For ages, we've been taught in art schools that there are 2 types of music/2 types of art. High art and low art. Or in our case here in Slovakia, artificial music (music of someone's own artistic intent, usually attributed to classical music) and non-artificial music (folk music, music for specific public purposes etc.)

From the eras of and before baroque (as far as I remember), these 2 were always put into separate categories. Though there was significant crossover in the middle ages for example. What signified the hard-set difference before the rise of more complex class and wealth structures were sacred music (higher art, consciously developed, financed, educated) on one hand and secular music (more on the amateur side) on the other. Later, it was aristocracy on one end (high art) and simple folk on the other aka working class (low art).

There was discrimination of the abilities for poorer folk to compose, especially larger works as they could rarely afford education, to maintain chamber orchestras, let alone spaces to present work. And yet obviously there were significant developments even in the sphere of lower classes, namely, songs (but not only). Higher art adapted short forms such as songs too and there were always blurred lines and appropriation happening. This was most prominently the case for 18th century's romantic era as composers started to compose for themselves outside of utilitarianism.

Folklore has always played a significant role in all music, especially in the romantic era when nations tried to define their own national music styles. A clear distinction started to fade as religious institutions and aristocracy no longer held the upper hand in soloing culture.

Folklore couldn't hold a candle to the high art definition, because of the collective, anonymous origin of most pieces. But Here we get to another problem of high art. It seems that the definition would mostly fall on longer works. Miniatures rarely acquire the status of high art. It seems that it is regarded as impossible or insufficient to create higher concept music in small forms.

This is apparent with the emergence of concept albums in pop music in the 1950s-70s as the improved LP emerged, with the ability to hold more than 40 minutes of material. The idea of the concept album was born. As time went on, experiments with tape started emerging and techniques that were bound to studios. This was no longer radio, gig, festival or hall music. It started to get almost trapped in the medium that carried it. Physical media started to get affordable and the market now stood on music without life performance. As a consequence, both pop and classical music now experienced confluence.

While there's obviously still plenty of classical music being made, lines are even more blurred nowadays. Music is democratised enough for anyone to create higher concept music. But what is "art music" then? Wiki defines itas: high culture encompasses cultural objects of aesthetic value that a society collectively esteems as exemplary works of art a society considers representative of its culture." This description, however contradicts the beliefs of the 18th century definition.

Thus, for me, it remains unclear what to label as high art. Yet there are some ideas I have that are worth exploring in the next part of this (essay?)