Serious Music - Definition

[Tetrachord]

Thank you.


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.


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".

All of those statements you make are variations on a kind of 'demand'. Questions of taste don't necessarily come into "demand". I can listen to a song by Elvis and it makes no mental or emotional demands upon me; it is really unsophisticated and designed for the sugar hit. Then I can listen to an aria from "Wozzeck" and then I know I'm in for a 'bumpy ride'. That's the' fun' of serious music; never knowing how you'll respond but knowing that you have to meet the music half way because - if you're serious (cough) about it - there's going to be an investment in it, whether research, repeated listenings, familiarity, the intellect, emotions..whatever. Even if that 'demand' merely translates to sitting still for 30 minutes, a demand it is nevertheless. I'm not suggesting it's rocket science but art music is different from more popular forms of music because of a variety of demands.

Yep, it's sort of elitist, I guess. That's not an issue for me because I just love it so much that I want to own it, hold it to myself and keep it always. Like a piece of Lobmeyr crystal or a Messein or Versace vase, music is infinitely precious to me. And the more it 'asks' of me the more I love it.

[Richard Barrett]

an aria from "Wozzeck"

A what from Wozzeck???

There is nothing intrinsic to classical music that makes "demands", and nothing intrinsic about other musics that fails to do so. Some people would engage with an Elvis song to the same degree as you do with Berg's opera: a recording engineer, for example, interested in the techniques use to create the Presley "sound", who might well say that Elvis's records "demand" this attention from him/her, although really "demand" is far too aggressive a way to describe how music might draw people for different reasons into a strong engagement with it.

You seem now to have moved on from a concept of elitism to a concept of ownership. Isn't one of the most beautiful things about music the fact that it doesn't physically exist in the sense that a valuable ornament does, and therefore never "belongs" to anyone?

[Tetrachord]

A what from Wozzeck???

There is nothing intrinsic to classical music that makes "demands", and nothing intrinsic about other musics that fails to do so. Some people would engage with an Elvis song to the same degree as you do with Berg's opera: a recording engineer, for example, interested in the techniques use to create the Presley "sound", who might well say that Elvis's records "demand" this attention from him/her, although really "demand" is far too aggressive a way to describe how music might draw people for different reasons into a strong engagement with it.

You seem now to have moved on from a concept of elitism to a concept of ownership. Isn't one of the most beautiful things about music the fact that it doesn't physically exist in the sense that a valuable ornament does, and therefore never "belongs" to anyone?

OK, the sung narrative of "Wozzeck" - but I'm sure you knew what I meant. A great many people argue as I have that serious music involves a certain level of knowledge and complexity beyond the superficial; the sugar hit, if you like. And music most certainly does 'belong' - right here in our hearts. I often feel as if it is mine, written for me and expressing something deeply personal. And music is every bit an artefact as a piece of porcelain or crystal.

If somebody thinks Dusty Springfield is demanding, learned and complex - as most 'serious' music is - they just need to get out more.

If you don't mind my saying so, you go to great pains to tell us what serious music is not. There's a detachment there when talking about it, almost as though you eschew any kind of elitist aspects to it. That's kind of contradictory, especially since you seem so eager to show your own knowledge and understanding, front and centre. I'll be honest: I'm actually deterred from wanting to discuss it further and I have the baggage of a Musicology degree up my sleeve. It's one of the difficulties of communicating on the net; you're often with people who don't share your own values. I accept that.

But, never mind. Adios.

[ahinton]

A what from Wozzeck???

I couldn't help but notice that but thought it best to let it go...

You seem now to have moved on from a concept of elitism to a concept of ownership. Isn't one of the most beautiful things about music the fact that it doesn't physically exist in the sense that a valuable ornament does, and therefore never "belongs" to anyone?

Three cheers for that! It may be a statement (well, no, it's a question, however rhetorical) of the obvious and the obviously welcome to some, but clearly it needs to be mentioned to others...

[Richard Barrett]

music is every bit an artefact as a piece of porcelain or crystal.

Well no it isn't, you can't hold it in your hands like those other things, it has a different order of existence.

