Serious Music - Definition

[french frank]

Not necessarily - I talk (BOY! do I talk) at great length about it all the time, and have done for over forty-five years (with long pauses in between to listen to it) but I've never used the expression "Serious Music" except in an ironic sense. I talk of Bach, or "The Symphony", or Coltrane, or Isorhythm, or Furtwangler, or Fugue, or Bowie, or even "Classical Music" (in its literal and its colloquial sense - the latter having made sure that the word is understood as shorthand for "the Musics of the Western Classical Traditions").

To distinguish particular performers or forms is not the same thing as talking 'globally' about 'classical music' as a genre or even "the Musics of the Western Classical Traditions" which might seem a leetle bit cumbersome . No more is talking about Coltrane or Miles Davis the same as talking about 'jazz'.

[ahinton]

Not necessarily - I talk (BOY! do I talk) at great length about it all the time, and have done for over forty-five years (with long pauses in between to listen to it) but I've never used the expression "Serious Music" except in an ironic sense. I talk of Bach, or "The Symphony", or Coltrane, or Isorhythm, or Furtwangler, or Fugue, or Bowie, or even "Classical Music" (in its literal and its colloquial sense - the latter having made sure that the word is understood as shorthand for "the Musics of the Western Classical Traditions").

I would no more think of referring to any particular type of Music as "Serious Music" than I would talk of "Serious Literature" or "Serious Sculpture".

Indeed not. "You cain't be serious!". The Serious Fraud Office. Seriously septic, as in http://www.weareserious.co.uk/ . "Serious Sculpture"? - mon Dieu! - one might as well ask if Helen Frost Jones' sculptures were more or less "serious" than was her husband's music?

And so on and so off...

[ahinton]

I always wonder if there is a "frivolous fraud squad" ?

You have no need to wonder; it's called the Financial Conduct Authority.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

To distinguish particular performers or forms is not the same thing as talking 'globally' about 'classical music' as a genre or even "the Musics of the Western Classical Traditions" which might seem a leetle bit cumbersome . No more is talking about Coltrane or Miles Davis the same as talking about 'jazz'.

But doesn't such global talking itself lead inevitably to generalizations and vague statements of very limited usefulness - so limited, that inevitably the conversation has to abandon them and move on to specific features? (Either that, or just evaporate for lack of anything more substantial to say?)

[Tetrachord]

Does it? What about the idea that art should be for all?
I'm not sure what that means.
Did he? I don't think there's any hard and fast evidence of this.
What I've been saying all along is that "seriousness" is indeed a term of engagement for the listener, and for that reason that "serious music" is not a useful term.

Why do people think it's necessary at all to have a special word for (what they regard as) "serious music"? What purpose does it serve?

I conducted research on Beethoven for some lectures 2 years ago, reading everything I could (in English) and there's plenty of evidence about Beethoven's attitudes to his contemporary audience, but particularly his musicians, when it came to 'understanding' and interpreting his (especially) later works.

"Axiomatic" means "self evident". Art music - most people would consider the composition and performing of music to be some sort of art. So, the term is actually tautological.

And the purpose of the word "serious" has already been unpacked by me in previous comments.:-)

[Richard Barrett]

Richard, why does seriousness have to be for the listener to decide? Does the composer not have to try to engage the listener? Where does the process of listening to music start?

These are all interesting and important questions which I hope I can answer more or less coherently.

To the first: because, as I've said before, it's impossible to tell how "serious" the composer was, so that it really isn't relevant to the listening experience.

To the second: my belief is that a composer engages listeners by making something that he/she would find compelling, moving, fascinating, beautiful, whatever word one wants to use, since if he/she finds it so then there's a good chance that some others also will, since there is a profound commonality between people, but that they will find it so in a way they weren't previously aware of, since there is also a profound individuality to people. Any more than that seems to me unnecessary pandering to received ways of listening, thinking and feeling. But this attitude of mine isn't something people who listen to the music I write need to know, nor I think is it derivable from just listening.

To the third: that depends. Some composers have their music almost fully-formed through inner listening before they write something down. Others might "discover" the music in the course of writing. Probably most composers have both of these experiences, and there are no doubt many other possible ones. In improvised musics the listeners are in almost the same situation as the composer(s) in so far as nobody has heard the music until it's played.

Jean, I think you go too far.

I have to agree. I don't think most people think like that.

[jean]

I am not sure which post of mine these reproaches refer to!

[Tetrachord]

[QUOTE=ferneyhoughgeliebte;578391]I think so, yes - certainly the works that I find most compelling are those that "get better" the greater amount of attention I give them. (Although I wonder if it is each listener who decides what is "necessary" for them? Reading reactions to works on the Forum, it frequently seems that I am giving attention to completely different features/aspects from those which are most important to many other Forumistas who find those ["most compelling"] works equally compelling).

Bravo. Completely agree with the sentiments of your first sentence. and that's what I was driving at when I said "making demands upon the listener".

[ahinton]

These are all interesting and important questions which I hope I can answer more or less coherently.

To the first: because, as I've said before, it's impossible to tell how "serious" the composer was, so that it really isn't relevant to the listening experience.

To the second: my belief is that a composer engages listeners by making something that he/she would find compelling, moving, fascinating, beautiful, whatever word one wants to use, since if he/she finds it so then there's a good chance that some others also will, since there is a profound commonality between people, but that they will find it so in a way they weren't previously aware of, since there is also a profound individuality to people. Any more than that seems to me unnecessary pandering to received ways of listening, thinking and feeling. But this attitude of mine isn't something people who listen to the music I write need to know, nor I think is it derivable from just listening.

