Classical - (Jazz) - Pop

[doversoul1]

Indeed, but that's not really the way people use it.
"Serious" is inevitably used as a pejorative term by those who appear to be trying to claim some kind of superiority for the music that they listen to.

Also this doesn't really hold up to scrutiny once you get past the comparison of (for example) Justin Bieber and Wagner or JLS and Messiaen.
What about

The Blue Danube = "Serious"
Trout Mask Replica= "not serious"

?
Susceptible to "depth of study"?

I also think that references to "the charts" these days are equally ridiculous when discussing Mahler as they are with Pop music. The days when they were significant are gone IMV.
None of which is to say that all things are equal in complexity, significance or efficacy.

'"As serious as your life"? (again)

http://www.serious.org.uk

Never mind what people (which people do you mean by the way?) may or may not think. How would you organise programmes for two music based public (i.e. not for your own fun) radio stations so that listeners could decide which station to listen to? This is the point of this discussion. Classification is usually for a practical purpose, and unlike things written for conferences, it has to be workable.

By the way, you are not Nutty, are you? You seem to share an axe.

[MrGongGong]

This is the point of this discussion. .

Is it?
I don't think that's what Natty Dread had in mind

[NatBalance]

4:33" has a duration
has movements

Just a quickie. How exactly are the movements defined?

[french frank]

Indeed, but that's not really the way people use it.
"Serious" is inevitably used as a pejorative term by those who appear to be trying to claim some kind of superiority for the music that they listen to.

Speak for yourself, Gongers. Prejudiced cynicism to lay down the law about what other people 'inevitably' mean and think.

Also this doesn't really hold up to scrutiny once you get past the comparison of (for example) Justin Bieber and Wagner or JLS and Messiaen.
What about

The Blue Danube = "Serious"
Trout Mask Replica= "not serious"

?
Susceptible to "depth of study"?

Not the best example to choose. I wouldn't describe The Blue Danube as 'serious music' and I'm not sure who would. 'Light classical' possibly. Will accept your assurance that Trout Mask Replica is 'susceptible of' deep analysis. I know nothing of it, but don't take the view that because it's the kind of music you're familiar with it 'isn't serious'. The reference to Bieber was really to underline that many pop stars have very long Wikipedia articles devoted to their (often very short) life history. But it says nothing about the music itself because there's little to say.

I also think that references to "the charts" these days are equally ridiculous when discussing Mahler as they are with Pop music. The days when they were significant are gone IMV.
None of which is to say that all things are equal in complexity, significance or efficacy.

We agree on the last bit, then.

Yes, there was a time way back in the middle of the last century when some people used 'serious music' or 'good music' to describe classical music as a genre, but I suspect even they would have reservations about some of the lighter works that creep in at the edge of the 'category'.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Just a quickie. How exactly are the movements defined?

The middle movement is the climax. The outer ones have the soft pedal depressed.

[MrGongGong]

Speak for yourself, Gongers. Prejudiced cynicism to lay down the law about what other people 'inevitably' mean and think.

I wasn't laying down any law
and wouldn't suggest that you take my advice at all

Just that I have frequently found that folks who use the word "serious" will also claim to know nothing of have any interest in the music which they deem to be "not serious"
NOT that anyone should give up anything etc etc etc

"Metallica? .... never heard of them" : from an old discussion

(for example)

We find that jazz enthusiasts have much in common with classical music lovers and we support the presence of serious jazz programmes on Radio 3

We do, don't we?

But it says nothing about the music itself because there's little to say.

Little to say?

http://www.tagg.org/articles/xpdfs/semiota.pdf

https://www.amherst.edu/media/view/88640/original/Middleton+-+Popular+Music+Analysis+and+Musicology-+Bridging+the+Gap+.pdf

http://www.academia.edu/360765/On_the_aesthetics_of_popular_music

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=2008036

and so on and so on (that was a 4:33" search)

Whether there's little to say or not depends on what aspects of the music one is discussing.
There's not much to say about the rhythmic development in Bolero which isn't to say that there's not much to say about other features of the rarely broadcast piece.

I think you would be likely to fail your module if your only source was a Wikipedia reference

[MrGongGong]

Just a quickie. How exactly are the movements defined?

[french frank]

Just that I have frequently found that folks who use the word "serious" will also claim to know nothing of have any interest in the music which they deem to be "not serious"

You said 'inevitably', not 'frequently'. They're not synonyms. Taking the vast spread of music that exists throughout the world, and throughout time (as far as we know about it), I have no interest in most of it. That's why I don't presume to pass judgement on it. I suppose it depends in what circles you move if your acquaintances do the opposite.

"Metallica? .... never heard of them" : from an old discussion

Nothing wrong with that as a statement of fact. I now know the name, but there are far too many things in the world that interest me to want to investigate every well-known form of music. It's not my specialism.

Little to say?

