Serious Music - Definition

[NatBalance]

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:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07qby68

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

[Alison]

I always think labels are best used for filing cabinets.

[ahinton]

How "serious", for example, might you suppose the finale of Shostakovich's Sixth Symphony to be? Seriously good, like the rest of it, that's what it is!

[MrGongGong]

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'.

It'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.

Best to be avoided IMV

[visualnickmos]

Time I made an idiot of myself of this forum again I reckon....

Absolutely not! Your post raises some very fundamental points, in that 'descriptors' seem so often, to become confused with definitions - leading us well-into the unhelpful world of pigeon-holeing...... I could go on, but won't bore everyone to death with my rambling!

[visualnickmos]

It'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.

Best to be avoided IMV

It is indeed, but as I alluded to above, it does unfortunately take on unmerited significance.

[french frank]

'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.

It's bollocks

In other words, your definition depends on your opinion of what other people think and the impression you think they want to give … :-) That seems to be rather more about you than other people, doesn't it?

I 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.

[Richard Barrett]

The difference between "serious music" and "entertainment music" in Germany is that the former (as defined by GEMA, the organisation which administers such things as the PRS does in the UK) pays eight times as much per minute in performing royalties. (See https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-_und_U-Musik.)

But seriousness and it opposite aren't of course inherent features of music, they're ways of approaching music. There's plenty of seriously intended music that I personally find it difficult to take seriously (like Rachmaninov, but not because it has "nice tunes"), and on the other hand plenty of seemingly throwaway music that's very much worth taking seriously in my opinion (the Beatles for example). Other people will have other experiences of both kinds, and everything in between.

[richardfinegold]

Absolutely not! Your post raises some very fundamental points, in that 'descriptors' seem so often, to become confused with definitions - leading us well-into the unhelpful world of pigeon-holeing...... I could go on, but won't bore everyone to death with my rambling!

It is an interesting question, NB, glad you raised it. Fundamentally I adhere to the quote attributed to Rossini--"All music is great except the boring kind"--but to me serious music implies that the performers have musical literacy and listeners have an attention span that allows them to follow a complex musical argument, even if the out come of the argument can be trite

[Pianorak]

Hmm, good question. Could it be that people use the term "serious music" to make sure it includes i.a. music from the "baroque", "classical" and "romantic" eras, and anything that isn't "pop"?

[Daniel]

II have often wondered what is actually meant by this term 'serious music'.

Language being a metaphor, is not terribly precise, innit. Perhaps, like the expression a 'house with character', it tells you more about what it's not?

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.

Although 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.

[MrGongGong]

In other words, your definition depends on your opinion of what other people think and the impression you think they want to give … :-) That seems to be rather more about you than other people, doesn't it?

I don't have a "definition" just an observation about the way this word is used

[doversoul1]

It seems that one of the most powerfull forces in our society …. love …. is not considered serious enough.

Could you name a non serious classical piece and a serious pop piece?

Rich

It would be rather hard to find a piece in Renaissance and Baroque secular music that isn’t about love. Then, you may not think those works are serious.

I have a feeling that ‘serious music’ is a safe alternative for ‘classical music’ which has sadly becomes almost a dirty word these days. Also, it maybe that ‘classical music’ does not sound quite right when it means works composed by living (or recently deceased) composers.

Is your question about what it means by being serious in music/composition or about why certain music is generally referred to as serious music?

a non serious classical piece: any Vivaldi’s violin concerto
a serious pop piece: any piece by Antônio Carlos Jobim played by Stan Getz

Two of my favourite CDs (I like things not serious).

[french frank]

I don't have a "definition" just an observation about the way this word is used

In 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.

[oddoneout]

Although 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.

Reminds 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. Apart from dissent about which works went where, the question was raised about whether 1st rate 2nd class music was better than 2nd rate 1st class music. I seem to remember Rachmaninov featured in that particular bit of hair splitting.

I 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.