To the third: that depends. Some composers have their music almost fully-formed through inner listening before they write something down. Others might "discover" the music in the course of writing. Probably most composers have both of these experiences, and there are no doubt many other possible ones. In improvised musics the listeners are in almost the same situation as the composer(s) in so far as nobody has heard the music until it's played.

I have to agree. I don't think most people think like that.

Spot on in all respects; many thanks for this.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Bravo.

Thank you.

Completely agree with the sentiments of your first sentence.

Bah! But it's a tautological statement itself, isn't it: "I find the works that most compel me to give them most attention most compelling" - it's an empty comment, absolutely useless in furthering the discussion.

and that's what I was driving at when I said "making demands upon the listener".

But (speaking for myself) they are "demands" I can reject; demands of my own choosing. I'm the sort of person that enjoys analysing/investigating/researching - I cannot say whether the Music that I don't wish to return to has an intrinsic lack of value: many works by Messiaen, Weber, or Verdi (to pick the three examples I wish I did find more compelling) have attracted the lifelong study and absorption of other, professional Musicians, many of whom are figures I greatly respect. The "values" I find most rewarding/compelling are present in these composers, but the resistance to them comes from me. I can talk for hours about the "Great Fugue" or the Schoenberg Piano Concerto, and point out the features that most attract my fascination - but that wouldn't help anyone who dislikes either piece intensely to come to an enjoyment of them. What a work brings to us has to mesh with what we bring to that work - which is why, I think, some pieces suddenly "click" with us; time and experience changes what we bring, so that we become "ready" to make the "mesh".

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Spot on in all respects; many thanks for this.

[jean]

Jean, I think you go too far.

I have to agree. I don't think most people think like that.

Can someone please explain what it is I've said that prompted this reaction?

[french frank]

But doesn't such global talking itself lead inevitably to generalizations and vague statements of very limited usefulness - so limited, that inevitably the conversation has to abandon them and move on to specific features? (Either that, or just evaporate for lack of anything more substantial to say?)

A. No. B. Don't most discussions eventually evaporate when at least the participants no longer have anything substantial to say? The BBC Music Director was formerly Head of Popular Music. Popular music of the popular kind is his main musical interest, but he carries out his duty completely by coordinating the popular music programming. Popular music is 'music'.

Discussions of any sort of music are not limited to the purely 'musical'. There are general cultural, educational, sociological issues. The schools Ten Pieces projects are designed to introduce younger children to kinds of music that they would not normally encounter in their school, home or social lives. The creators of the scheme don't say, 'Let's give them a bit of Bach, Bizet, Shostakovich.' The vision is to introduce them to some 'classical music'.

Though, to recap: I was answering a specific question of Richard's, not claiming anything was 'serious music'. What you can say about classical music is that the core is sufficiently different from popular music that the majority of people think they don't want to listen to it.

**FIO: This year's Ten Pieces with a Mambo from West Side Story, a new piece by Anna Clyne, a piece for turntables by G. Prokofiev - which of the ten has proved the biggest hit? - The Lark Ascending.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Discussions of any sort of music are not limited to the purely 'musical'. There are general cultural, educational, sociological issues.

I am aware of this

The schools Ten Pieces projects are designed to introduce younger children to kinds of music that they would not normally encounter in their school, home or social lives. The creators of the scheme don't say, 'Let's give them a bit of Bach, Bizet, Shostakovich.' The vision is to introduce them to some 'classical music'.

But to do so, they have to make specific decisions - about how many pieces/how long/by whom. "I like serious/Art/concert/Classical Music" is a sort-of dead-end statement - at best it might provoke the response "Why?" Unless the answer is "I like dressing up and going to the Town Hall to watch the orchestra", someone would have to pick specific reasons - specific pieces - to communicate why they like their chosen Music. It's why we have discussions here about which repertoire is best suited to Hear & Now, and why Karl Jenkins or Lord Lloyd-Banker doesn't "fit".

Though, to recap: I was answering a specific question of Richard's, not claiming anything was 'serious music'. What you can say about classical music is that the core is sufficiently different from popular music that the majority of people think they don't want to listen to it.

Which, I think, is why generalized discussion of "the core" - as opposed to specific comment on specific works as a means into that core - is of, at best, limited use.

In the same way that the core of popular Music is sufficiently different from classical to make classical Music lovers think that they don't want to listen to it, and have nothing to gain from doing so. Concentrate instead on a specific work - say, Dark Side of the Moon - and it quickly becomes clear that there are serious Musical thoughts going on here, quite as demanding - and rewarding - of a listener's time, attention and respect as, say, Vivaldi's Four Seasons or Tchaikovsky's Fourth Symphony. The ubiquity of commercial pop creates prejudices against the better type among classical enthusiasts similar to those created by the "image" of classical Music among the majority of people.

**FIO: This year's Ten Pieces with a Mambo from West Side Story, a new piece by Anna Clyne, a piece for turntables by G. Prokofiev - which of the ten has proved the biggest hit? - The Lark Ascending.

Very interesting.

[french frank]

The ubiquity of commercial pop creates prejudices against the better type among classical enthusiasts similar to those created by the "image" of classical Music among the majority of people.

But even to make a statement like that, you have to have a concept that they are 'different'. Have to stop here as I've got to go out ten minutes ago