Frequently Asked Questions
What's musoc.org about?
Read all About it.
How on earth do you expect to convert people to your cause with all that provocative rhetoric?
Musoc.org is not an evangelising site, nor is it trying to create 'broad church' support. It's simply a voice for people who already feel (or are leaning) a certain way about cultural imperialism, intellectual vandalism, neoliberalism and postmodernism; and particularly the effect these have on the music they love.
What do you mean by 'Art Music'?
Music, rather than 'music'. Good dictionaries usually give two meanings of music, both referring to 'organised sounds in time', one as an art form, one as any sequence. On this site, quotes signify the latter, lack of quotes, the former. See Definitions.
How can you define Art without reference to aesthetics?
There are many definitions of 'art', and, given the inherent subjectivity and limitless debatability of aesthetics, a definition of Art Music that doesn't depend on agreement over such an inscrutable subject makes argumentation simpler.
Also, there is considerable disagreement among Art Music enthusiasts as to what constitutes good music and what doesn't, without even considering Pop 'Music'. Such argument is inevitably weighed down by layers of personal idiosyncrasy, such as taste, intellect, temperament or even politics. Attempting to objectify such subjective questions is futile (although musoc.org does regularly award Donkey Gongs to the asses who try).
Nevertheless, there is an underlying assumption that various combinations of the criteria listed under Definitions produce exceptional beauty in music.
Why the quotes in Pop 'Music'?
To indicate that Pop is not, in any of its manifestations, an art form, at least not of the same order. (See above & below.)
What's your definition of Pop 'Music'?
Everything that isn't Art Music (as defined here.)
But how can jazz or hiphop be Pop?
Jazz and hiphop fans can define these genres how they like, but they're not Art Music according to the criteria used by musoc.org; they are therefore, by the same criteria, Pop 'Music'. It's a label that allows musoc.org to distinguish fairly clearly between what it is arguing for and arguing against.
What's wrong with being popular?
Nothing, necessarily. 'Popular' means 'favoured or liked by many people', which doesn't imply any a priori sense of inferiority as such. In the not too distant past, numerous pieces of Art Music were popular. (Some still are, to a degree, although more as advertising balm than art.) [Top]
So what's wrong with Pop 'Music'?
Broadly generalising (i.e. allowing for partial exceptions in some kinds of jazz and postmodernist forms), the 'music' is melodically, harmonically, rhythmically, structurally, texturally, dynamically, thematically and conceptually impoverished, when compared to Art Music. It's generally short, trite and highly repetitive (e.g. according to Allmusic.com, "In its purest form, Rock & Roll has three chords, a strong, insistent back beat, and a catchy melody"), to make it attractive/marketable to a public with a (postmodern) shrunken attention span; and much of it is performed by people who, by Art Music standards, can barely sing or play an instrument.
Charlatanism, affectation, contrivance, banality, sentimentality and conventionality are all typical features of both 'composition' and performance of Pop. Visual aspects — appearance, image, antics, venues — are generally held to be more important than content or any (posited) musical talent; the 'music' is less of an attraction than the idolised performers or the associated 'buzz' or 'scene'. (In some forms of 'avant garde' 'music', the concept and 'scene' clearly take precedence over everything else to such a degree that any kind of 'music' or non-music can be passed off as art (or music), and the only talent required is for self-promotion and self-ingratiation among the illuminati — certain self-elected liberal academics, journalists, bloggers and other bodies, like the American Music Center.) And there is a high dependency on technological 'airbrushing', especially for amplification, composition/arrangement and various other 'enhancements'.
The huge commercial sector that dominates Pop is premised on the Trinity of Vanity & Vapidity — Money, Glamour and Fame. [Top]
But didn't Mozart, Paganini, Liszt etc write the pop music of their time? Weren't they pop stars?
Their music was certainly popular, and they may have been idolised by their 'fans'; some composers have even had delusions of grandeur like modern pop stars. But popular music is quite a different thing from Pop 'Music' (see above), and there the specious contention runs aground.
Isn't there just 'good' and 'bad' music?
Everyone likes what they like and dislikes what they dislike, of course; in some ways there's nothing more to be said about it than that. But there are many ways in which Art Music is by definition objectively superior to Pop 'Music' — not in the sense that listening to it confers moral superiority on the devotee (as argued by 'old school' culture critics of right and left, like Matthew Arnold or Theodor Adorno), but rather on what Aaron Copland called the "sheerly musical" plane - i.e. technical and intellectual substance. See definitions. [Top]
But some jazz and rock is more challenging than most dance music — shouldn't it be considered art music?
Music doesn't have to be very sophisticated to be more challenging than most kinds of Pop 'Music', but even where it is reasonably so by comparison, the point is that musoc.org's definition of Art Music has been worded so as to exclude all jazz and rock. This may bother aficionados, but there are many other sites promoting or defending jazz and rock.
If Pop 'Music' is rubbish, how come so many people like it?
Humankind has, in all walks of life, always enjoyed the kitsch, superficial, vulgar, bland, arrogant, vacuous, morbid, mean, noxious etc. It may be part of the human psyche. But morality aside, major factors are neoliberal globalisation and postmodernism (see below). [Top]
What have neoliberal globalisation and postmodernism got to do with it?
See Rave New World.
Isn't your campaign political?
Yes. Musoc.org opposes the way neoliberalism — global consumer-capitalism and postmodernism — moulds and blights culture, especially with regard to music. [Top]
Isn't this all a bit Marxist?
