Serious Music - Definition

[Daniel]

I am a fan of minimalist music and a big fan of Steve Reich's Music for 18 Musicians and I think it's safe to say that Racher's symphony 'does a lot more' than that.

To be fair you were asking why Rach 2 wasn't in a programme about The Symphony, the pieces you quote come with a slightly different outlook surely? I was offering possible reasons as to why I thought Rach 2 wouldn't be included in such a prog. (And to be honest I'm not sure it does do more than the Reich.)

I agree they are avenues to explore when trying to analyse a piece of music, but if the piece is not original, there is no aerating of the form and so on, I don't see that they can be sited as reasons to affect the piece's value.

Value is a relatively subjective thing, and can be reached via different routes and with different parameters attached. You're saying the above wouldn't be parameters for you, I'm saying that for me they may well be, though not always.

I don't know what "it doesn't seem to 'do' very much" means.

Not sure I can succinctly answer that - I suppose I mean that the music feels like it stays more or less where it started, musically speaking. A Mahler symphony for example (musically) by comparison can feel like having clambered through knotted roots, landler-ed ironically up a trunk taking in views of unique splendour and variety, and arriving at the canopy dripping in sweat and sunshine, blah, but anyway, arriving somewhere very different to where you started.

What any music does to you emotionally or how you value it is your concern. I feel very emotionally attached to Rach 2, and in the right mood (I don't often listen to it) it has a very visceral impact on me, and I wouldn't want to be without it, but personally I find it musically in a different league to Mahler's symphonies.

I'd also say just from the point of view of orchestration I could listen to Mahler way more often, because I find such a greater dimension and variety to it than to Rach's. That adds value for me also. This doesn't mean sth simple can't be profound and have great value for me ... but really I'll stop there, trying to find a definition for anything can feel eerily like finding an exact value for Pi, there always seems to be another b****ing point to be made!

[oddoneout]

I think that was a debate started on the BBC messageboard by Mr Sydney Grew, late of this parish, was not it? …

It may well have been but what I heard would have pre-dated the messageboard I think.

as if music should make you smile, clap your hands, snap your fingers, get up and dance

Which it does in some cases for those who have a 'device' wired into the aural orifice - usually in situations where it can cause most irritation to those in the vicinity

[ahinton]

If there could be anything approaching a valid and credibly acceptable definition of the word "serious" as attached before that of "music" (and I remain to be convinced of such a possibility), might it be music that requires the unflagging concentration of the listener and which at the same time offers to the listener much on which to exercise his/her concentrative powers, irrespective of its "style"?

[Pulcinella]

What’s an antonym / antonyms of serious when used with music?

Surely light counts as one such: a word usually used in a rather patronising way to condemn music that isn't serious!

[ahinton]

Surely light counts as one such: a word usually used in a rather patronising way to condemn music that isn't serious!

But then mightn't "light" in such a context denote music that calls for less of the listener's concentrative powers than other music that does, without it necessarily implying anything demeaning or patronising. The whole genre thing can be made to seem excruciatingly divisive, something with which I feel sure that, for example, Dmitry Shostakovich and Richard Rodney Bennett would have had very little truck.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

It's equally futile to use the term "popular music".

[ahinton]

It's equally futile to use the term "popular music".

Of course it is! One has only to think how popular Mahler is...

[Pulcinella]

But then mightn't "light" in such a context denote music that calls for less of the listener's concentrative powers than other music that does, without it necessarily implying anything demeaning or patronising. The whole genre thing can be made to seem excruciatingly divisive, something with which I feel sure that, for example, Dmitry Shostakovich and Richard Rodney Bennett would have had very little truck.

Indeed, but (sadly) often it seems to be used by people who want themselves thought of as somehow being superior by looking down on such music. Similarly with those who consider film music somehow not to be 'serious'.

[french frank]

Surely light counts as one such: a word usually used in a rather patronising way to condemn music that isn't serious!

But fans of light music are happy with the term and I don't suppose they're being patronising (cf also 'Brian Kay's Light Music').

The whole genre thing can be made to seem excruciatingly divisive

'Can be made', yes. But it's baby and bathwater. There's nothing wrong with categorisation in itself: it's when people try to apply value judgments to the various categories/genres that the system is dismissed as in some way 'harmful'.

[MrGongGong]

Of course it is! One has only to think how popular Mahler is...

Who?

http://www.mahlerindustries.com

[ahinton]

Indeed, but (sadly) often it seems to be used by people who want themselves thought of as somehow being superior by looking down on such music. Similarly with those who consider film music somehow not to be 'serious'.

Yes, but whilst what we agree is its contextual misappropriation is as transparently recognisable as it is deplorable, it doesn't necessarily lead to the answer to the question posed by the thread topic!

[ahinton]

Who?
http://www.mahlerindustries.com

I had heard of this firm but what I believe to be far more to the point is that I'm not the only one to think of Mahler as, among other things, a cutting edge composer...

[Pulcinella]

Yes, but whilst what we agree is its contextual misappropriation is as transparently recognisable as it is deplorable, it doesn't necessarily lead to the answer to the question posed by the thread topic!

With respect, I was responding to a different question: an antonym for 'serious'.

[NatBalance]

Heard on R3 yesterday that the reason Saint-Saens did not want his piece Carnival of the Animals published in his lifetime was because he was afraid he would not be take seriously as a composer. Crumbs!

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

I think Rossini is saying it is subjective. If so, I agree. By 'musical literacy' do you mean the ability to read and write music? If so that would count out most pop musicians. I like the bit "even if the out come of the argument can be trite".

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"?

Well it does seem to be used in that way. If so I dissagree most heartily. I would also prefer to use words such as dramatic - profound - thought provoking - sad - atmospheric - descriptive or whatever.

…. When one speaks in that voice, which must be true to oneself, one is being serious.

Yes, could be, but could the music itself be called serious? :)

I don't think 'entertainment music' can be an antonym of 'serious music'. Is not all music entertainment? 'Easy listening' could be an antonym, but I don't think that term implies music that is inferior. Depends how you feel. If you feel like some easy listening music then at that moment that type of music has superiority.

The problem with including 'songs' is that people end up only talking about the words, not the music.

Good point.

Complex is a word that's sometimes used as an alternative (not a synonym) - perhaps 'sustained complexity'.

I've heard that ABBA is very complex to play.

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?

It's about why certain music is referred to as serious.

Couple of ideas: is the word "frivolous" of any use?

And what about concerts in China, say, where the audience talks and does its makeup throughout? My mother would have forty fits, she thinks that if something is worth listening to it deserves one's full attention...

Good grief, they do that in China? Obviously not very interested in the music then. Frivolous is an antonym for serious yes, but it impies something of no worth and I can't think of any music I would refer to in that way (except John Cage's 4' 33" as we discussed in some detail sometime ago). I wouldn't call light music or back ground music / muzak frivolous because I like it, so for me it has worth.

[ahinton]

I've heard that ABBA is very complex to play.

I thought that it was a form.