I would prefer not to draw that line - to be more open minded - but I agree. There is a difference or, more correctly, a continuum from the highest art down to economic rationalist enterprises masquerading as music. A drummer I used to speak with online once referred to Muzak as "synthetic music-like product", which I thought was an inspired description.Cogito ergo sum wrote:That's where we differ in our views. I don't see art as entertainment. That's what brought up this post in the first place. Art has become nothing more than entertainment and we have missed something in that perspective of it. We have entertainment and we have art, the two are distinguishable and at some point merged together. The point of this post was to determine the line between art and entertainment.
Passion is the difference. Late last year I gave up gigging with bands. I have dutifully played my part in various "juke boxes" for decades - entertaining drunks and dancers. Now it's my time! Every band I ever played in started out being musically adventurous but gradually mainstreamed as the feedback we received for certain songs shaped our repertoire. Every time the band would move towards the LCD, or would break up.
In the end I was frustrated with the ever-diminishing creativity (and parking and lugging hassles) so now I focus on jamming with an old guitarist friend and recording at home - raw and spontaneous music played with passion. When I press the record button we have no idea what we will play. It's invigorating. There's zero "hooks" and no intentionally danceable beats. Our only concern is that the music pleases our ears or amuses us. It's not high art but much more adventurous and experimental than the music the public would "allow" us to play. We figure that If we enjoy the music then others with similar tastes will too, albeit a vanishingly small minority