[Discussion] Should music be gender defined and what makes music art?

[snake orochimaru]

It was a joke :|

good to know

 

[SasukeTheEmo]

Again, it's subjective.
Black Spell of Destruction oh the memories.

The anguish is for all to hear. Beautiful song.

 

[Jazzy Stardust]

But in the end music isn't art but it is an art form. It's technically considered a performing art.

Artistry goes into it, but the same can be said about even a website or dance choreography. It all takes time to craft.

 

[NaNaNaaaaa]

Ed Sheeran, thats musical art though

 

[Pumpkin Ninja]

Who cares what art is? It's all subjective bullshit and depends on what you like. It's basically a word to make snobs feel better about their hobbies.

 

[Yusuke Urameshi]

Any band made up of several men is technically a boy band but I made the definition because the Beatles main fan base was hysterical girls. I defined it as male music because the Beatles current fan base is predominantly male.

Elvis Presley, Dean Martin, Frank Sinatra, Shirley Bassey, Tom Jones and many, many classic singers never wrote their own music and yet they sung some of the most famous, popular and acclaimed music of their day and they did it through a love of music not just for money.

My point is that nowadays when someone sings music they have not written themselves, they are wrote off as commercial, why when these older singers are shown so much respect and where no different.

That's not what a boy band is. lol You can't tell me that Metallica and other heavy metal bands are boy bands just because they're made up of men. The term "boy band" refers to the people in the band (youthful guys) and the desired demographic (younger females). For example, One Direction is a boy band because they're a bunch of young, attractive guys whose music is marketed mainly for younger females. That's what a boy band is, not a band with boys. lol You're trying to be too literal with that term.

My best guess is because back then, the music was better. It wasn't reproduced and talentless. Call it subjective, if you like. Nowadays, people don't write their own music and that music is then used to make money. That's the sole purpose. The people in the music industry understand the current trends and will market to it. I think that's why it isn't as respected as much. There's not as much passion in it. That's just my two cents, though. I could be way off.

 

[Karna]

Art is in my opinion the experience shared.

But before that on subject of music being gender defined, I think its because social image is that girls inherently tend to be weak, emotional and stuff-so 1d is for them, while dudes are more like rough, though and strong, so metal is for them, but again associating somethings with people based on believed inherited characteristics is what sexism and racism is all about, so answer is a big fat No, music should Not be gender defined,no art should be gender defined, but then you ask..

what makes it art? The same thing that makes movies, games, paintings etc art- the experience shared, when the artist has something to tell he creates 'art' to express what he feels and when others sees/hear it they feel a hint of what he felt(depending on the individual)- it's like a way of communication when your current means aren't enough, some are crafty with words so they use them- poets and writers, others take different approach based on their interest/expertise.

I know that does not cover the whole spectrum of art(doubt anything could) but I think one word you can safely relate to art is experience. So naturally because it's everyone's right live and experience their life their way, art can clearly not be gender defined. Or more precisely - it's not. Even if people say it is, It. just. Isn't.

 

[SasukeTheEmo]

That's not what a boy band is. lol You can't tell me that Metallica and other heavy metal bands are boy bands just because they're made up of men. The term "boy band" refers to the people in the band (youthful guys) and the desired demographic (younger females). For example, One Direction is a boy band because they're a bunch of young, attractive guys whose music is marketed mainly for younger females. That's what a boy band is, not a band with boys. lol You're trying to be too literal with that term.

My best guess is because back then, the music was better. It wasn't reproduced and talentless. Call it subjective, if you like. Nowadays, people don't write their own music and that music is then used to make money. That's the sole purpose. The people in the music industry understand the current trends and will market to it. I think that's why it isn't as respected as much. There's not as much passion in it. That's just my two cents, though. I could be way off.

Metallica's era had a ton of talentless stuff though. The industry has always been like that with trends.Starting with hippie culture to glam metal to grunge to rap to nu-metal to metalcore/deathcore/mathcore and finally cashing in on hipster black metal.

 

[Yusuke Urameshi]

Metallica's era had a ton of talentless stuff though. The industry has always been like that with trends.Starting with hippie culture to glam metal to grunge to rap to nu-metal to metalcore/deathcore/mathcore and finally cashing in on hipster black metal.

I just used Metallica as an example to illustrate that a boy band isn't what she thinks it is. I don't actually listen to any of their music or any metal music. lol Eh, I feel like music is made solely for the money now more than it ever has been.

 

[SasukeTheEmo]

I just used Metallica as an example to illustrate that a boy band isn't what she thinks it is. I don't actually listen to any of their music or any metal music. lol Eh, I feel like music is made solely for the money now more than it ever has been.

It was always the case. Nothing has changed.

 

[BlacLord™]

"Should music be gender defined?"

No, it shouldn't be.

For example, "outsiders" might look at boy bands in the East as girl specific but really? Nope. A lot maybe handsome but their careers place emphasis on the art forms of sound, dance etc. and how capable they are of interacting with said forms as opposed to a lot of western groups who are solely about looks and corny songs; the kind that makes your ears bleed waxy slime...

"What makes music art?"

On the surface, all music is art simply because of it's existence as an abstract creation. Whether that art has value depends on two things - the intent/passion of it's progenitor and the end result itself; music like 1D songs are always manufactured with only the intent of being popular/appealing with no passion and always end up as colourlessly bland music.

This makes for music that is objectively bad, valueless art; only valuable art is subjective.

 

[NaNaNaaaaa]

It was always the case. Nothing has changed.

