Two hundred years ago, most popular music existed primarily as simply a support for public dancing. The audience didn't expect to sit and listen to compelling virtuosos perform.

It was only the advent of recorded music that allowed individual performers of popular music to gain specific audiences (with free jazz performers of 1930s being perhaps the first popular recording artists noted for producing "works of art").

So music as just a product, in ways, isn't by itself new or evil. Now one can take issue with the characteristics of our modern music.

For discussion of the history of pop music, I'd recommend

Elijah Wald's How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll

http://www.elijahwald.com/beatlespop.html

> "Two hundred years ago, most popular music existed primarily as simply a support for public dancing. The audience didn't expect to sit and listen to compelling virtuosos perform."

Have to disagree with you there. The most immediate counterexample that jumps to mind is Wagner. Hugely popular and audiences went to a Wagner opera not looking to merely be entertained but for the artistic merit of his works.

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.

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

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?

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.

And what about the obvious example of classical music?

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.

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.

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-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.

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

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

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.

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

Why are we talking about two hundred years ago? In the late 20th century, popular music occupied a different role. It had functional uses for sure. But it was also an artform. I don't want to go back to 200 years ago. There was something democratic about music that was accessible, made for a wide audience, and capable of depth.

Free jazz in the 30's ? That was more the era of early be-bop.

> The answer is money

The individual artist or producer which want's to have a number one song is not driven mainly by money. The drive is just wanting to be the best. And being the best in such a competitive field requires having a highly polished product.

Nobody interested in being best would consider tip of pop charts as "best". Pop is mass appeal for money and or game. It is a lowest common denominator medium. People wanting to be best seek the recognition of their peers. Not commercial sales.

because that's what all this manufactured, by-the-numbers pop music is, a cash generator.

The second you put music on “cd” its not art but a product. The idea of the musician as an artist is highly inaccurate.

I don't see anything in your comment but cynicism. Why can't it be a product AND art?

It can but it's mostly not especially in the pop music sector and anyone who works in the music industry knows this. Most of the so-called artist in the pop industry are assets for the industry not artists.

I see I get some downvotes for saying this, none the less it's true. And I say this as an former full-time now hobby musician/songwriter myself.