Not really. Pop v. Art Music isn't really a class issue in a Marxist sense — Pop 'Music' culture has been embraced almost as much by the massive middle classes as by the lower ones, as a badge of 'trendiness' and, ironically, 'open-mindedness'.
Though Marx and Engels's famous notion that "The ideas of the ruling class are [...] the ruling ideas" is obsolete, a political economy of the entertainment/infotainment industries is nevertheless self-evident: a kind of (Gramscian) decentralised 'hegemony' generated by neoliberalism that ensures the prosperity of plutocracies and the relentless expansion or evolution of markets. The products of the entertainment and information industries — not necessarily mass-produced in the Marxist sense — promote a materialistic, superficial way of life that militates against political change. [Top]
Haven't the genres of Art Music and Pop been coalescing since the emergence of minimalism and then crossover?
The music industry says yes and trendy postmodern writers (see Hip Pains for examples) say yes. So no. Minimalism and crossover are categories of Pop 'Music' (see below).
Musoc.org does not deny that there are some ill-defined points of contact between Art Music and most of the trends in postmodern 'music', but the 'convergence' much beloved of cultural relativists (which they patronisingly call 'breaking down barriers' or the 'democratisation of music') is only achievable through a spurious redefinition of categories. Composers have merely (and legitimately) incorporated various ideas, melodies, techniques etc from these categories, as well as from folk, traditional jazz, musical theatre etc, into works that fall otherwise within the realm of Art Music. The gulf between the categories of Art Music and Pop 'Music' is unequivocally unbridgeable - by definition.
Why shouldn't people listen to whatever they want?
They should. Musoc.org has no interest at all in the preferences and prejudices of individuals' private listening. Musoc.org wants only an equitable amount of cultural space for Art Music and, indeed, silence, as outlined in items 3-5 in About. Musoc.org does not advocate compelling anyone to listen to Art Music (except in schools, as part of an unprejudiced education — see item 4 of same). [Top]
Isn't your site elitist?
No; anyone can visit it, argue publicly for or against it (see Letters), and all emails are always answered.
Isn't Art Music, as you call it, elitist?
Virtually all music that isn't popular is elitist by definition, in the sense that it's a minority interest. So it's elitist in the same way that auto mechanics, biology or chess are. Wealth certainly isn't a prerequisite (as listeners, for example, most people on the planet have access to a radio).
Art Music is also 'elitist' in the sense that, whilst much of it has a certain amount of superficial melodiousness accessible to everyone with ears (the 'bleeding chunks' much beloved of CD compilations and commercial radio stations), beyond such 'easy listening' lies a vast realm of originality, discursiveness, intricacy, subtlety, suspense, logic, humour, passion etc, layered and patterned in ways only accessible to listeners and performers who are prepared to invest considerable time and effort to achieve sufficient understanding and competence.
Ironically, Art Music is in some ways far less elitist than Pop 'Music'. By way of obvious example, tickets to pop/rock concerts or football matches are often more exclusively priced than those even to the opera. But the whole culture essentially is imperialistic and intolerant: the corporately enforced omnipresence of Pop 'Music' — cultural imperialism — effectively undermines the freedom and contentment of the individual not only through noise pollution, but by marginalising real artistic creativity and originality and virtually ghettoising Art Music by stigmatising it as 'uncool', boring or dead. [Top]
But what about the people who listen to it? Aren't they snobs?
The fact that Art Music has historically been associated with power and privilege has led many to label it 'posh' or 'elitist'. Yet it's no different in that respect from money, home ownership, wine, painting, fashion, even religion; and historically a huge number of composers have come from very poor backgrounds.
No doubt many people who enjoy Art Music (or say they do) are rather posh or ideologically elitist. Certainly many 19th and 20th century critics and composers give that impression. But it makes no more sense to say that Art Music (or any art) is thereby aristocratic or exclusive than it does to say that anything a priest does is holy.
Musoc.org's aim, in any case, is to advocate and protect the music itself, not anyone's (imagined) sole right to appreciate it. And even then, aesthetic/emotional appeal and enjoyment are entirely dependent on the beholder's ear, taste (regardless of where that itself originates) and personality. [Top]
Isn't Art Music for old people?
Yes. And for younger ones. For people of all ages, in fact.
Why not call it 'Classical'? Isn't that what it is?
Some of it is. On the whole, though, 'classical' is too vague, and often disparaging. See 'From Classical to Art' in definitions. [Top]
Are you against 'crossover'?
Yes, because it's Pop. 'Crossover', or 'combined classical', as it's also called, is music that has been emotionally and intellectually eviscerated. It has very little to do with artistry and everything to do with the rapacious, money-grubbing nature of the big four multinationals, Warner, EMI, Sony and Universal, who manufacture virtually all of it.
Is the information on this site copyrighted?
Yes, but anyone can use it without permission for personal or educational purposes, as long as it's not for profit. Please however make reference (or give a hyperlink) to musoc.org within any information you use publicly. [Top]
What are all the links to different languages on the homepage for?
The problems facing art music are international in scale and scope. Musoc.org is an international site and as such has a policy to reach as many non-English-speaking music lovers as possible.
But why the obscure languages?
They're not obscure to the people who speak them. The cultural marginalisation of some minority languages is sadly similar to that facing art music. [Top]
How can I support musoc.org?
In various ways, depending on what kind of support you mean:
- Morally: by voting Anti-Pop, or even just sending a letter or note of support, to any email address on this site
- Financially: by making a Donation of any size in any currency
- Auctorially: by writing an article for the website — see Contributions
If you have any other suggestions or ideas, please just email.