Originally posted by doversoul1
View Post
Serious Music - Definition
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Richard Barrett View PostPersonally I take Vivaldi's music very seriously indeed and I could bore you all to sleep by explaining why. As I say, it's in the ear of the listener, not stamped into the music. So I agree fully with MrGG that "seriousness" isn't worth taking seriously as a term for describing music.
And I agree with you and Mr GG that talking about serious music is not worth taking seriously unless the seriousness to be discussed is precisely defined.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by oddoneout View PostReminds me of a discussion(which got a bit heated)I heard decades ago about an idea someone put forward to classify music(of a certain kind, this was R3 after all!) as 1st class and 2nd class, and within those categories, 1st or 2nd rate.
Originally posted by oddoneout View PostI tend to agree with the view that 'serious music' is used as an alternative to 'classical music' in some cases - and not always in a positive way. There can be overtones of superiority and judgement-making in its usage.It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by french frank View PostIn that case, replace the word 'definition' with the word 'observation' in my original post and the rest stands. Your 'observation' is an opinion, a statement of 'what you think'. It suggests that either you don't think that music can be serious or that you think all music is serious by virtue of being music.
I think that cheese can be serious
I don't think that what I think has any bearing on what others think
I don't think that what I think is what others should think
I think that those who use the word "serious" to talk about music are often talking bollocks and trying to justify their own sense of superiority
I think that music can be "as serious as your life"
I think that many people take themselves too "seriously" when their time would be better spent taking music "seriously" (which doesn't mean that music is "serious")
and
I don't really give a toss about whether others agree or not
Comment
-
-
To change the focus - I'm thinking along lines of the concept of 'Voice', where an artist, in this case a composer, tries to find the way in which he wishes to express herself, given the times in which they exist. When one speaks in that voice, which must be true to oneself, one is being serious. Alternatively, they can degrade their talent by successfully writing stuff in which they don't believe but will succeed in some arena.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by doversoul1 View PostWhat’s an antonym / antonyms of serious when used with music?It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Padraig View Postwhere an artist, in this case a composer, tries to find the way in which he wishes to express herself, given the times in which they exist. When one speaks in that voice, which must be true to oneself, one is being serious. Alternatively, they can degrade their talent by successfully writing stuff in which they don't believe but will succeed in some arena.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Padraig View PostAlternatively, they can degrade their talent by successfully writing stuff in which they don't believe but will succeed in some arena.
ff
As Richard said, in Germany there's 'entertainment music'.Last edited by doversoul1; 02-09-16, 22:33.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by MrGongGong View PostIt's bollocks
'serious music' is simply a name that some people like to use to try and demonstrate that what they like is somehow more significant than what others like.
Thank you Visualnickmos for your confidence that I am not making an idiot of myself. Let's see if I can keep it up.
Originally posted by french frank View PostI don't particularly defend the term which seems to have no very useful meaning, though I personally would think of it as being any piece of music/work which 'people' find interesting, which engages their full attention, which they would happily listen to attentively as a primary activity, and would still be inclined to do so however many times they'd heard it. It's not a kind of music or genre. It won't be 'here today, gone tomorrow' music and it doesn't have a specific audience. Is that useful? I suspect not.
Originally posted by Daniel View PostAlthough I love Rach's 2nd symphony, I don't think of it as great symphony, it's somewhat lumpen and it doesn't seem to 'do' very much (apart from be lovely, though its loveliness may be more important to me than many examples of great music). There aren't any real surprises, no aerating of the form, no subtle prisms in harmony/metre etc, so I understand why it might not be included in a prog about the symphony. But I don't think it's because it has a surfeit of 'nice tunes', as both Mahler and Bruckner for example are full of them, yet both would surely fall into anybody's definition of 'serious' music.
I wonder if a programme about The Piano Concerto would include Rachmaninov's 2nd in that category
I remember a fairly local concert including Racher's 2nd symphony having to be given an extra night because so many people wanted to go. The point about it is that those melodies are not just nice melodies, they are over poweringly 'nice'. They tug hard (not gently) at the heart strings (for many listeners anyway), the music in effect makes love to you, it teases you with little snippets till you are dieing to hear the full melody given some force … and you are eventually satisfied in the end …. yes I know, just like Tchaikovsky and Wagner did before him …. but that does not take away from the entrancingly powerfull way in which Rachmaninov does it. It's a bit like Chopin and the nocturne. We all know he did not invent the nocturne. You could also say the same about Elvis and Dusty Springfield. They basically sang blues and gospel music. Nothing new there.
Interesting that you add in brackets "apart from be lovely, though its loveliness may be more important to me than many examples of great music". That is the key to deciding a piece of music's 'greatness' I think. Analysing why certain pieces of music's loveliness (or other emotional attribute) can sometimes be so powerfull? If we could discover that, then such qualities as originality, subtle prisms in harmony/metre would then be put into their proper perspective as really a small part of the equation.
Crumbs, that was a seriously long post.Last edited by NatBalance; 03-09-16, 05:59.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by NatBalance View PostWell, I don't think any piece could withstand an endless amount of hearings but I think you meant a reasonable amount and for it to still keep its charm over the decades.
Originally posted by NatBalance View PostWhere does comedy music fit? I think The Streak by Ray Stevens would fit that description for me. The Monster Mash by Bobby Picket with that opening line "I was working in the lab late one night, when my eyes beheld an erie sight" and the way he sings/says it is brilliant every time. A seriously good piece.
I'm afraid I've conceded enough to Gongers' flip one-liners: i.e. I don't think describing music as 'serious' is particularly useful. But it can in given contexts have meaning, moreso than people writing off 'classical music' as music for old people or 'elitist snobs'.
Complex is a word that's sometimes used as an alternative (not a synonym) - perhaps 'sustained complexity'.It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.
Comment
-
Comment