If you don't mind my saying so, you go to great pains to tell us what serious music is not

I go to great pains to tell everyone I don't think "serious music" is a useful formulation, which is by no means the same thing. I do believe in getting beyond elitism, as far as that's possible in societies like ours, whether in music or in any other part of life. Knowing things or trying to think deeply about them is not the same thing as being elitist, so I think you're mistaken to see the contradiction you mention. I'm certainly not "detached" from music; I've devoted most of my life to it, as anyone can easily find out if they wish. I am not taking the position I do in this discussion to make a display of my "knowledge and understanding" but because I find it important to emphasise that it isn't necessary to think in terms of boundaries between different musics, especially in terms of "seriousness", and to try and promote the idea that anyone can be a "serious" listener no matter what music they're interested in (and the more serious a listener is, the wider his/her field of musical interest often becomes). These are the kind of "values" that my experience of music has taught me.

[Serial_Apologist]

OK, the sung narrative of "Wozzeck" - but I'm sure you knew what I meant. A great many people argue as I have that serious music involves a certain level of knowledge and complexity beyond the superficial; the sugar hit, if you like. And music most certainly does 'belong' - right here in our hearts. I often feel as if it is mine, written for me and expressing something deeply personal. And music is every bit an artefact as a piece of porcelain or crystal.

If somebody thinks Dusty Springfield is demanding, learned and complex - as most 'serious' music is - they just need to get out more.

If you don't mind my saying so, you go to great pains to tell us what serious music is not. There's a detachment there when talking about it, almost as though you eschew any kind of elitist aspects to it. That's kind of contradictory, especially since you seem so eager to show your own knowledge and understanding, front and centre. I'll be honest: I'm actually deterred from wanting to discuss it further and I have the baggage of a Musicology degree up my sleeve. It's one of the difficulties of communicating on the net; you're often with people who don't share your own values. I accept that.

But, never mind. Adios.

Oh please don't go! You have interesting ideas to share, even though not the music you say you love - which for me is for sharing, not for my possession alone, much though I sometimes think that if nobody else wants to share it, then I'll just keep it all to myself and the rest of the world can just go hang!

(BTW you can find some of Richard's music on youtube - have a search and you might have a change of view!)

[Richard Barrett]

Yes indeed, I apologise if you find the tone of any of my contributions offputting, it's just that I do feel very strongly about matters such as this (taking them very seriously in other words!) and they are matters I think about a lot.

[ahinton]

I go to great pains to tell everyone I don't think "serious music" is a useful formulation, which is by no means the same thing. I do believe in getting beyond elitism, as far as that's possible in societies like ours, whether in music or in any other part of life.

It is possible. Music contributes substantially to making it possible. It is no respecter of those artificial and often divisive borders that some people wish to create in the hope of supporting their agendas and for their supposed convenience and, of course, it is, as you state, not a material artefact, so not only can it not be held in its listeners' hands but it is also preternaturally incapable of making "demands" on those listeners.

Knowing things or trying to think deeply about them is not the same thing as being elitist, so I think you're mistaken to see the contradiction you mention. I'm certainly not "detached" from music; I've devoted most of my life to it, as anyone can easily find out if they wish. I am not taking the position I do in this discussion to make a display of my "knowledge and understanding" but because I find it important to emphasise that it isn't necessary to think in terms of boundaries between different musics, especially in terms of "seriousness", and to try and promote the idea that anyone can be a "serious" listener no matter what music they're interested in (and the more serious a listener is, the wider his/her field of musical interest often becomes). These are the kind of "values" that my experience of music has taught me.

Again, very pertinent comments; thanks. Sorabji is said to have asserted a view that his Opus Clavicembalisticum (soon to be toured by the remarkable Jonathan Powell) was composed for "serious listeners only"; whilst the justification or otherwise for such an expression may be as open to question as what might be read (rightly or wrongly) by some as its apparently implicit arrogance, it might be argued that the term "serious" can more easily and meaningfully be applied to listeners rather than to the music to which they listen.

[ahinton]

Yes indeed, I apologise if you find the tone of any of my contributions offputting, it's just that I do feel very strongly about matters such as this (taking them very seriously in other words!) and they are matters I think about a lot.

Of course they are; indeed, I would expect no less from a composer. "The tone of (your) contributions" to this thread are in fact the very opposite of offputting; au contraire, they get right to the heart of the matter; indeed, I wish that I could express them as eloquently.

[Pianorak]

. . . some of Richard's music on youtube -

Oh boy - quite a guitarist!

[Richard Barrett]

Oh boy - quite a guitarist!