do not think that film scores are classical music. Many of us gave our reasons, but we didn't realize you wanted the thread to be something quite different.

The question is always the same, and no one has replied to it. If I wanted to create a big database of film music and I had the necessity to distinguish between the different genres, how should I call the category which refers to the kind of music about which we are speaking?

I'm guessing many of us would not have been interested in this question.

...your database would even be more specific and you would be able to wash your hands with that pointless debate about what is this BIG CONTAINER called "classical music", which might not be logically coherent as you think.

I believe few of us realized that you viewed much of the thread's content as a pointless debate.

...As for the question of understanding why the galant music has been put in that BIG CONTAINER called "classical music" together with that strange avant-garde stuff, I leave it to you. I don't care about definitions not based on RATIONAL INTRINSIC PROPERTIES and I have to say that I don't like classical music, but I'm here specifically for baroque, Classical and romantique music (precise musical genres that I like).

I think the thread would have been enormously different (and much shorter) if you had read initial responses and replied along the lines of:

I understand why some view extrinsic properties as the relevant factors in distinguishing film from classical music. I also understand that some view film music as of lesser quality than classical music, and therefore, distinguished from classical music. Personally, I'm more interested in distinguishing the genres of film music based on how the music sounds rather than other criteria. Thanks for you interest, but can we focus on distinguishing the genres of film music?

 

[Luchesi]

I think most of us thought you wished us to explain why some people do not think that film scores are classical music. Many of us gave our reasons, but we didn't realize you wanted the thread to be something quite different.



I'm guessing many of us would not have been interested in this question.



I believe few of us realized that you viewed much of the thread's content as a pointless debate.



I think the thread would have been enormously different (and much shorter) if you had read initial responses and replied along the lines of:

I understand why some view extrinsic properties as the relevant factors in distinguishing film from classical music. I also understand that some view film music as of lesser quality than classical music, and therefore, distinguished from classical music. Personally, I'm more interested in distinguishing the genres of film music based on how the music sounds rather than other criteria. Thanks for you interest, but can we focus on distinguishing the genres of film music?

This has been a nice long thread and we've gotten a lot of different people’s opinions.

When I was young and the rock groups were first bringing in orchestral sounds to their pop songs friends of mine would say, oh I think you would like this. Why don't you give it a listen and then I wouldn't be intrigued … and they would feel slightly dejected.
It was a teachable moment but I don't think I ever convinced anyone.

because I think in the arts, it's what we want to ‘believe’ that's paramount in the art process.

 

[That Guy Mick]

This has been a nice long thread and we've gotten a lot of different people’s opinions.

When I was young and the rock groups were first bringing in orchestral sounds to their pop songs friends of mine would say, oh I think you would like this. Why don't you give it a listen and then I wouldn't be intrigued … and they would feel slightly dejected.
It was a teachable moment but I don't think I ever convinced anyone.

because I think in the arts, it's what we want to ‘believe’ that's paramount in the art process.

Hi Luchesi. Hope you are doing well. Serious question. How much time is involved in gaining the ability to read Classical type scores? I am very curious.

 

[Aries]

Modernist, Post-modernist, Contemporary, Avant-garde...

But that wasn't what I thought was meant by "aesthetic". Those labels tell us nothing about the sound of the music, so we're no nearer getting any kind of definition of CM based on intrinsic properties, as you and HZ promised.

You can describe the intrinsic properties of single classical pieces. It may be difficult combine all of that to describe the intrinsic properties of classical music overall. However it is easier to group all classical pieces into smaller groups and define the intrinsic properties of the smaller groups. Then you could just define the intrinsic properties of classical music as the set of the intrinsic properties of the smaller groups. It would be like a patchwork quilt, not so beautiful, but it would be a definition by intrinsic properties.

I will not do that here. I do not have to proof that here for now. My time is limited. I think I sufficiently explained the idea.

Now, about the question of what is classical music and what are his boundaries, as I said it goes beyond the purpose of this discussion, so we should create a new discussion about this.

However, my 5 cents about how to break the problem is the following:

• Eliminate the word "classical music": use it simply for defining the music of the classical period. It's not a good thing to have two words which indicate two different things: it creates confusion

Eliminating the word creates confusion too, unfortunately. But an other idea is to speak more explicitly about classical era music and classical art music.

Are you trying to find exclusionary criterias for "art music", for "classical music" (music of the classical period) or for Common Practices Music (which includes, in my definition, baroque music, classical music and romantique music)?

When I speask about classical music, I think it means Common Practise music plus some extensions like some modernist music. But my current thought is to not include extrem avant-garde music. So it includes comfortablly for example Shostakovich, Prokofiev and Glass, but it does not include Stockhausen, Boulez and Cage.

