Serious Music - Definition

[ahinton]

Except that no music makes "demands" of the listener, it's up to the listener to take it seriously or not. I don't see what's so problematic about that idea.

Nor do I but, in so saying, whilst music itself does not actively make "demands" of the listener (how could it? - it's not a live, sentient phenomenon!), it is capable of possessing the quality of attracting the listener's concentrated attention and drawing him/her into it which, whilst by no means the same thing because that's effectively passive, could nevertheless be regarded as related to it.

I presume that you would think of Haydn's symphonies or Bach's cantatas as "serious music", yet in both cases these pieces, produced to order on a frequent and regular basis, would only have been heard once by most of their listeners*, a fact their composers were of course fully aware of and which they accepted as part of the job of a Kapellmeister or Kantor. The facility to listen as often as one wishes to a piece of music is a relatively recent historical phenomenon, more recent indeed than most of the repertoire trotted out as "serious".

Indeed - although

* whereas nowadays many "serious" music listeners decry the infrequency of second performances of contemporary works as if it were a mark of the music's failure!

Actually, some of them do so as if it were a mark of promoters'/performers' failure!...

[ahinton]

It does for me - even if 'pretentious' isn't quite the right word, saying that someone else's music isn't 'art' or isn't 'serious' assumes superior qualities in mine, doesn't it?

It might do but not necessarily; after all, "pretentious" surely imples that what is so decribed is "pretending" to be something that it is not?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

It might do but not necessarily; after all, "pretentious" surely imples that what is so decribed is "pretending" to be something that it is not?

Indeed. It isn't so much a matter of "pretentious" being not "quite the right word" as of its being quite the wrong word.

[MrGongGong]

It might do but not necessarily; after all, "pretentious" surely imples that what is so decribed is "pretending" to be something that it is not?

You mean like a well known "Lord" and his music that sounds a bit like (allegedly, he said in a Hislop attempt to avoid legal fees !) Puccini ?

[ahinton]

You mean like a well known "Lord" and his music that sounds a bit like (allegedly, he said in a Hislop attempt to avoid legal fees !) Puccini ?

Poor Puccini could indeed not sue for defamation, libel, slander of the like, even though the "Lord" concerned could almost certainly afford to pay up when he lost the case...

[doversoul1]

...music... it is capable of possessing the quality of attracting the listener's concentrated attention and drawing him/her into it which, whilst by no means the same thing because that's effectively passive, could nevertheless be regarded as related to it.

If a piece of music produced the effect of ‘attracting the listener's concentrated attention and drawing him/her into it’ whenever and to whomever it is played, then you could say that that is the quality of the music, though quality in a broad sense.

To assume that this is the value or the definition of serious music is a typically Western thing; I think the CD cover photos of JEG’s Bach Cantata series are a very good example of this assumption even a presumption. If serious music means the music that has value/meaning to human life, serious music comes in infinite variety of shapes and sizes, even within Western culture, surely?

[ahinton]

If a piece of music produced the effect of ‘attracting the listener's concentrated attention and drawing him/her into it’ whenever and to whomever it is played, then you could say that that is the quality of the music, though quality in a broad sense.

Sure, but, as Richard rightly observed, it does not and cannot "demand" this - or indeed anything else.

[jean]

Indeed. It isn't so much a matter of "pretentious" being not "quite the right word" as of its being quite the wrong word.

I disagree; The OED has Attempting to impress by affecting greater importance or merit than is actually possessed - as I see it, if you make a point of specifying that your music is 'art' (or 'serious') you imply that someone else's isn't, or is less so (or you wouldn't specify).

And if that isn't affecting greater importance than you possess, I don't know what is!

[Richard Barrett]

saying that someone else's music isn't 'art' or isn't 'serious' assumes superior qualities in mine, doesn't it?

Yes but actually nobody here is talking about "my" or "someone else's" music, are they? And I would say that describing some music as "art" and some as "not art" implies a difference in function but not necessarily in status.

As I've said before I don't see that these labels really have much use and I don't feel any need to use them. "Serious music", "art music", "classical music", and one of the worst, "contemporary classical music" whatever the hell that's supposed to mean: away with them all.

[jean]

...I would say that describing some music as "art" and some as "not art" implies a difference in function but not necessarily in status...

I'd be more easily convinced of that if I could ever remember having heard either term being used pejoratively!

