M is for Music

| March 4, 2014

Just saying music is extremely general, but what I really want to talk about is the idea of the battle between “pop” music and either classical or jazz, and the whole idea of can some types of music be more “valuable” or considered “better” art then others. This brings into the play the notions of high vs low culture, and music plays a key role in that because for instance going to see a classical concert at Lincoln center or Carnegie hall or something like that is probably one of the most high culture activities one could participate in. Similarly if you are some type of show in the basement of a bar in Brooklyn it’s seen as very low culture. But I don’t really believe that you can split music up like this when you’re getting down to the pure aesthetics of it. I think that music is the art form that we intrinsically have the most visceral experiences with, and it doesn’t matter what genre of music it is or what the venue looks like or how much you paid for the ticket. Music is music is music. And many times I think the most powerful experiences are brought on by songs that are the simplest in nature. Also just to clarify, when I say pop music I mean any type of music that could be considered for a mass audience, not just what we today put into the pop genre.

Here is an article concerning this topic:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/30/arts/music/30tomm.html?_r=3&ref=music&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin&

Here’s a classic “pop” song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MHkgwA8t-g

Here’s some classical music:

Here’s some Jazz: