# Can Film Music be Classical ? Let's settle this once and for all !



## jojoju2000 (Jan 5, 2021)

What attributes does Film Music have to have in order to be " Classical " ?


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

It should have a beginning, a middle, and an end, and some internal logic to it more than just heightening the emotional effect of what's happening onscreen. (There are some subtler counterexamples, but for a quick answer, it works).


----------



## jojoju2000 (Jan 5, 2021)

MarkW said:


> It should have a beginning, a middle, and an end, and some internal logic to it more than just heightening the emotional effect of what's happening onscreen. (There are some subtler counterexamples, but for a quick answer, it works).


Examples of this in the Film World ?


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

As i said in the other thread, something arranged for the concert hall like a symphonic suite of the film soundtrack or score. Examples: 
Michael Nyman's Piano Concerto
Bernstein's West Side Story Symphonic Dances
Shostakovich's Gadfly Suite


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

jojoju2000 said:


> What attributes does Film Music have to have in order to be " Classical " ?





> Can Film Music be Classical ? Let's settle this once and for all !


Are you serious, on a public forum?
A quick search gave about 25 other threads.


----------



## jojoju2000 (Jan 5, 2021)

Rogerx said:


> Are you serious, on a public forum?
> A quick search gave about 25 other threads.


I know. 
But I want us to agree on a general definition.


----------



## david johnson (Jun 25, 2007)

Being 'classical' is not the point of film music, but some selections have made it to the classical realm. Prokofiev's "Alexander Nevsky" is what I consider an example. Of course, tons of classic musical chunks fulfil the op idea - check out the sdtrk of Excalibur.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

It's not up to us to agree on an (in)disputable definition of Classical music. I doubt the roofs of TC will fly open with raids of gypsies folkists and techno DJs propagating their foley art because we can't agree on having the same identities. I think we'll be okay  That being said, the original term meant the art music close to the traditions of the contemporaries of Big 3. If it meant just the traditions of the Big 3, it wouldn't be strict, but it is. I'm not sure a lot of "Classical" music is 100% Classical, like your Blue Danube radio hits akin to Star Wars, but it still works to be discussed on this forum, because it all holds theory, perceived pattern, and creative thinking. If some form of composition works towards the ideals of the individual, I firmly disagree with censoring it. However, if Classical originally referred to the traditions of the Big 3 themselves, and not their contemporaries, I'd be more lenient with catchy pop music like film scores, because what makes the Big 3 popular is their catchiness, not their Classicism. We're here to discuss Classical music, and catchiness and love of Mozarts and Bachs is just a side-effect of being human, not a feature of the genre. Classical wasn't concocted by globalists to hook the 21st century mainstream--it's a unique and special tradition with its differences, still thoroughly thought about by some. I'm skeptical of a resolution to this thread question, but at least we all agree that the music of Cherubini and Biber is Classical, whether it's something we may ignore or embrace.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

In the outside world? Sure. 
On this forum? No.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

jojoju2000 said:


> I know.
> But I want us to agree on a general definition.


Won't happen, and it's for the best that it doesn't.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

jojoju2000 said:


> Examples of this in the Film World ?


I don't know any.


----------



## jojoju2000 (Jan 5, 2021)

Ethereality said:


> It's not up to us to agree on an (in)disputable definition of Classical music. I doubt the roofs of TC will fly open with raids of gypsies folkists and techno DJs propagating their foley art because we can't agree on having the same identities. I think we'll be okay  That being said, the original term meant the art music close to the traditions of the contemporaries of Big 3. If it meant just the traditions of the Big 3, it wouldn't be strict, but it is. I'm not sure a lot of "Classical" music is 100% Classical, like your Blue Danube radio hits akin to Star Wars, but it still works to be discussed on this forum, because it all holds theory, perceived pattern, and creative thinking. If some form of composition works towards the ideals of the individual, I firmly disagree with censoring it. However, if Classical originally referred to the traditions of the Big 3 themselves, and not their contemporaries, I'd be more lenient with catchy pop music like film scores, because what makes the Big 3 popular is their catchiness, not their Classicism. We're here to discuss Classical music, and catchiness and love of Mozarts and Bachs is just a side-effect of being human, not a feature of the genre. Classical wasn't concocted by globalists to hook the 21st century mainstream--it's a unique and special tradition with its differences, still thoroughly thought about by some. I'm skeptical of a resolution to this thread question, but at least we all agree that the music of Cherubini and Biber is Classical, whether it's something we may ignore or embrace.


So the problem has to do with the profit motive in Film scoring ??


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Sure, why not? If you take "classical" to be pretty vague. Music that is performed in a regular classics program and not relegated to pops concerts? In the 19th century a lot of composers wrote incidental music to plays of such quality that it eventually became part of the standard repertoire: suites from Peer Gynt, Midsummer Night's Dream, and such. I believe music of this genre was the forerunner of film music. There are certainly film scores that have entered the standard repertoire: Lt. Kije, Alexander Nevsky, the Gadfly, On the Waterfront. 

So why not Star Wars? Lord of the Rings? Psycho? Why have so many Hollywood scores not gotten there? First, there is an undeniable snobbery among conductors and audiences. Publishers haven't done a lot to make it better: the fees for renting/performing some marvelous scores are outrageous. And even obtaining performance materials is no easy task. And there's so much great material, nicely organized into suites, that is as good as anything from the "masters". 

Decades ago, the Phoenix Symphony had a young conductor, James Sedares, whose own personal niche was film music - he played it without embarassment or apology. It was a great time - we heard scores from Waxman, Rozsa, Steiner, E. Bernstein, Korngold and many others. And music by film composers that no one else played - like the Herrmann Symphony. But board members and donors didn't like it and he was gone. 