(By 'my music' I meant 'music I like' rather than 'music I'm responsible for'.)

[Richard Barrett]

(By 'my music' I meant 'music I like' rather than 'music I'm responsible for'.)

Obviously. For the rest, as I said I don't like the term "art music" anyway.

[Serial_Apologist]

Nor do I but, in so saying, whilst music itself does not actively make "demands" of the listener (how could it? - it's not a live, sentient phenomenon!), it is capable of possessing the quality of attracting the listener's concentrated attention and drawing him/her into it which, whilst by no means the same thing because that's effectively passive, could nevertheless be regarded as related to it.

Although tangentially connected to the queston of musical seriousness, the issue of receptivity is interesting in that it might be said to reside in rather profound ways in specificities within musical idioms as pandiachronically germane to the listening capacities of people in different circumstances, or historical ages. This is analogous to the reported inability of people previously unexposed to the pecularities of western musical idioms to distinguish between musics from different eras or aesthetics. The experience of being able to turn off the ruminating aspects of consciousness by means of meditation techniques or the short-cut of taking marihuana, thus helping my capacity for listening to and appreciating non-narrative-directed, non-goal-centred musical idioms such as Balinese Gamelan and African tribal drumming, is suggestive of a relativistic approach to considering the question of whether or not receptivity resides in music or in those at its receiving end*, whether in general or in articulating or identifying with the consciousness of the era in which the music was conceived, and thus can (from what I have related in my own experience, which is probably shared) be "artificially" re-programmed.

*Bearing in mind that listening does not necessarily have to be considered "passive" as opposed to "active" when considering those actually making it. This raises a whole other dimension to do with context for discussion, but is worth taking on board as tangentially related here, I think.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I disagree; The OED has Attempting to impress by affecting greater importance or merit than is actually possessed - as I see it, if you make a point of specifying that your music is 'art' (or 'serious') you imply that someone else's isn't, or is less so (or you wouldn't specify).

And if that isn't affecting greater importance than you possess, I don't know what is!

I would say that the limitation with the expression "Art Music" is that it is tautologous, not that it is pretentious. All Music is "Art" - the idea that "Art" implies/involves superior quality is a misconception.

[jean]

...All Music is "Art"...

That's all very well, but what is 'Music'?

[Tetrachord]

Except that no music makes "demands" of the listener, it's up to the listener to take it seriously or not. I don't see what's so problematic about that idea.

I presume that you would think of Haydn's symphonies or Bach's cantatas as "serious music", yet in both cases these pieces, produced to order on a frequent and regular basis, would only have been heard once by most of their listeners*, a fact their composers were of course fully aware of and which they accepted as part of the job of a Kapellmeister or Kantor. The facility to listen as often as one wishes to a piece of music is a relatively recent historical phenomenon, more recent indeed than most of the repertoire trotted out as "serious".

And why, as has already been asked, is the label "art music" pretentious? (More pretentious, supposedly, than "serious music")

* whereas nowadays many "serious" music listeners decry the infrequency of second performances of contemporary works as if it were a mark of the music's failure!

Art music sounds like an elitist idea, that's all I'm saying. It's also axiomatic, surely.

And you're right; the context and cultural meaning of music has changed since Bach. I believe music does indeed make demands upon the listener. Why else would Beethoven have declared his music was for 'later ages' - he knew that the contemporary Viennese audiences wouldn't 'get it' - nor would the musicians - and that 'getting it' is very definitely part of the experience. There is plenty of documentary evidence of composers understanding that audiences were'nt 'ready' for their music, that they could be shocked or disappointed or appalled - just as is the case today with some contemporary performances. Then somebody like Beethoven came along to 'subvert' expectations with 'the new' because he clearly understood that audiences knew music well enough to know when there was a deviation in form and structure. And during the last decade or so of his lifetime he was generally appalled by Viennese audiences who seemed to go for more lightweight music like Rossini's operas. So, he and other composers very definitely knew their audiences' limits.

And surely the critics, writing for serious music-lovers, know that audiences definitely 'get it' - especially in the more arcane musical references and terms which critics use. My sisters and friends "like" serious music but they recognize when it starts and when it stops. As for a symphony being essentially 'essay' form - that's beyond the pale. In conclusion, I'll say that 'serious music' is a term of engagement for the listener as much as for the creator.