Do you only consider Metal to be art? Many musicians, Ed Sheeran, Sam Smith, Kodaline, U2, I would consider these among some of the most artistic of musicians. My point, I am wondering if you consider any other genre of music to be artistic?

I just used Metallica as an example to illustrate that a boy band isn't what she thinks it is. I don't actually listen to any of their music or any metal music. lol Eh, I feel like music is made solely for the money now more than it ever has been.

I used the term "boy band" technically, I understand the more literal meaning.

 

[NaNaNaaaaa]

"Should music be gender defined?"

No, it shouldn't be.

For example, "outsiders" might look at boy bands in the East as girl specific but really? Nope. A lot maybe handsome but their careers place emphasis on the art forms of sound, dance etc. and how capable they are of interacting with said forms as opposed to a lot of western groups who are solely about looks and corny songs; the kind that makes your ears bleed waxy slime...

"What makes music art?"

On the surface, all music is art simply because of it's existence as an abstract creation. Whether that art has value depends on two things - the intent/passion of it's progenitor and the end result itself; music like 1D songs are always manufactured with only the intent of being popular/appealing with no passion and always end up as colourlessly bland music.

This makes for music that is objectively bad, valueless art; only valuable art is subjective.

The trouble also arises from the fact that most 1D fans don't listen to the music but just listen to it because they have a thing for one of the members. I myself will watch One Direction sing in video because I like Louis Tomlinson, (not so much now), and I like his voice but though I have several of the albums, I never listen to them, the music simply isn't mature enough for me. This is a perfect example of liking a band based solely on finding one of the members attractive.

I think this also draws a line in what is art in music and what is not. It's like calling a soap opera art, its a popularized piece of entertainment.

Singers like Ed Sheeran and bands like Kodaline, their music touches you, seeps in and has deep meaning, this is art.

Can we really describe this popularized music as art, even as subjective when often it is being viewed with a hormone driven biased.

"Should music be gender defined?"

No, it shouldn't be.

For example, "outsiders" might look at boy bands in the East as girl specific but really? Nope. A lot maybe handsome but their careers place emphasis on the art forms of sound, dance etc. and how capable they are of interacting with said forms as opposed to a lot of western groups who are solely about looks and corny songs; the kind that makes your ears bleed waxy slime...

"What makes music art?"

On the surface, all music is art simply because of it's existence as an abstract creation. Whether that art has value depends on two things - the intent/passion of it's progenitor and the end result itself; music like 1D songs are always manufactured with only the intent of being popular/appealing with no passion and always end up as colourlessly bland music.

This makes for music that is objectively bad, valueless art; only valuable art is subjective.

The trouble also arises from the fact that most 1D fans don't listen to the music but just listen to it because they have a thing for one of the members. I myself will watch One Direction sing in video because I like Louis Tomlinson, (not so much now), and I like his voice but though I have several of the albums, I never listen to them, the music simply isn't mature enough for me. This is a perfect example of liking a band based solely on finding one of the members attractive.

I think this also draws a line in what is art in music and what is not. It's like calling a soap opera art, its a popularized piece of entertainment.

Singers like Ed Sheeran and bands like Kodaline, their music touches you, seeps in and has deep meaning, this is art.

Can we really describe this popularized music as art, even as subjective when often it is being viewed with a hormone driven biased.

 

[SasukeTheEmo]

No, I also consider these artistic:
Andrés Segovia, Kraftwerk, Death in June, Whitehouse, Dead Can Dance, Ravi Shankar

 

[NaNaNaaaaa]

No, I also consider these artistic:
Andrés Segovia, Kraftwerk, Death in June, Whitehouse, Dead Can Dance, Ravi Shankar

I went and listen to all of these, it is a good way of defining opinion on the subject

Andrés Segovia - He is incredible, yes, he is art, I'm glad I learned about him.

Kraftwerk - How unique, I heard the song "The Robots" kinda reminded me of watching Head F on the sci fi years ago LOL, I think something like this is 'music as art on purpose' it is artistic and I liked it

Death in June - Punk, Virgin Prunes are better LOL

Whitehouse - I consider this noise, the song I heard, what I could make of it, sounded like angry, anarchist 101

Dead Can Dance - I don't know what they are saying but it is lovely, I agree

Ravi Shankar - Agreed, this is also art and what a dear looking old man.

The reason I gave my opinion on each one was to see if a little if it is subjective. I agreed with all but two and one of those I think another, similar band is better, so how subjective is musical art? Again this opens the thought of can commercialized ever been considered art as it is not viewed without bias.

If we had no bias would we still like it, what makes commercialized music commercialized.

 

[Alice in Noodleland]

Gender defined ? NO

Simply because I dont give a damn on people's thoughts about my choices in all aspects. In terms of music, I listened to every kind of music of any gender can offer as long as it sound good to my ears That includes no language barrier . Music is a universal language.


As for the 1D fans, cant judge them. I've been there 10 -15 years ago . I used to collect posters of boybands listen to their songs etch. That too, shall pass.XD
I downloaded again some of those songs and Now I listen to it with different perspective and another kind of appreciation for the music itself.

What makes music art?

It was born from reality and passion And from the emotion.

 

[SasukeTheEmo]

Whitehouse is power electronics/harsh noise, so it's meant to sound like that. Falls under the industrial umbrella, but it pushes the envelope so I'd consider it artistic.

I mentioned Death in June as they are the only neo-folk I know of that is also popular among metalheads.

This article makes a case for music not being subjective:

You must be registered for see links

 

[Kaneki Kun]

Kanye is the definition of Art.

 

[Power Bottom]

No it shouldn't.

 

[NaNaNaaaaa]

Kanye is the definition of Art.

......OK