There are some scores that are just not playable by a standard orchestra (The Day the Earth Stood Still) and some lightweight things that shouldn't be part of a classics series. There are a lot of orchestras who now do these Play Along concerts - the movie score is played live while the film is shown. Getting very popular, but I'd still prefer to have more film suites performed. Orchestras all over a struggling to get new audiences; the smart ones are figuring it out: if you want to play "modern", contemporary music that is new to help bring in people, look to the movies. Even the Vienna Philharmonic has gotten the message.


----------



## jojoju2000 (Jan 5, 2021)

mbhaub said:


> Sure, why not? If you take "classical" to be pretty vague. Music that is performed in a regular classics program and not relegated to pops concerts? In the 19th century a lot of composers wrote incidental music to plays of such quality that it eventually became part of the standard repertoire: suites from Peer Gynt, Midsummer Night's Dream, and such. I believe music of this genre was the forerunner of film music. There are certainly film scores that have entered the standard repertoire: Lt. Kije, Alexander Nevsky, the Gadfly, On the Waterfront.
> 
> So why not Star Wars? Lord of the Rings? Psycho? Why have so many Hollywood scores not gotten there? First, there is an undeniable snobbery among conductors and audiences. Publishers haven't done a lot to make it better: the fees for renting/performing some marvelous scores are outrageous. And even obtaining performance materials is no easy task. And there's so much great material, nicely organized into suites, that is as good as anything from the "masters".
> 
> ...


So the problem is that Star Wars for example is a blockbuster film, and not " High Art " like The Waterfront ?


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

It is up to each individual how they wish to consider music for film. IMO, this issue is a trivial concern and not worth all the pages of multiple threads that have been devoted to it on TC.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> It is up to each individual how they wish to consider music for film. IMO, this issue is a trivial concern and not worth all the pages of multiple threads that have been devoted to it on TC.


the only reason i really care about this is that i do strongly believe in the idea that genres are cultural conventions, and not purely aesthetic categories

4'33'' is classical music. silence in general isn't classical music. "Fountain" is dadaist art. a toilet in general is industrial design. the framing and cultural context is the whole point.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

fbjim said:


> the only reason i really care about this is that i do strongly believe in the idea that genres are cultural conventions, and not purely aesthetic categories
> 
> 4'33'' is classical music. silence in general isn't classical music. "Fountain" is dadaist art. a toilet in general is industrial design. the framing and cultural context is the whole point.


We might not be polar opposites on this matter, but if you are the North Pole, then I am at least Argentina.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

mbhaub said:


> Sure, why not? If you take "classical" to be pretty vague. Music that is performed in a regular classics program and not relegated to pops concerts? In the 19th century a lot of composers wrote incidental music to plays of such quality that it eventually became part of the standard repertoire: suites from Peer Gynt, Midsummer Night's Dream, and such. I believe music of this genre was the forerunner of film music. There are certainly film scores that have entered the standard repertoire: Lt. Kije, Alexander Nevsky, the Gadfly, On the Waterfront.
> 
> So why not Star Wars? Lord of the Rings? Psycho? Why have so many Hollywood scores not gotten there? First, there is an undeniable snobbery among conductors and audiences. Publishers haven't done a lot to make it better: the fees for renting/performing some marvelous scores are outrageous. And even obtaining performance materials is no easy task. And there's so much great material, nicely organized into suites, that is as good as anything from the "masters".
> 
> ...


Yep. There's success to be enjoyed by "mixing it up". Symphony Orchestras are scheduling seasons that are diverse and all-encompassing. Sure, there's a night of 18th Century music, then a night of Beethoven, then a night of 21st Century music, then a night with "Something Old Something New", and then a singalong of Beauty and the Beast.

Whatever it takes . . .


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

The original soundtracks to movies such as _Star Wars_; _The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly_; _The Godfather_; _Ben-Hur_; _The Bible, In the Beginning_; and _Jesus of Nazareth_; are great because they are so integral to film; the whole cinema experience. No doubt, there is a great deal of classical music influence in movie soundtracks. George Lucas stated in an interview that he told John Williams that he wanted certain parts of the soundtrack to sound like Wagner, Debussy, or in the case of the "Cantina Band", Benny Goodman. Anyone who knows Rimsky's _Scheherazade_ will hear it in the movie, _The Poseidon Adventure_. I always thought that the soundtrack to _Jesus of Nazareth_ sounded a bit like Vaughan Williams. Almost every old western I've seen made in the 1950s seems to take a page or two from Aaron Copland's _Rodeo Suite_. And yes, classical composers such as Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Copland, Bernstein, and Vaughan Williams have also composed for film. There's a lot of crossover and some exceptions, but to my ears, music made for film is bit removed from what I should be the considered to be the basic classical music repertoire.

When I saw _The Lord of the Rings_ trilogy in theaters I was really impressed with the soundtrack, but when I purchased the soundtrack on CDs, I was astonished at how boring it sounded to me (excepting _The Shire_ and the song _Let It Be_ sung by Enya). This doesn't mean that the soundtrack to _The Lord of the Rings_ is bad music, just that it doesn't serve one purpose as good as the other.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

fbjim said:


> the only reason i really care about this is that i do strongly believe in the idea that genres are cultural conventions, and not purely aesthetic categories
> 
> 4'33'' is classical music. silence in general isn't classical music. "Fountain" is dadaist art. a toilet in general is industrial design. the framing and cultural context is the whole point.


The cultural context for film music is specific and different from the context for Classical music.

The film score for 99% of movies is mediocre stuff designed to make a chase scene more exciting or to heighten suspense, or accompany a love scene. Film scores are full of cliches which are overused because they can be relied upon to conjure in the audience the desired effect to enhance a dramatic scene.

I hear the same kinds of things again and again when I watch a movies - and in fact I find the music for serious television dramas to be equally as good if not better. Some of the best scores are not scores at all but compilations of songs. To me it is obvious the function music serves in a movie and it is just one ingredient among many that go into the director's overall vision and end result, a result the director controls, not the score composer. While the composer is important to the movie, I wouldn't see him more important than the cinematographer.

Of course those of you who wish to consider film music as Classical music are free to do so, for what it's worth.

As for myself, there's nothing wrong with film music and occasionally it is exceptional and done in a manner that elevates it above the norm. But just as I have no desire to call Jazz or any other genre Classical music no matter how artistically it is done, the same holds true for music written for film.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I don't know how we might agree on what it means to describe a piece of music as classical but it seems to me unlikely that the music written for a "blockbuster" film is going to be music of subtlety, emotional power and truth. But an accomplished art film might indeed need such music.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

There's only one consideration that truly matters: where I shelve movie music within my CD collection. 

Most of it—that involving a traditional orchestra and idiom—goes among the classical works. This makes sense, since many of those same composers also wrote for the concert hall.

Case closed.


----------



## jojoju2000 (Jan 5, 2021)

We're not going to settle this once and for all are ?


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

jojoju2000 said:


> We're not going to settle this once and for all are we?


Yes, we are. Then we'll settle all the other questions once and for all. Then close all the threads forever.

Now, at last, we know our goal.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

amfortas said:


> There's only one consideration that truly matters: where I shelve movie music within my CD collection.
> 
> Most of it-that involving a traditional orchestra and idiom-goes among the classical works. This makes sense, since many of those same composers also wrote for the concert hall.
> 
> Case closed.





jojoju2000 said:


> We're not going to settle this once and for all are ?


I shelve my film soundtracks in the film soundtracks section between Classical and Jazz. I'll consider sorting to you method if everyone decides here decides to do the same, which is not likely.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Phil loves classical said:


> I shelve my film soundtracks in the film soundtracks section between Classical and Jazz. I'll consider sorting to your method if everyone decides here decides to do the same, which is not likely.


If you sort your shelves your way and I sort my shelves my way, it can only lead to confusion, chaos, and anarchy.

For the sake of the next generation, we have to find some common ground.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

amfortas said:


> There's only one consideration that truly matters: where I shelve movie music within my CD collection.


That's a problem I don't have to deal with. I shelve my cd's in a random fashion and don't own a single film music recording.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

amfortas said:


> If you sort your shelves your way and I sort my shelves my way, it can only lead to confusion, chaos, and anarchy.
> 
> For the sake of the next generation, we have to find some common ground.


Absolutely. So should I put my Flashdance soundtrack (not joking, I really have it on CD) with my pop/rock section?


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

"actual" soundtracks - soundtracks
performances of orchestral film suites, etc - classical 
soundtrack albums which are really compilation albums - per genre, usually pop with a few exceptions like my Kubrick film album (which is a classical compilation, as you'd expect from a Kubrick film comp), or Saturday Night Fever which is dance


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Phil loves classical said:


> Absolutely. So should I put my Flashdance soundtrack (not joking, I really have it on CD) with my pop/rock section?


I put mine in the Jennifer Beals section, with all the candles and incense.


----------



## Haydn70 (Jan 8, 2017)

Bulldog said:


> That's a problem I don't have to deal with. I shelve my cd's in a random fashion and don't own a single film music recording.


Same here in that I too don't own a single film music recording...but I do have my CDs in alphabetical order by composer.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

MarkW said:


> It should have a beginning, a middle, and an end, and some internal logic to it more than just heightening the emotional effect of what's happening onscreen. (There are some subtler counterexamples, but for a quick answer, it works).







this is Wagner's prelude in the film Melancholia. It's classical music, and it's used in a film therefore it's film music.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> The cultural context for film music is specific and different from the context for Classical music.
> 
> The film score for 99% of movies is mediocre stuff designed to make a chase scene more exciting or to heighten suspense, or accompany a love scene. Film scores are full of cliches which are overused because they can be relied upon to conjure in the audience the desired effect to enhance a dramatic scene.
> 
> I hear the same kinds of things again and again when I watch a movies - ...


Absolutely, but I'd call it "serious music" or "art music" rather than "classical music". Let's face it, contemporary concert music is also awash in mediocrity, and of course not every soundtrack is going to be a work of art. _Top Gun_? Nope. _The Blue Max_? I'd say yes.

Maybe this is too, from one of my favorite movies:





And this is from the soundtrack of another of my favorite movies. I think it's artistic, serious music:


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

We can look a this question from a number of angles. In my recent post on the other thread, my viewpoint took in how film music has changed over the last hundred years: https://www.talkclassical.com/71719-top-what-number-would-6.html#post2111744

My main point there was that while film music started as part of classical music, since then its become its own category. There's a variety there now which crosses over all different types of music.

Korngold's decision to focus on film music during the 1930's was looked down upon by the classical establishment. In recent decades, this tendency - based on ideology more than reality - has pretty much vanished.

Today, the classical industry has a more inclusive view towards film music, and I think this is good. It contributes to the viability of orchestras and brings in a new audience - some, to whom sitting through something like a Beethoven symphony would be total anathema.

I think its wise to accept film music into the fold of classical. We can argue about its similarities and differences to incidental music, ballet, opera or whatever. The way I see it is that the core performance repertoire is more or less a closed shop as far as admitting anything new. Some might say its fossilized and the concert format established by Mendelssohn at Liepzig in the mid 19th century is virtually obsolete (and if left unchanged, financially unviable). Contemporary classical has other long established organisations for its dissemination and promotion, such as ISCM.

In the other thread, I gave the example of John Williams' music being played live by orchestras as the film is projected:
https://nyphil.org/starwars

There have been other examples of this, such as Lord of the Rings:





Also, a film whose score is made up of various preexisting classical pieces, 2001: A Space Odyessy:





In the last clip, people discuss how such an event could only be made to happen thanks to the tight collaboration between the musicians, film industry and venue management.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

I wonder how much of the opposition to accepting the "classical" nature of some film scores is due to the fact that film score composers often enjoy wide recognition while other "serious" composers labor in obscurity.


----------



## Oldhoosierdude (May 29, 2016)

Have you settled it once and for all yet?


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

It cannot be settled unless someone posts a Venn diagram showing the overlap.

:lol:

Seriously though, there are so many different sorts of soundtracks. Some are more classical, and some are simply orchestral and don't have enough credibility to be considered "Classical".


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

dissident said:


> I wonder how much of the opposition to accepting the "classical" nature of some film scores is due to the fact that film score composers often enjoy wide recognition while other "serious" composers labor in obscurity.


 Probably because the mindsets and circumstances of actually writing music are different, as are the career paths negotiated in media and concert music and added to the fact that the musical choices made by composers are obviously personal, suggesting that there is animosity or jealousy between composers isn't really plausible, at least not in my experience, and certainly not to the extent that it constitutes or influences the "opposition" you speak of. Honestly, I don't even think the question of film = classical is what really matters that much to composers of either discipline in their day to day work.

I'll grant that there's definitely some eye rolls when yet again and for the trillionth time, harmonic progressions in thirds and all the other tired cliches are used - even by media composers, many of whom have far more ability than what is expected of them - but that's the nature of and requirement for the genre. However we all know there is much more to music than limited cliches and some composers are purposely willing and even happier finding out how much more there is to be had from the art.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_It should have a beginning, a middle, and an end, and some internal logic to it more than just heightening the emotional effect of what's happening onscreen. (There are some subtler counterexamples, but for a quick answer, it works). Examples of this in the Film World?_

Any complete film score such as this one from 1979's _Alien_ by Jerry Goldsmith

https://www.amazon.com/Aliens-Delux...lien+film+score&qid=1627471477&s=music&sr=1-2

Or the one from _Mysterious Island _composed by Bernard Herrmann

https://www.amazon.com/Mysterious-I...land+film+score&qid=1627471554&s=music&sr=1-1


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

Phil loves classical said:


> As i said in the other thread, something arranged for the concert hall like a symphonic suite of the film soundtrack or score. Examples:
> Michael Nyman's Piano Concerto
> Bernstein's West Side Story Symphonic Dances
> Shostakovich's Gadfly Suite


West Side Story is not a film score. It is the score of a Broadway musical (later adapted for film).

Signed a theatre maven. 

On the other hand, what about Philip Glass's film scores?


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

larold said:


> _It should have a beginning, a middle, and an end, and some internal logic to it more than just heightening the emotional effect of what's happening onscreen. (There are some subtler counterexamples, but for a quick answer, it works). Examples of this in the Film World?_
> 
> Any complete film score such as this one from 1979's _Alien_ by Jerry Goldsmith
> 
> ...


_Close Encounters of the Third Kind_ (1977)
_E.T. the Extra-Terrestial_ (1982)
_The Lord of the Rings_ (2001-2003)

_Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker_ (2019) is also one to look out for once it's released in a coherent form, probably a few years down the road...


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

dissident said:


> I wonder how much of the opposition to accepting the "classical" nature of some film scores is due to the fact that film score composers often enjoy wide recognition while other "serious" composers labor in obscurity.





dissident said:


> Absolutely, but I'd call it "serious music" or "art music" rather than "classical music". Let's face it, contemporary concert music is also awash in mediocrity, and of course not every soundtrack is going to be a work of art. _Top Gun_? Nope. _The Blue Max_? I'd say yes.
> 
> Maybe this is too, from one of my favorite movies:
> 
> ...


On flip side, I wonder why some fans of film music want to elevate that music to the level of serious art music. I remember when I was listening to some John Williams film music, my bro said he prefers that stuff over any of Mozart, or Beethoven. There's no doubt about it, the main themes to Star Wars, Superman are brilliantly written, and exciting stuff. I own those soundtracks. They have real high resonance in its sensuality and singularity of perspective, which is both its strength and weakness. Film music is content to rest on that oneness and not develop the musical perspective further, or else very slow at developing it, and offer few surprises to distract the viewer during its groove. Serious music has a higher level of abstraction, more perspectives. That's why I think if you condense the film music into a suite or overture, it can be considered Classical.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

jegreenwood said:


> West Side Story is not a film score. It is the score of a Broadway musical (later adapted for film).
> 
> Signed a theatre maven.
> 
> On the other hand, what about Philip Glass's film scores?


No comment on Philip Glass's film scores. Most of his music sound like film music to me.


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

Phil loves classical said:


> On flip side, I wonder why some fans of film music want to elevate that music to the level of serious art music. I remember when I was listening to some John Williams film music, my bro said he prefers that stuff over any of Mozart, or Beethoven. There's no doubt about it, the main themes to Star Wars, Superman are brilliantly written, and exciting stuff. I own those soundtracks. They have real high resonance in its sensuality and singularity of perspective, which is both its strength and weakness. Film music is content to rest on that oneness and not develop the musical perspective further, or else very slow at developing it, and offer few surprises to distract the viewer during its groove. Serious music has a higher level of abstraction, more perspectives. That's why I think if you condense the film music into a suite or overture, it can be considered Classical.


I'm not sure that fans of movie soundtracks want to elevate anything; and probably people who sincerely enjoy who enjoy John Williams' or Ennio Morricone's "Greatest Hits" couldn't care less as to whether or not it gets played in the concert hall or by the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra. I think, rather, that the classical music industry is desperate to generate revenue and remain viable. So, maybe, if people can be somewhat drawn into classical music via a suite based on _Star Wars_ or _The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly_; they might just hang around long enough to find that Holst's _Planets_ and Copland's _Billy the Kid_ and _Rodeo_ are not that far off from what they already know and love.


----------



## jojoju2000 (Jan 5, 2021)

Phil loves classical said:


> That's why I think if you condense the film music into a suite or overture, it can be considered Classical.


Which John Williams has done for many of his movies.


----------



## jojoju2000 (Jan 5, 2021)

Phil loves classical said:


> No comment on Philip Glass's film scores. Most of his music sound like film music to me.


Ironically, Phillip Glass says that he is more free to add in avant garde atonal techniques in his film scores because the very function of the film in his view doesn't call for the big brassy tonality.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

for the record, i've repeatedly stated that an orchestral suite based on a film composition is classical music, and that John Williams is a classical composer, which is a different question than asking if his film scores are classical music


----------



## jojoju2000 (Jan 5, 2021)

Coach G said:


> I'm not sure that fans of movie soundtracks want to elevate anything; and probably people who sincerely enjoy who enjoy John Williams' or Ennio Morricone's "Greatest Hits" couldn't care less as to whether or not it gets played in the concert hall or by the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra. I think, rather, that the classical music industry is desperate to generate revenue and remain viable. So, maybe, if people can be somewhat drawn into classical music via a suite based on _Star Wars_ or _The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly_; they might just hang around long enough to find that Holst's _Planets_ and Copland's _Billy the Kid_ and _Rodeo_ are not that far off from what they already know and love.


In that sense, Williams makes sense. He's not a " Classical " Composer. But he is a " Crossover " Composer who brings people to the concert hall.

Hence him being awarded the RPS Gold Medal for doing just that.


----------



## jojoju2000 (Jan 5, 2021)

John Williams is a Classical Composer who just happens to write for film, but then cuts the scores down to orchestral suites ?


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

jojoju2000 said:


> So the problem is that Star Wars for example is a blockbuster film, and not " High Art " like The Waterfront ?


No. IMO, mbhaub (#13) should have stopped after his first paragraph. If it gets performed regularly on classical orchestral concerts (non-Pops), chamber festivals, and in other classical venues, and, later, if it becomes required rep for conservatory students, and so on, then it's classical music. The question is a simple institutional one. Has nothing to do with quality or aesthetics - although those factors can exclude any music, including acknowledged classical music, from the concert stage.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

jojoju2000 said:


> John Williams is a Classical Composer who just happens to write for film, but then cuts the scores down to orchestral suites ?


He also writes original classical concertos, and probably some other compositions I'm not aware of.

A lot of composers span genres. Bernstein did classical and Broadway, as a famous example.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

pianozach said:


> It cannot be settled unless someone posts a Venn diagram showing the overlap.
> 
> :lol:
> 
> Seriously though, there are so many different sorts of soundtracks. Some are more classical, and some are simply orchestral and don't have enough credibility to be considered "Classical".





jegreenwood said:


> West Side Story is not a film score. It is the score of a Broadway musical (later adapted for film).
> 
> Signed a theatre maven.
> 
> On the other hand, what about Philip Glass's film scores?


This is where I was headed with my comment, but I ran out of steam.

There are simply so many ways in which films have soundtracks. Some have orchestral sections plus popular songs, while others, like *West Side Story*, were sourced from a Broadway music (which, in turn, was a musical adaptation of Shakespeare's *Romeo and Juliet*, considered to be part of Classic literature).

Generally (_very_ generally), when a musical is adapted to film, regardless of how successful it may have been on stage, it is changed, sometimes in major ways, and often in more subtle ways.

*West Side Story*, the film, contains the songs from the show, but many have been altered. For instance, the song _*Cool*_ has been moved to take place after the Rumble, so Riff is no longer alive to sing it, so Ice leads it, and the Jet girls get to dance in it as well. And since _*Gee Officer Krupke*_ is moved to take place BEFORE the rumble, Riff is front and center in it.

The _*Prologue*_ was extended, and the _*Somewhere*_ dance sequence was cut.

Composer Bernstein was . . . ahem . . . _"displeased with the orchestration for the movie, which was the work of Sid Ramin and Irwin Kostal, who had orchestrated the original Broadway production. That show had been orchestrated for roughly 30 musicians; for the movie, United Artists allowed them triple that, including six saxophone parts, eight trumpets, five pianos and five xylophones. Bernstein found it "overbearing and lacking in texture and subtlety."_ - Wikipedia

Is it "Classical"? The stage version is considered part of Classical canon by many, but is the film score, which is quite similar ("reimagined")?

More people are familiar with the film version of the score than are familiar with the stage version. This is typical; I can think of two highly successful films that are notably different than their highly regarded stage sourced versions - *Grease* and *Cabaret*, both of which had half the songs cut.

In the case of Cabaret, the two main characters and "A" plotline were cut from the film, so the six songs between them were also cut. Sally got two new songs, _*Mein Herr*_ and _*Maybe This Time*_, and a vastly changed _*Money Song*_. Unlike the original stage version, about the German boardinghouse landlady and her Jewish greengrocer suitor, the film concentrates on the more shallow subplot of the foreign entertainer and her journalist/writer boyfriend and her showstopping songs in a Cabaret. Unsurprisingly, many elements of the subplot were altered as well; Sally became American because of Liza's inability to approximate an English accent. Sally also was changed to being a stellar performer, when she was a B-list foreign novelty in the stage version - and only an average singer.

In the case of Grease, the stage version was more of an ensemble show, with all the supporting characters getting a song - the film cut most of those characters' songs, with the exception of Greased Lightning, which was reassigned to the character Danny (played by John Travolta) per the request of John Travolta, taking away Kenicke's defining stage moment. The anachronistic songs Hopelessly Devoted to You and Grease were added, and an easier-to-sing song added to replace the great song he originally sang at the drive-in.

In the case of these two films, the changes paid off when the films became hits. But for every *Cabaret*, there's a *Cats*. For every *Grease*, there's a *Mame*. For every *The Sound of Music*, there's the animated version of *The King and I*.

It seems to me that Hollywood sees a successful Broadway musical, and often removes the elements that made it so successful. Occasionally it works out. Too often, it doesn't.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

jojoju2000 said:


> What attributes does Film Music have to have in order to be " Classical " ?


important: 
- only classical instruments (no electronic instruments)
- classical rhythmic emphasis (no backbeat)

less important (doubious techniques for classical music):
- no long quotes
- not more than 1 composer


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

I wonder why are song compilations and electronic / pop scores getting dragged into these discussions at all. 

It should be obvious that the discussion is about film scores relying on classical western ensembles, or their slight variations, and composed using the same techniques that are used in the traditional music making of / for these ensembles...


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Aries said:


> important:
> - only classical instruments (no electronic instruments)
> - classical rhythmic emphasis (no backbeat)
> 
> ...


but this isn't even true of classical music


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

fbjim said:


> but this isn't even true of classical music


What exactly? ´´


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Aries said:


> What exactly? ´´


The lack of electronic instruments, the lack of rhythmic emphasis, or even the lack of a co-composer. I don't know what a "long quote" is.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

fbjim said:


> The lack of electronic instruments, the lack of rhythmic emphasis


If you count electronic tone generation and backbeat as classical then pop and jazz would be classical. That makes no sense. I don't really know classical pieces with electronic instruments or backbeat. I think there are borderline cases, but they don't works as good examples for for classical music.



fbjim said:


> or even the lack of a co-composer.


Examples?



fbjim said:


> I don't know what a "long quote" is.


If someone just uses lets say Carmina Burana in a film it is a copy of classical music. But I don't think copying is a classical practice. I also would say that Shostakovichs 15th symphony violates the classical practice. But to say it is not classical music would be probably a bit incorrect.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Aries;2114151I don't really know classical pieces with electronic instruments or backbeat.[/QUOTE said:


> You're uninformed concerning classical music with electronics. Best to read up on it.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Phil loves classical said:


> On flip side, I wonder why some fans of film music want to elevate that music to the level of serious art music. ...


It's not a question of my wanting to "elevate" it. Some of it already is art without my elevation. And it's not "film scores" as an entire group. This is already at the level of "serious art music" whether you want to acknowledge it or not:


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Bulldog said:


> You're uninformed concerning classical music with electronics. Best to read up on it.





Bulldog said:


> That's a problem I don't have to deal with. I shelve my cd's in a random fashion and don't own a single film music recording.


You are uninformed concerning classical film scores. Best to read up on them.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Fabulin said:


> You are uninformed concerning classical film scores. Best to read up on them.


No, I'll just continue listening to them while I'm watching movies.:tiphat:


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

I'm loving this.

Classical music has evolved, and there is plenty of "classical" music that incorporates "modern", "pop", and "electronic" elements.

Hell, *Rhapsody in Blue* was early 20th Century and incorporated a back beat. And jazz elements. There's classical music that features electric guitar, drum kits, synthesizers, and, of course, electronics. In fact, it's quite possible that the use of electronics hit Classical music first, beating Popular music to that several years prior.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Bulldog said:


> No, I'll just continue listening to them while I'm watching movies.:tiphat:


Well then at least it will be heard...unlike some concert music.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

Bulldog said:


> You're uninformed concerning classical music with electronics. Best to read up on it.


Read about it? Lol. Is it not good for listening or what?



pianozach said:


> Hell, Rhapsody in Blue was early 20th Century and incorporated a back beat. And jazz elements.


We agree that these elements are jazz elements not classical elements.



pianozach said:


> There's classical music that features electric guitar


I wonder how it sounds. Do you have an example?


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

pianozach said:


> I'm loving this.
> 
> Classical music has evolved, and there is plenty of "classical" music that incorporates "modern", "pop", and "electronic" elements.
> 
> Hell, *Rhapsody in Blue* was early 20th Century and incorporated a back beat. And jazz elements. There's classical music that features electric guitar, drum kits, synthesizers, and, of course, electronics. In fact, it's quite possible that the use of electronics hit Classical music first, beating Popular music to that several years prior.


The fact that popular music can easily incorporate classical aesthetics and vice versa is pretty good evidence that genres can't be defined strictly by aesthetic rules at all, and that cultural context is the only classification that makes any sense.

e) easy example: it should be relatively evident that the genre of sacred/liturgical classical music can _only_ be defined via cultural contexts, even though the genre does have its own aesthetics predominantly associated with the genre. This doesn't mean that works which use those aesthetics are necessarily sacred music ("Carmina Burana", eg), or even that sacred works have to use those aesthetics (the Verdi Requiem).


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

fbjim said:


> The fact that popular music can easily incorporate classical aesthetics and vice versa is pretty good evidence that genres can't be defined strictly by aesthetic rules at all, and that *cultural context is the only classification that makes any sense*.


A division based on social and "humanist" factors rather than any technical ones in the face of technical evidence making a division indefensible and pointing to the need for a more inclusive definition? Where have I seen it before...


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Yeah, why on earth would you look for culturally based reasons for why something is considered "popular" music, or "sacred" music, or


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

fbjim said:


> e) easy example: it should be relatively evident that the genre of sacred/liturgical classical music can _only_ be defined via cultural contexts, even though the genre does have its own aesthetics predominantly associated with the genre. This doesn't mean that works which use those aesthetics are necessarily sacred music ("Carmina Burana", eg), or even that sacred works have to use those aesthetics (the Verdi Requiem).


The same way you can define classical film music via it being used in a film, even though a work with a "film aesthetic", such as a tone poem, might sound similar, and even though some of the classical music written for films does not follow the most common trends.

Besides, the word "aesthetics" already implies some technical reality that led to their creation.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

also this seems like it's going into a weird place where rather than trying to be inclusive, the actual argument is that film scores with classical aesthetics should be privileged above ones written for synthesizer or something


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

fbjim said:


> The fact that popular music can easily incorporate classical aesthetics and vice versa is pretty good evidence that genres can't be defined strictly by aesthetic rules at all, and that cultural context is the only classification that makes any sense.


 "Cultural context"? Ligeti became famous through the "cultural context" of a movie soundtrack.



> e) easy example: it should be relatively evident that the genre of sacred/liturgical classical music can _only_ be defined via cultural contexts, even though the genre does have its own aesthetics predominantly associated with the genre. This doesn't mean that works which use those aesthetics are necessarily sacred music ("Carmina Burana", eg), or even that sacred works have to use those aesthetics (the Verdi Requiem).


I don't know what you're defining as a "sacred/liturgical aesthetic".


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

fbjim said:


> also this seems like it's going into a weird place where rather than trying to be inclusive, the actual argument is that film scores with classical aesthetics should be privileged above ones written for synthesizer or something


Only in the sense of concert works written for classical ensembles being prioritized over rock bands that also stand on stages and play concerts.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

dissident said:


> "Cultural context"? Ligeti became famous through the "cultural context" of a movie soundtrack.
> 
> I don't know what you're defining as a "sacred/liturgical aesthetic".


good for Ligeti. As for sacred music, we generally associate this with the aesthetics of polyphonic writing going back to the tradition of Renaissance and early music- but we can easily find sacred music like the Verdi requiem which has significant influence from operatic aesthetics, or music which incorporates sacred aesthetics but isn't sacred at all, because sacred music is defined by the specific role it plays in our culture.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

fbjim said:


> good for Ligeti. As for sacred music, we generally associate this with the aesthetics of polyphonic writing going back to the tradition of Renaissance and early music- but we can easily find sacred music like the Verdi requiem which has significant influence from operatic aesthetics, or music which incorporates sacred aesthetics but isn't sacred at all, because sacred music is defined by the specific role it plays in our culture.


So how does Orff incorporate this "polyphonic writing" but Verdi doesn't? And what is "sacred aesthetics"? Bluegrass style is sometimes used for hymns in Appalachia, but it isn't really a "sacred aesthetic".


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

dissident said:


> So how does Orff incorporate this "polyphonic writing" but Verdi doesn't? And what is "sacred aesthetics"?


Ask a musicologist for details. Do you really need a source for the Verdi requiem having stylistic elements we associate more with opera than sacred music?


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

fbjim said:


> Ask a musicologist for details. Do you really need a source for the Verdi requiem having stylistic elements we associate more with opera than sacred music?


Bach's Mass in B minor could be said to have such operatic elements too, and Orff for that matter.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

dissident said:


> Bach's Mass in B minor could be said to have such operatic elements too, and Orff for that matter.


Yeah that's kind of the point. Trying to define genres by strict adherence to aesthetics leads to all sorts of problems, which is why genre definitions make much more sense as cultural conventions based on the context of the work's composition and expected performance practices.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

fbjim said:


> Yeah that's kind of the point. Trying to define genres by strict adherence to aesthetics leads to all sorts of problems, which is why genre definitions make much more sense as cultural conventions based on the context of the work's composition and expected performance practices.


Well the cultural convention of the symphony orchestra and the sound it produces would lead to regarding orchestral soundtracks as "classical music". Otherwise the only "classical music" is that which is played at Carnegie Hall by musicians in tuxes and evening gowns.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

dissident said:


> Well the cultural convention of the symphony orchestra and the sound it produces would lead to regarding orchestral soundtracks as "classical music". Otherwise the only "classical music" is that which is played at Carnegie Hall by musicians in tuxes and evening gowns.


You're getting closer when you mention the cultural conventions of orchestras. I don't like strictly defining classical by specifically conventions of the 19th century modern orchestra, though, mainly to avoid having to use the clunky category of "western art music" or *gag* "serious music" when referring to works which have the cultural conventions of "serious" concert hall performance but don't otherwise conform to the aesthetics of the "standard" 19th century orchestra (ie a lot of avant-garde classical music)


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

fbjim said:


> You're getting closer when you mention the cultural conventions of orchestras. I don't like strictly defining classical by specifically conventions of the 19th century modern orchestra, though, mainly to avoid having to use the clunky category of "western art music" or *gag* "serious music".


"Classical" is even more clunky.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

jojoju2000 said:


> I know.
> But I want us to agree on a general definition.


Why must these things be so concrete? There will never be an agreement on this particular topic, so why bother? I'm not saying that a discussion couldn't be interesting of course, but trying to get people to come to some kind of consensus as to whether film music could be considered classical music just won't happen.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Fabulin said:


> I wonder why are song compilations and electronic / pop scores getting dragged into these discussions at all.
> 
> It should be obvious that the discussion is about film scores relying on classical western ensembles, or their slight variations, and composed using the same techniques that are used in the traditional music making of / for these ensembles...


To me, that's pretty obvious. For example, while these where composed for use in films by classically trained composers, they are different from the sort of film music which has made it into the concert hall:

Windsong by Harry Partch





Theme song from "High Noon" by Dmitri Tiomkin





Its also obvious that certain film scores are more adaptable to the concert hall than others. This can happen with suites, adaptations including narrator (like what Christopher Palmer did with Walton's scores for Olivier) and simultaneous screenings. The choices concert programmers make depend on the suitability of the score for each of these types of categories. For example, I've got Goldsmith's Papillon score, and the whole thing lasts for about 40 minutes. Selections from something like that would make sense as a suite, but not in a simultaneous screening because the film lasts for over two hours.

There are really no rules though. Why have them, as long as something works? Philip Glass went the other way, creating a soundtrack which didn't exist, for the silent classic Dracula:





Over time, classical music has evolved and the tendency has been towards expansion. Out of church music came instrumental music (e.g. church sonatas). Similarly, ballet emerged out of the shadow of opera. The earliest symphonies where nothing more than background music for dinner parties (divertimenti, serenades). Chamber music came out of private homes to recital halls. The boundaries between these are so elastic now as to be almost irrelevant.

