Originally posted by ferneyhoughgeliebte
View Post
Serious Music - Definition
Collapse
X
-
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.
-
-
Originally posted by ferneyhoughgeliebte View PostNot necessarily - I talk (BOY! do I talk) at great length about it all the time, and have done for over forty-five years (with long pauses in between to listen to it) but I've never used the expression "Serious Music" except in an ironic sense. I talk of Bach, or "The Symphony", or Coltrane, or Isorhythm, or Furtwangler, or Fugue, or Bowie, or even "Classical Music" (in its literal and its colloquial sense - the latter having made sure that the word is understood as shorthand for "the Musics of the Western Classical Traditions").
I would no more think of referring to any particular type of Music as "Serious Music" than I would talk of "Serious Literature" or "Serious Sculpture".
And so on and so off...
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by french frank View PostTo distinguish particular performers or forms is not the same thing as talking 'globally' about 'classical music' as a genre or even "the Musics of the Western Classical Traditions" which might seem a leetle bit cumbersome . No more is talking about Coltrane or Miles Davis the same as talking about 'jazz'.[FONT=Comic Sans MS][I][B]Numquam Satis![/B][/I][/FONT]
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Richard Barrett View PostDoes it? What about the idea that art should be for all?
I'm not sure what that means.
Did he? I don't think there's any hard and fast evidence of this.
What I've been saying all along is that "seriousness" is indeed a term of engagement for the listener, and for that reason that "serious music" is not a useful term.
Why do people think it's necessary at all to have a special word for (what they regard as) "serious music"? What purpose does it serve?
"Axiomatic" means "self evident". Art music - most people would consider the composition and performing of music to be some sort of art. So, the term is actually tautological.
And the purpose of the word "serious" has already been unpacked by me in previous comments.:-)
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Padraig View PostRichard, why does seriousness have to be for the listener to decide? Does the composer not have to try to engage the listener? Where does the process of listening to music start?
To the first: because, as I've said before, it's impossible to tell how "serious" the composer was, so that it really isn't relevant to the listening experience.
To the second: my belief is that a composer engages listeners by making something that he/she would find compelling, moving, fascinating, beautiful, whatever word one wants to use, since if he/she finds it so then there's a good chance that some others also will, since there is a profound commonality between people, but that they will find it so in a way they weren't previously aware of, since there is also a profound individuality to people. Any more than that seems to me unnecessary pandering to received ways of listening, thinking and feeling. But this attitude of mine isn't something people who listen to the music I write need to know, nor I think is it derivable from just listening.
To the third: that depends. Some composers have their music almost fully-formed through inner listening before they write something down. Others might "discover" the music in the course of writing. Probably most composers have both of these experiences, and there are no doubt many other possible ones. In improvised musics the listeners are in almost the same situation as the composer(s) in so far as nobody has heard the music until it's played.
Originally posted by Padraig View PostJean, I think you go too far.
Comment
-
-
[QUOTE=ferneyhoughgeliebte;578391]I think so, yes - certainly the works that I find most compelling are those that "get better" the greater amount of attention I give them. (Although I wonder if it is each listener who decides what is "necessary" for them? Reading reactions to works on the Forum, it frequently seems that I am giving attention to completely different features/aspects from those which are most important to many other Forumistas who find those ["most compelling"] works equally compelling).
Bravo. Completely agree with the sentiments of your first sentence. and that's what I was driving at when I said "making demands upon the listener".
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Richard Barrett View PostThese are all interesting and important questions which I hope I can answer more or less coherently.
To the first: because, as I've said before, it's impossible to tell how "serious" the composer was, so that it really isn't relevant to the listening experience.
To the second: my belief is that a composer engages listeners by making something that he/she would find compelling, moving, fascinating, beautiful, whatever word one wants to use, since if he/she finds it so then there's a good chance that some others also will, since there is a profound commonality between people, but that they will find it so in a way they weren't previously aware of, since there is also a profound individuality to people. Any more than that seems to me unnecessary pandering to received ways of listening, thinking and feeling. But this attitude of mine isn't something people who listen to the music I write need to know, nor I think is it derivable from just listening.
To the third: that depends. Some composers have their music almost fully-formed through inner listening before they write something down. Others might "discover" the music in the course of writing. Probably most composers have both of these experiences, and there are no doubt many other possible ones. In improvised musics the listeners are in almost the same situation as the composer(s) in so far as nobody has heard the music until it's played.
I have to agree. I don't think most people think like that.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Tetrachord View PostBravo.
Completely agree with the sentiments of your first sentence.
and that's what I was driving at when I said "making demands upon the listener".[FONT=Comic Sans MS][I][B]Numquam Satis![/B][/I][/FONT]
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by ferneyhoughgeliebte View PostBut doesn't such global talking itself lead inevitably to generalizations and vague statements of very limited usefulness - so limited, that inevitably the conversation has to abandon them and move on to specific features? (Either that, or just evaporate for lack of anything more substantial to say?)
Discussions of any sort of music are not limited to the purely 'musical'. There are general cultural, educational, sociological issues. The schools Ten Pieces projects are designed to introduce younger children to kinds of music that they would not normally encounter in their school, home or social lives. The creators of the scheme don't say, 'Let's give them a bit of Bach, Bizet, Shostakovich.' The vision is to introduce them to some 'classical music'.
Though, to recap: I was answering a specific question of Richard's, not claiming anything was 'serious music'. What you can say about classical music is that the core is sufficiently different from popular music that the majority of people think they don't want to listen to it.
**FIO: This year's Ten Pieces with a Mambo from West Side Story, a new piece by Anna Clyne, a piece for turntables by G. Prokofiev - which of the ten has proved the biggest hit? - The Lark Ascending.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 PostDiscussions of any sort of music are not limited to the purely 'musical'. There are general cultural, educational, sociological issues.
The schools Ten Pieces projects are designed to introduce younger children to kinds of music that they would not normally encounter in their school, home or social lives. The creators of the scheme don't say, 'Let's give them a bit of Bach, Bizet, Shostakovich.' The vision is to introduce them to some 'classical music'.
Though, to recap: I was answering a specific question of Richard's, not claiming anything was 'serious music'. What you can say about classical music is that the core is sufficiently different from popular music that the majority of people think they don't want to listen to it.
In the same way that the core of popular Music is sufficiently different from classical to make classical Music lovers think that they don't want to listen to it, and have nothing to gain from doing so. Concentrate instead on a specific work - say, Dark Side of the Moon - and it quickly becomes clear that there are serious Musical thoughts going on here, quite as demanding - and rewarding - of a listener's time, attention and respect as, say, Vivaldi's Four Seasons or Tchaikovsky's Fourth Symphony. The ubiquity of commercial pop creates prejudices against the better type among classical enthusiasts similar to those created by the "image" of classical Music among the majority of people.
**FIO: This year's Ten Pieces with a Mambo from West Side Story, a new piece by Anna Clyne, a piece for turntables by G. Prokofiev - which of the ten has proved the biggest hit? - The Lark Ascending.[FONT=Comic Sans MS][I][B]Numquam Satis![/B][/I][/FONT]
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by ferneyhoughgeliebte View PostThe ubiquity of commercial pop creates prejudices against the better type among classical enthusiasts similar to those created by the "image" of classical Music among the majority of people.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