I just puked

Is this the difference between art and amusement? Art is it's own reward even if it is not recognized as art by others. People who make real art don't do it for the money.

Amusement would be music made by people just for the sake of making music. Not that there's anything wrong with that. People should have the right to do whatever they want with their own music.

People who record for the sake of creating art would be less inclined to whore it out while people who are only in it for the money would sell anything they can.

shubertmaniac, interesting summary of the last few hundred years. I would be hard pressed to argue any of the points you made. I would only say that artists don't create for the money. Money is a byproduct of their occasional success. We could all name hundreds of 'artists' who were unsuccessful during their lifetime, only to be lauded for having the foresight to die.

Art isn't defined by who recognizes it, but there remains the idea that if it has to be explained to a person of above average intelligence, is it really art or self promoting fluff?

Some people create what is in the depths of their being while other produce what will turn a fast and profitable buck.

I don't begrudge the creative whore their dollar, but I won't call it art either.

I don't know how much of the music created and then heard in the last six thousand years was art though. Most of it is self promotion. The radio has been and still is full of this promotion. Most art probably goes unheard.

I think art is more motivation than execution. And a lot of the musicians around now should be executed!