Serious Music - Definition

[Richard Barrett]

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

Not really. Although it's a lot more difficult than the Cage piece you mention, which is a piece with some very serious implications indeed. On the other hand, Cage did famously say (in a TV interview!) that laughter is always preferable to tears. I'm reminded of a talk I once gave about my stuff to a room full of music students, and after one of my recorded examples one of them apologised for laughing at one moment in the music. There was no need to apologise of course; music shouldn't tell you how to respond. This is one reason why "serious music" is such a misnomer.

[MrGongGong]

(except John Cage's 4' 33" as we discussed in some detail sometime ago).

It would have been his Birthday yesterday
BUT you weren't paying attention before, were you ?

[Bryn]

It would have been his Birthday yesterday
BUT you weren't paying attention before, were you ?

Mode Records are offering a discount on their Cage recordings to celebrate his birthday.

[MrGongGong]

Mode Records are offering a discount on their Cage recordings to celebrate his birthday.

Thanks

[NatBalance]

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.)

Crumbs, you don't? Ecky bugger :)

I think this can be compared to a car journey. You can travel a great distance in a fairly decent car, see many places and have a great experience. You can also travel a short distance, like I did once in a gorgeous American car of the 1970s, only visited one place just 12 miles away, but the elegance of that ride in such a beautifull car gave me an experience that overshadows all other car journeys.

I could not begin to count how many times I have heard Racher's 2nd over the decades and still very far from fed up with it.

If I want a symphony that 'goes places' (not that I think Racher's 2nd doesn't go anywhere anyway) I will go for Holst's Choral Symphony and as I mentioned in another thread once, at one point in the 4th movement of that symphony it does too much. It builds up to a wonderfull sound of interweaving choral singing that has me enveloped in the world of the Elysean Fields of ancient times, and then just as soon as it has really got going it stops, and changes. NO NO NO! Know when to change.

Value is a relatively subjective thing ….

Exactly, that's what it all boils down to in the end. Would you include Racher's 2nd piano concerto in a programme about the piano concerto?

I think Mahler can be brilliant but he hasn't really got hold of me yet. Maybe he will sometime in the future. Don't get me wrong, it's great stuff, been to a concert of his 8th symphony in the wonderfull setting of Liverpool's Anglican Cathedral and that wonderfull hymn like ending brought me to tears (as it does on recordings aswell), and of course the adagietto from his 5th symphony is wonderfull, but on the whole I find his music just very good, interesting, not outstanding.

Not really. Although it's a lot more difficult than the Cage piece you mention, which is a piece with some very serious implications indeed.

Apparently so, but it goes way over my head. A 'performer' who does not perform, but instead listens to other performers performing - I think, repeat think I know the point he is trying to make, I just don't understand his way of making it.

It would have been his Birthday yesterday
BUT you weren't paying attention before, were you ?

No sir, sorry sir, Dennis pinched me rubber sir.

[Richard Barrett]

Apparently so, but it goes way over my head. A 'performer' who does not perform, but instead listens to other performers performing - I think, repeat think I know the point he is trying to make, I just don't understand his way of making it.

Well let's not get sucked back into that particular black hole here; I suspect it's a lot less complicated than you seem to think, and doesn't have to involve "making a point". But some people would think that it's serious, others that it isn't; and yet others, including myself and, I think, JC himself, that it's both.

[NatBalance]

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"?

Perhaps, on the other hand this reminds me of the story behind the Naked Gun films. First came the series Police Squad but it wasn't popular and only six episodes where made. The Zucker brothers who made Police Squad realised that the reason why it wasn't popular was because the viewer had to consentrate to see the humour, and American audiences had the TV on in the background most of the time.

So they made it into a film because the audience would be consentrating more, trapped in a cinema.

[Flay]

an antonym for 'serious'.

Dare I say intelligent?

Serious music requires concentrated listening, whatever the genre.

[Richard Barrett]

Perhaps, on the other hand this reminds me of the story behind the Naked Gun films

These are pretty damn serious to be sure.

But of course no music requires any kind of attention or concentration, it doesn't have that coercive quality, thank heavens; and any music - in fact any sounds at all - can be given close attention and concentration; it's up to the listener, not the sounds, whether this is considered worthwhile or not. Music which seems to be telling me "now you have to concentrate hard!" I find a turnoff, I'll decide that for myself thank you very much.

[Padraig]

it's up to the listener, not the sounds, whether this is considered worthwhile or not.

If I may return to my first post, Richard, I was trying to make the point that it was the composer's duty to be serious about the music. Listeners are not all qualified to distill the essential ingredients from the vast data bank available, and they trust that composers are.

[Richard Barrett]

I was trying to make the point that it was the composer's duty to be serious about the music

... in which case my point would be that it isn't in principle possible to hear whether the composer has fulfilled that "duty" or not. Was Satie serious about the theme of Vexations being repeated 840 times? We'll never know. Performers (and listeners) might choose to take it seriously, or they might view it as a joke. (Or both.)

[doversoul1]

I believe the background music to Peppa Pig or Thomas the Tank engine is/was composed by very serious intentions. How we hear the result is, I think, completely unrelated to how the music was composed.

Experimental summary of this thread.

Natty: Why is some music referred to as serious?
Mr GG: By whom?
Natty: By many people.
Mr GG: including you?
Natty: No. I don’t understand why […] is considered to be serious
Mr GG: Does that matter?
Natty: Yes, because I want to know why that is.
Mr GG: In that case, go and do a bit of reading and listening (here are some links to start with) and think about it. You may find something you didn’t know, for example, what people mean when they say serious music.

[ahinton]

These are pretty damn serious to be sure.

But of course no music requires any kind of attention or concentration, it doesn't have that coercive quality, thank heavens; and any music - in fact any sounds at all - can be given close attention and concentration; it's up to the listener, not the sounds, whether this is considered worthwhile or not. Music which seems to be telling me "now you have to concentrate hard!" I find a turnoff, I'll decide that for myself thank you very much.

But music that makes the listener want to concentrate hard (and gives the impression that it has plenty on which to concentrate is not really the same in principle to that which "tells" you "now you have to concentrate hard"; if certain music of any by itself impels certain listeners to do this, so be it, surely?

[Padraig]

... in which case my point would be that it isn't in principle possible to hear whether the composer has fulfilled that "duty" or not. Was Satie serious about the theme of Vexations being repeated 840 times? We'll never know. Performers (and listeners) might choose to take it seriously, or they might view it as a joke. (Or both.)

Sophisticated listeners might consider whether or not Satie was being serious in that example. Others might consider it was not worth the trouble to find out. What do you think?

I'm just sorry that I didn't stick with 'Classical' to avoid all this soul searching - I was happier then and I knew what I meant, and I knew that everybody else knew what I meant. Now I know nothing, but I still know what I mean. If you know what I mean.

[Richard Barrett]

Sophisticated listeners might consider whether or not Satie was being serious in that example. Others might consider it was not worth the trouble to find out. What do you think?

Once again: I think it's impossible to find out however little or much trouble you take.