3 ms·

I'm no music expert, but that (specifically your statement about dancing being premier) doesn't jive with what little bits I know. Granted you could narrowly d

I'm no music expert, but that (specifically your statement about dancing being premier) doesn't jive with what little bits I know. Granted you could narrowly define bits and pieces of what you said to constrain the set of artists you're talking about, but insofar as you mention free jazz of the 1930s as an early example of producing "art for art's sake", there are certainly earlier comparable examples, the "futurists" of the 1920s and earlier being one (Varese, who was conducting as early as the 1910's) and whose art was _VERY MUCH_ an artistic display intended to push forward electronic sounds. I'm sure someone with a background in musical history can cite many examples even further back, my point being, I think there's been a constant gradient of music For Dance vs. music For Art, I don't think it's fair to say that one or the other is in any way particularly novel. (Victorian era music, for example, was a wide spread including everything from operatic virtuosos, to public house performances for dancing) To your other point however, I certainly agree that music as a product is not new, that concept dates back long past even the eras of our classical masters.

baddox 8y ago
And what about the obvious example of classical music?
- existencebox 8y ago
  Assuming I'm not misunderstanding you, In that classical was meant to be performances by virtuosos for art instead of dance? My counterargument was to show "proof by contradiction" of artists only a few decades earlier that countered the parent posts assertion of the 1930s, but as said, one with more music history could probably cite art vs. dance producers throughout history. I was hesitant to talk about Mozart/Bach/the other greats because I don't honestly have a deep understanding for how music was societally perceived back then/what the delineations were between pop/"high culture"/dance/"artistic" music (e.g. what the isomorphisms are to the modern day, if there even are any), whereas the earlier 1900's were not so far different from the parent's 1930s claim.
- dizzystar 8y ago
  One only needs to translate all that Latin to figure out most of it means a form of dance. Classical music was pop for it's time. People danced, drank, and even had massive riots when a controversial composer came to town.
  - soundwave106 8y ago
    Music for the church (often written by the same composers) is a counterpoint to this. I doubt too many people are dancing during requiems and masses. :) Also, there is music as the background to a theatrical performance (opera being the classic example of that). However if we really want to compare the most popular pieces of each time, we really can't look at the "art classical". Most "art classical" wasn't even the most popular back then, from what I gather (though occasionally an "art classical" composer did make a popular tune that became well known). It's difficult to find "top sales" lists of the old sheet music songs (which is probably the best parallel to modern record charts), but one someone put together for the US (https://thetop100songsofalltime.com/top-100-songs-of-the-1890s/ https://thetop100songsofalltime.com/top-100-songs-of-the-189...) has, for the link example of the 1890s, mostly popular short tunes (in the 1890s, "tin pan alley" style). Of what I recognize (there's a lot of songs on this list that frankly seems to have disappeared over time), there's some that probably would be the dance of its time. I wouldn't say all I recognize is "music to dance to" mainly because there are definitely some ballads among the tunes, as well as some Sousa marches, and songs which are probably more "sing-alongs". I'm guessing that most of these songs aren't exactly "works of art" in the way the original poster intended. :) But they were light entertainment for the time (ala pop today), and that's fine. Modern pop music also has some ballads that do not necessarily function as dance music, too. I think the biggest difference between music then and music now, is that the dominant way to make a living was to compose sheet music for other musicians to play. Recordings quite literally changed all of this.
    - dizzystar 8y ago
      A lot of things we call classical today was actually pretty low down and vulgar music. Here's a bit of Mozart: http://mentalfloss.com/article/55247/3-dirty-songs-mozart http://mentalfloss.com/article/55247/3-dirty-songs-mozart Chopin, for example, wrote 59 marzukas, which is music for a traditional Polish dance of the same name. Beethoven wrote many dance songs, especially waltzes. Albeniz, especially wrote music derived from traditional music. Suite Espanola is a wonderful exploration here. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suite_Española_No._1,_Op._47 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suite_Española_No._1,_Op._47 I could go all night on this topic, but the point is that, although we don't recognize the music as dance, it was to the people of that time.
joe_the_user 8y ago
Sure, I was talking about specifically popular music. There are many earlier examples of music for the elites being considered art.
- skybrian 8y ago
  Hmm, how about church music as another example of popular music not produced by elites. (Perhaps more respectable, but not necessarily elite.) Or how about work songs? Ragtime? Brass bands?
  - joe_the_user 8y ago
    Indeed, some popular music wasn't produced for dancing but most of that wasn't considered art. It's not really some simplistic generality. The larger point is audio reproduction and the increased production of commodities is what allowed the uniqueness of a kind of musician to be their selling point, once a musician was "selling himself/herself" rather than being a paid player.
UncleMeat 8y ago
Free jazz was developed in the the 50s not the 30s.