If you are trying to find exclusionary criterias for "art music", I think it's pointless, because the word is poorly defined and difficult to define. Humans have inserted so many different things in the category that it's now basically dissolved.

On the other hand, if you want to find exclusionary criterias regarding to Common Practices Music, I agree with non-electric sound generation (which is obvious, because electronic didn't exist at the time) and I'd say that it is correct to say that the usage of a backbeat was not a common practice, but maybe someone would be able to give examples of works which use a backbeat.

In regards to complexity, you should give a definition of the word and give us clear demarcations criterias to distinguish complex music from non complex music.


No adequate possibility to sing along for laypersons ----> this is the strangest criteria that I've heard. For example, I'm able to sing this movement of Mozart. Does this mean that it's not Common Practices Music (or, more specifically, classical music, or even more specifically, galant music)?

I gave up on the complexity criterium.

Classical art music is a subset of art music. Lets think about art music first. Art music is music that exceeds the function and artistry of "entertainment music". That does not mean that it is not entertaining, but that there is more to it. When I speak about "entertainment music", what do I mean? Popular music usually creates attractivity by physically animating listeners: Make them dance and make them sing. You can dance to a popular song, and you can dance to a popular song. These physical activities make people happy, and this is a big part of the value of popular music. However these kind of things are not the point of art music. Art music is more about the music itself, less about phyiscal activities of the listeners. Therefore the music itself must be higher art to reach the same or more value. You can just silently sit and listen to art music, and it can be an better experience than singing and dancing to pop music.

Art music can maybe function in unlimited different ways, so it is difficult to say that it has to fullfill this or that functionality to be art music. Instead my attempt is to simply exclude pure entertainment music, by making the criteria for entertainment music (backbeat, ability to sing along) negative criterias for art music.

And what about the Common Practices Music written specifically for human voice, or movements of instrumental music which are explicitly signed as "cantabile"?

An cantabile instrumental movement is not as suitable to animate people for singing as a popular song. Text is missing for example. Also operas are not as suitable for people to sing along, because it is much more difficult to sing than a pop song. Pop songs are made in a way, that they are suitable for singing along.

Your idea that "direct entertainment" is an exclusionary criteria for "art music" is also strange. What else are the "german dances" of Beethoven, if not "direct entertainment"?

Art music is also entertaining, but even such classical dances are often performed in classical concerts where the listeners are sitting instead of dancing like on a pop concert. I think this proves that there is more about them.

Finally, if you think that "art music" must not contain "entertainment"

Art music contains entertainment but a more refined intellectual or sensual entertainment than popular music (physical animation). The term "entertainment music" is maybe bad but I think I explained my thought behind it. The opposite of high art and physical animation.

 

[Forster]

Art music is music that exceeds the function and artistry of "entertainment music".

How can you make a comparative measure of this music versus that?

How can you quantify how much value there is in "entertainment", and then in "art music"?

Why is "entertainment" of lesser worth than whatever else one gets out of art music?

 

[Aries]

How can you make a comparative measure of this music versus that?

How can you quantify how much value there is in "entertainment", and then in "art music"?

Why is "entertainment" of lesser worth than whatever else one gets out of art music?

ChatGPT:

Q: How can people evaluate something?
A: People can evaluate something by comparing it to a set of standards or criteria, examining its features and attributes, considering its pros and cons, and/or evaluating its performance or effectiveness. Other methods of evaluation can include benchmarking, testing, surveying, and examining feedback or data. The specific methods used will depend on the type of item being evaluated and the purpose of the evaluation.

Q: How can one quantify the value in something?
A: The value of something can be quantified in several ways, depending on the context. Some common methods include:

Monetary value - evaluating the worth of something in terms of currency.
Cost-benefit analysis - evaluating the benefits of something against the costs involved.
Market value - determining the value of something based on supply and demand in a marketplace.
Comparative analysis - evaluating the value of something in relation to similar items or alternatives.
Utility or usefulness - evaluating the value of something based on how useful or beneficial it is to a particular person or group.
Expert judgment - getting an expert's opinion on the value of something.

In some cases, multiple methods may be used in combination to arrive at a more comprehensive evaluation of the value of something.

Q: Why is entertainment of lesser worth than art?
A: The value of entertainment and art is subjective and depends on personal beliefs, values, and tastes. Some people may consider entertainment to be of lesser worth than art, while others may hold the opposite view.

It's important to note that the value of entertainment and art is not inherently inherent but rather a cultural, historical and personal construct.

In some cultures, art may be seen as a form of self-expression that carries significant value, whereas entertainment may be viewed as a form of leisure or escapism with less cultural value. On the other hand, entertainment may be considered to have greater value if it provides joy, laughter, or emotional release.

In the end, it's a matter of personal perception and interpretation, and there is no right or wrong answer.