Music will always be art, well, according to my ID3 tags it is still the “Artist”. Art has been a product right from the time people started paying money for it thousands of years ago.
I guess the problem is saying where it is art and where a product. Is a print of a painting art? The original is. You could say then only the master disc is art, the CDs are products, but that doesn’t sound very logical to me. What about all the fan posters, T-shirts, mugs, hats and other crap sold to promote the music, is that art? I would say it was just a product. I guess just because music has become more commericial doesn’t make it any less art. I certainly think it makes the quality of the artwork poorer. It makes artists rush to meet record labels deadlines and fit there music to what the label wants, not to what they are best at.
A table is furniture, if it was made to sell or not. Music is art, regardless if it was made to sell or not.
There have allways been crappy artists working only for money, making what will sell so people will buy it. I do agree. Music is a very commerical form of art. I guess because it is so easily mass repliacted (perfectly with DVD-A discs). With other arts they cannot be replicated perfectly on such a massive scale. Art “Prints” are cheap(ish) and commerical, the originals are worth far more.
I think the problem lies in that the meaning of “Art” is very broad, most people differ on what they regard as art.