This is a general guide, but certainly not a precise one, as, as you and David (Gerontius) both mention, the whole idea of "art" is necessarily subjective - what appeals to me might not appeal at all to you, and vice versa. Does this make one of us "learned" and the other "ignorant", or, worse, possessed of "superior" or "inferior" taste? I think not. Ultimately we like what we like, and a love of Guinness is not inferior to a love of Château Lafite Rothschild, merely different. For example, I find this visceral, from 1.55Again I like your distinction between the cerebral nature of classical music (I call it 'sitting down music') and the visceral nature of pop/rock (dancing, foot-tapping music). This distinction Ive alluded to and it works.
I guess an argument could be made that all of classical music is art, simply on the basis of its superior intellectual content (in a purely objective sense), whereas only some of folk/rock/pop/jazzz could be said to be. But then, if a rock number has the same effect on a person as Mr. Bach above has on me (wanting to play his or her air guitar, groove in his or her seat or get up and and dance), is that not also an artistic effect? I'd find it hard to argue that it wasn't. Like David, I also do not look down on pop/rock lovers, I'm just saddened that so many of them dismiss the classical world as old-fashioned and fuddy-duddyish. As I said previously, this is not entirely their fault, as the classical world has often been far to openly "high-brow" and stuffy, rather than try to communicate the astonishing riches of a thousand years of brilliant music.