baddox 8y ago

And what about the obvious example of classical music?

existencebox 8y ago
Assuming I'm not misunderstanding you, In that classical was meant to be performances by virtuosos for art instead of dance? My counterargument was to show "proof by contradiction" of artists only a few decades earlier that countered the parent posts assertion of the 1930s, but as said, one with more music history could probably cite art vs. dance producers throughout history. I was hesitant to talk about Mozart/Bach/the other greats because I don't honestly have a deep understanding for how music was societally perceived back then/what the delineations were between pop/"high culture"/dance/"artistic" music (e.g. what the isomorphisms are to the modern day, if there even are any), whereas the earlier 1900's were not so far different from the parent's 1930s claim.
dizzystar 8y ago
One only needs to translate all that Latin to figure out most of it means a form of dance. Classical music was pop for it's time. People danced, drank, and even had massive riots when a controversial composer came to town.
- soundwave106 8y ago
  Music for the church (often written by the same composers) is a counterpoint to this. I doubt too many people are dancing during requiems and masses. :) Also, there is music as the background to a theatrical performance (opera being the classic example of that). However if we really want to compare the most popular pieces of each time, we really can't look at the "art classical". Most "art classical" wasn't even the most popular back then, from what I gather (though occasionally an "art classical" composer did make a popular tune that became well known). It's difficult to find "top sales" lists of the old sheet music songs (which is probably the best parallel to modern record charts), but one someone put together for the US (https://thetop100songsofalltime.com/top-100-songs-of-the-1890s/ https://thetop100songsofalltime.com/top-100-songs-of-the-189...) has, for the link example of the 1890s, mostly popular short tunes (in the 1890s, "tin pan alley" style). Of what I recognize (there's a lot of songs on this list that frankly seems to have disappeared over time), there's some that probably would be the dance of its time. I wouldn't say all I recognize is "music to dance to" mainly because there are definitely some ballads among the tunes, as well as some Sousa marches, and songs which are probably more "sing-alongs". I'm guessing that most of these songs aren't exactly "works of art" in the way the original poster intended. :) But they were light entertainment for the time (ala pop today), and that's fine. Modern pop music also has some ballads that do not necessarily function as dance music, too. I think the biggest difference between music then and music now, is that the dominant way to make a living was to compose sheet music for other musicians to play. Recordings quite literally changed all of this.
  - dizzystar 8y ago
    A lot of things we call classical today was actually pretty low down and vulgar music. Here's a bit of Mozart: http://mentalfloss.com/article/55247/3-dirty-songs-mozart http://mentalfloss.com/article/55247/3-dirty-songs-mozart Chopin, for example, wrote 59 marzukas, which is music for a traditional Polish dance of the same name. Beethoven wrote many dance songs, especially waltzes. Albeniz, especially wrote music derived from traditional music. Suite Espanola is a wonderful exploration here. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suite_Española_No._1,_Op._47 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suite_Española_No._1,_Op._47 I could go all night on this topic, but the point is that, although we don't recognize the music as dance, it was to the people of that time.

joe_the_user 8y ago

Sure, I was talking about specifically popular music. There are many earlier examples of music for the elites being considered art.

skybrian 8y ago
Hmm, how about church music as another example of popular music not produced by elites. (Perhaps more respectable, but not necessarily elite.) Or how about work songs? Ragtime? Brass bands?
- joe_the_user 8y ago
  Indeed, some popular music wasn't produced for dancing but most of that wasn't considered art. It's not really some simplistic generality. The larger point is audio reproduction and the increased production of commodities is what allowed the uniqueness of a kind of musician to be their selling point, once a musician was "selling himself/herself" rather than being a paid player.

UncleMeat 8y ago

Free jazz was developed in the the 50s not the 30s.