Frances to Derek and others... If an act and its objects is called music for just cause by a learned group of experts, then it is likely art by the mere virtue of being called music, which would likely even include impoverished musical forms like the songs found in the genres of jazz and rock and pop and folk and native music. This remark is not meant to defend such forms, but it is difficult for me to agree that there might be even bad music that is not art. On the other hand, if an object merely posited as art by someone other than an expert is agreed by a group of experts to be bad, then the object would simply not be art. My tentative conclusion hence is that for an object to be agreed as music it must be art, and for an object to be agreed as art it must be good. If an outside individual person should disagree with the provisional expert opinion of some relevant communal people as to what might be good and art and even music, then that marginalized person is likely wrong or sick. The aural arts as audible works of fine art or folk art, that are heard by the ears of listening persons, of course need not be limited to musical notes or vocal sounds, but could also include sonic noises or acoustic silences as say sound sculpture. The key issue in dispute here is perhaps not what objects might be candidates to join the class, but rather might be how broad the sphere or class called art should be held by experts, if indeed artworks can be classified at all.
Derek partly wrote... You can classify jazz, rock and pop how you like. I will still say they are impoverished musical forms.
