Time I made an idiot of myself of this forum again I reckon. I have often wondered what is actually meant by this term 'serious music'. The whole genre of classsical music itself is often described as serious music. I don't think it means dramatic or sad, it's closer to contemplative perhaps? I heard Stephen Hough saying about Rachmaninov's Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini "… because it has a nice tune people don't think it's serious …" about 1 minute in here:-
I remember when the actor Simon Russell Beale did a series of programmes about The Symphony and being astounded that Rachmaninov's 2nd was not included and I think the reason may have something to do with this word 'serious' and 'nice tunes'. I get the feeling this symphony has tunes that are far too beautifull and … heaven forbid … romantic, to be considered 'serious' music.
It seems that one of the most powerfull forces in our society …. love …. is not considered serious enough. It is given the monica 'kitch' and 'chocolate box' music (the same is done with art). The term 'serious' seems to refer to some kind of deep, profound meaning within the music or art, or it satisfies some theoretical quality, or is original perhaps, and this then puts the piece into a 'higher' category, it makes it a piece worthy of mention in any programme such as The Symphony. For me, even though I am a deep thinker and love to delve into the profound and mysterious, and serious subjects, I have never found that such a thing in music defines it's quality. A piece could have the most profound meaning behind it possible, be seriously 'serious', but the actual music itself could be just average. On the other hand, a piece could have the sloppiest most common place meaning behind it possible, but yet be 'musically' superior.
Is it true to say that the more popular a piece becomes, the less 'serious' it becomes?
Could you name a non serious classical piece and a serious pop piece?
Is a non serious piece just a funny piece? Is this a non serious classical piece?:- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XFMZs_7nOA
If that's what defines a non serious piece then is there not about as much serious pop music as there is classical?
Rich
I remember when the actor Simon Russell Beale did a series of programmes about The Symphony and being astounded that Rachmaninov's 2nd was not included and I think the reason may have something to do with this word 'serious' and 'nice tunes'. I get the feeling this symphony has tunes that are far too beautifull and … heaven forbid … romantic, to be considered 'serious' music.
It seems that one of the most powerfull forces in our society …. love …. is not considered serious enough. It is given the monica 'kitch' and 'chocolate box' music (the same is done with art). The term 'serious' seems to refer to some kind of deep, profound meaning within the music or art, or it satisfies some theoretical quality, or is original perhaps, and this then puts the piece into a 'higher' category, it makes it a piece worthy of mention in any programme such as The Symphony. For me, even though I am a deep thinker and love to delve into the profound and mysterious, and serious subjects, I have never found that such a thing in music defines it's quality. A piece could have the most profound meaning behind it possible, be seriously 'serious', but the actual music itself could be just average. On the other hand, a piece could have the sloppiest most common place meaning behind it possible, but yet be 'musically' superior.
Is it true to say that the more popular a piece becomes, the less 'serious' it becomes?
Could you name a non serious classical piece and a serious pop piece?
Is a non serious piece just a funny piece? Is this a non serious classical piece?:- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XFMZs_7nOA
If that's what defines a non serious piece then is there not about as much serious pop music as there is classical?
Rich
Comment