All irrelevant. I didn't say there was nothing to say about the entire genre of popular music (particularly since I would, by my definition, include jazz), I was saying that very long Wikipedia articles on particular 'pop' stars (like Justin Bieber), in spite of their longiloquence, said little about their music because there was little to say about their music i.e. the music of the subject of the article about whom so much had been said. I use Wikipedia as an indication of how in this cultural climate as much can be written about 21-year-old Justin Bieber's life time achievement as about, say, Claudio Monteverdi.

I don't know about Metallica. Most people don't know about Monteverdi. Discuss.

[MrGongGong]

You said 'inevitably', not 'frequently'. They're not synonyms. Taking the vast spread of music that exists throughout the world, and throughout time (as far as we know about it), I have no interest in most of it. That's why I don't presume to pass judgement on it. I suppose it depends in what circles you move if your acquaintances do the opposite.
.

There IS (IMV) an "inevitability" in the way that the word is used in discussions concerning these things.
You don't have to investigate anything at all,


And in response to your last paragraph..... what Dahlhaus said.
It all depends on what you consider to be "about" music.

Which is probably another discussion all together.
(I'd take one Greenhill over any number of Justin's any day)

BUT back to the original? (or should that be "New Original"?)

[NatBalance]

The middle movement is the climax. The outer ones have the soft pedal depressed.

Ah, I see. Yes, you wouldn't want to finish such a piece with a climax. Ease the listener gently back to reality (whatever that is). Speaking (or typing) of which:-

I'm not 100% sure that Natty is real anyway?

Actually I thought I was a figment of my own imagination. Cripes, did I just type that? That's too deep for me, therefore I reckon you're right MrGongGong, I can't be real.

Thanks for the info on 4'33" movements MrGongGong. I think ear plugs for between movements would be helpful aswell.

Rich

PS. We are way off subject aren't we? Me included but what the heck. I'll try to get back to it when I've next got time.

[MrGongGong]

PS. We are way off subject aren't we? Me included but what the heck. I'll try to get back to it when I've next got time.

It's YOUR subject matey, you started it
Some folks appear (that's APPEAR) to think that all similar discussions are about whether Boyzone should be Composer of the Week on Radio 3

[french frank]

There IS (IMV) an "inevitability" in the way that the word is used in discussions concerning these things.
You don't have to investigate anything at all,

So. moving swiftly on

And in response to your last paragraph..... what Dahlhaus said.
It all depends on what you consider to be "about" music.

Not, à la Wikipedia, where born, parents, where went to school, friends, bands performed with at school, who married, dates of albums, songs on albums, number of records sold, position of albums in charts, notable gigs. All these are ways of NOT talking about the music, as far as I can see. Not uninteresting, not unworthy of being reported. But not about the music.

(I'd take one Greenhill over any number of Justin's any day)

Harold Walter Greenhill? Not known to me, so I can't compare them.

[MrGongGong]

So. moving swiftly on

Indeed

Not, à la Wikipedia, where born, parents, where went to school, friends, bands performed with at school, who married, dates of albums, songs on albums, number of records sold, position of albums in charts, notable gigs. All these are ways of NOT talking about the music, as far as I can see. Not uninteresting, not unworthy of being reported. But not about the music.

Indeed, most things I read "about" music in the media are about everything other that the sound it makes.
Discussions on acoustics are a bit niche though.
I don't think the avoidance of talking about the music is confined to "popular" forms.
Mozart the boy genius, Beethoven's deafness, Shostakovich and Stalin, Laibach and North Korea, Miles and drugs, Choral Evensong and gender politics etc etc

http://ebooks.cambridge.org/chapter.jsf?bid=CBO9780511627309&cid=CBO9780511627309A010

Claude Greenhill ?

[french frank]

Indeed, most things I read "about" music in the media are about everything other that the sound it makes.

Surely one doesn't expect much 'musicology' from the media?

Discussions on acoustics are a bit niche though.

You should know! But there is surely more to musical analysis than acoustics alone?

I don't think the avoidance of talking about the music is confined to "popular" forms.
Mozart the boy genius, Beethoven's deafness, Shostakovich and Stalin, Laibach and North Korea, Miles and drugs, Choral Evensong and gender politics etc etc

Precisely why I said there was nothing inherently uninteresting or unworthy about recording such things. It's when there is nothing else discussed - I think you will find plenty of musicology - even in CD liner notes - about Mozart, Beethoven, Shostakovich, Laibach, Davis and their music.

[MrGongGong]

FF a bit off topic
but this has some interesting things to say which seemed relevant to me

http://www.artsjournal.com/sandow/2015/10/music-theory-for-a-new-century.html

For example (comparing Jazz, Classical music and Pop music)

"Pop music has its own ways of thinking, in which pure sound — created with amplification and all kinds of software and studio intricacies — becomes a central element. So what if the guitar is playing an E major chord? That’s obvious. What matters is how the chord is filtered, mixed, panned to right or left of center, delayed, fed back on itself. And so on through an endless list of detailed refinements, whose use is both a science and an art, and which may take hours in the studio or on the computer to get right."