Mark asked:

Does philosophy consider pop music art?

============

As there are no objective criteria regarding art and therefore no definition of art in absolute terms, it's
very hard to make an objective statement whether some piece of human work is art or not. For this
simple reason "Philosophy" as a whole won't give an answer to your question. All I can give you is
some approaches to handle this question.

If we define art as the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of
aesthetic objects and an aesthetic object as a work of aestheticvalue, then from a pop music
composer's perspective pop music is art. Therefore pop music might be at least some kindof art for
other people including philosophers, too.

It is often said that there is:

I. high art in contrast to popular art, and/or

II. good art in contrast to bad art.

Both have their problems: Why should high art not become popular (Ex.: Nigel Kennedy's
interpretation of Vivaldi's Four Seasons) and why should some work regarded as good art not be
(regarded as) bad after all? This can happen for example, when methods of critique change. So,
these distinctions won't do the job.

Now someone could define art from the perspective of the listeners focusing on the intellectual
powers of the audience saying "music can be composed for intellectual delight or for satisfaction of
primitive instincts", concluding "The elite listens to intellectually high "classical music", meaning
absolute music and therefore art per se and the masses are settled for primitive pop music, which is
of course non-art." Now, if for example Tony Blair admires Oasis, he admires the art of the masses,
and with the definition above, suddenly belongs to the masses or at least indulges in primitive
instincts. This pseudo-sociological approach is no good either.

Another weak argument: Gilles Deleuze and Theodor W. Adorno argue that popular music is nothing
but a giant exercise in money-making, and thereby completely devoid of aesthetic value. Though
there is no doubt about the commercial character of pop music, in such comments another category
mistake is committed: a million selling pop song still has some aesthetic value when it is well
composed.

One reason for all these discussions going in circles lies in the fact that the term "pop" is a very
blurred one: it can refer to a music category called "pop music" (meaning non-classical music, which
doesn't automatically mean non-art) and it can refer to the many listeners, therefore meaning being
"popular" (which has nothing to do with the piece of music itself).

To cut that story short: I believe any piece of music can be regarded as art as long as it is composed
by a human being regardless whether anyone likes it or not.

Simone Klein

What are the parameters for art, and who sets them ? Art is highly subjective, what pleases one
person might disgust another. Philosophers are no exception to the rule. I can only speak for myself,
and being involved with music all my life, and for very many years appeared before audiences as a
semi-professional classical baritone, I am obviously biased in favour of what I understand to be real
music, performed by highly talented musicians. A person with a real talent is born with it, it is not
manufactured to suit a commercial purpose. This I recognise as true art. For me pop does not fall into
this category, in fact I find myself unable to refer to this stuff as music, I refer to it as pop, I am unable
to find a category for it in the range of what I regard as acceptable music.It seems to me that anyone
who knows the difference between a crotchet and a quaver can soon put together a pop tune, and
there is certainly no need to have qualifications or talent as a lyricist, because most of the stuff
comprises no more than half a dozen words repeated over and over again to the point of monotony,
and which is often meaningless and banal.

The basis of pop is not art, in my opinion, but commercialism, and thus has as much value in the art
world as a large financial institute or a large international bank. No one will ever convince me, and
probably most of those in my generation, that pop is anything other than a ruthless commercially
driven enterprise. The whole process seems to be driven by agents and record companies, the stuff
is churned out as though from a production line: it remains popular for a short time, then, because
there is little substance or depth to it, it is replaced by something much the same; a necessary
process in a massive profit driven enterprise.

Compare this to the music of the great masters, much of which has been popular for hundreds of
years and still pulls large audiences to concert halls all over the world. Audiences are also drawn by
the great talented artists who perform these works, performers who have spent years of training and
practice on developing their talents to the full. One of the things that pleases me about many of the
young people in this day and age, is the way they have sidestepped the pop world with its peer
pressure and clever advertising, and gone on to develop their natural musical talents, to continue to
bring this great music to the ears of the world. Despite what I previously said about record
companies, they earn a great deal of appreciation for bringing expertise and modern technology to
the production of superbly enhanced past recordings, which sound as if they were originally produced
just yesterday, and give us the benefit of hearing great music performed by great artists long since
past away. All this I claim is art, pop has no comparison either in its composers or its performers, who
leave a great deal to be desired, and seem to depend on visual attraction rather than anything else,
what passes for singing here, to me, bears no resemblance to real singing, and this becomes
painfully obvious when a singer and a pop performer appear together on the same bill.

The fact that pop is pushed down the throats of people, particularly the young, day after day by the
media for commercial gain certainly begs the question of whether this can be art, or anything to do
with art. To me, pop is not a progressive move in music, but a backward step to a more primitive time
in our history. Anyway, these are my views for what they are worth, take them or leave them; others
will no doubt have very different opinions: and, as I said at the beginning, art is subjective. Believe it
or not, many of my family and friends are pop addicts, I have been trying to change them for years,
with little success.

John Brandon