I see the increased inclusion of film music to the centre of classical music (from which it emerged) to be a part of this trend. I think that it can only be good, since its adding to the mix of classical. Experts can argue about what is high or low art, but most listeners are simply interested in enjoying what they choose from what's on offer. In any case, eventually the experts tend to adapt to the reality on the ground anyway.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Aries said:


> Read about it? Lol. Is it not good for listening or what?
> 
> We agree that these elements are jazz elements not classical elements.
> 
> I wonder how it sounds. Do you have an example?


Well, there is quite a bit of *Frank Zappa* Classical music, but some might find it debatable whether it's "really" Classical.

Perhaps something like this . . .

*Concerto for Electric Guitar and Orchestra
David Chesky*


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Neo Romanza said:


> Why must these things be so concrete? There will never be an agreement on this particular topic, so why bother? I'm not saying that a discussion couldn't be interesting of course, but trying to get people to come to some kind of consensus as to whether film music could be considered classical music just won't happen.


That probably applies to most topics here.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

Re: classical music on electric guitar:



Aries said:


> I wonder how it sounds. Do you have an example?


This was the first piece to spring to mind.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

dissident said:


> I wonder how much of the opposition to accepting the "classical" nature of some film scores is due to the fact that film score composers often enjoy wide recognition while other "serious" composers labor in obscurity.


And by the same "logic" we should be wary of dismissing Taylor Swift as classical? Classical music is always *relatively* obscure these days and often requires - from the novice at least - some work to be put in to get to the huge life-enhancing rewards. Perhaps "film music as classical" is an easily digestible substitute for the real thing? Don't get me wrong, I know the big names in film music composing are enormously talented and often inspired.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Enthusiast said:


> And by the same "logic" we should be wary of dismissing Taylor Swift as classical? ...


No, when the style of the music is obviously not "classical". But that isn't to say that some "pop" music can't be "serious" artistic expressions, and maybe some of the resentment of it historically is based in that logic as well. All of it can lead to a weird logic in which the "worth" of whatever music is measured by the number of people are put off by it.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^ I find film music from the last 39 or more years that uses orchestras to also be not in the style of classical music, just as pop music is (whether it uses an orchestra or not). I agree we are not talking of serious artistic expression or "worth" - and, of course, there is great jazz music, great pop/rock/rap, great film music and great orchestral pop.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Enthusiast said:


> ^ I find much film music - including nearly all from the last 39 years that uses orchestras - to also be not in the style of classical music, just as pop music is (whether it uses an orchestra or not). I agree we are not talking of serious artistic expression or "worth" - and, of course, there is great jazz music, great pop/rock/rap, great film music and great orchestral pop.


"Much" isn't "all". That's why several in the thread made a distinction between styles.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Enthusiast said:


> ^ I find much film music - including nearly all from the last 39 years that uses orchestras - to also be not in the style of classical music


What happened in 1982?


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Fabulin said:


> What happened in 1982?


More than that, Stockhausen isn't really "in the style of classical music" either, I guess.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

dissident said:


> "Much" isn't "all". That's why several in the thread made a distinction between styles.


Thank you. I have edited my post so that my meaning is clearer.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

dissident said:


> More than that, Stockhausen isn't really "in the style of classical music" either, I guess.


Which is kind of a clue that "the style of classical music" isn't a very good criterion for determining what classical music is, when classical music sometimes entirely departs from that style itself!


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

fbjim said:


> Which is kind of a clue that "the style of classical music" isn't a very good criterion for determining what classical music is, when classical music sometimes entirely departs from that style itself!


But the Herrmann and Williams scores referenced earlier are still closer to the classical style than Stockhausen. So what makes Stockhausen classical and those not? Simply the fact that Stockhausen's weren't film scores?


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

pianozach said:


> Well, there is quite a bit of *Frank Zappa* Classical music, but some might find it debatable whether it's "really" Classical.
> 
> Perhaps something like this . . .
> 
> ...


I think the electric guitar is a non-classical element, but thats not enough to make overall non-classical.

I think a good criterion for the definition of classical music is whether the music was made to be played by a facility/institution of classical music. So if it is made to be played by a symphony orchestra it is classical, no matter if a electric guitar is added or if it is used for a film. But if it is made to be played by a Big band for example it is not classical.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

dissident said:


> But the Herrmann and Williams scores referenced earlier are still closer to the classical style than Stockhausen. So what makes Stockhausen classical and those not? Simply the fact that Stockhausen's weren't film scores?


he was part of a continuing tradition and cultural scene which produced music for "serious" (I hate to use this term, but I mean, the difference in cultural norms for concert music and for pop music performances) performance.

This is obviously not an all-encompassing definition nor do works have to fit cleanly into one genre or the other, but the point is that music can be classical without necessarily having the aesthetic traits we associate with "common practice" orchestral music.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

fbjim said:


> he was part of a continuing tradition and cultural scene which produced music for "serious" (I hate to use this term, but I mean, the difference in cultural norms for concert music and for pop music performances) performance.
> 
> This is obviously not an all-encompassing definition nor do works have to fit cleanly into one genre or the other, but the point is that music can be classical without necessarily having the aesthetic traits we associate with "common practice" orchestral music.


You're attempting to set up boundaries of what is and what isn't but yet you can't really define what it is you're delineating. Classical is out, "serious" is out, "art music" is probably out...


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

cultural context, by its nature, isn't cleanly cut. A lot of avant garde also falls under the genre of what would eventually become electronic music, for instance. At some points early in the 20th century you had crossover between classical and jazz before things diverged. I actually think this is a point in favor, as it gives a more realistic sense of how music can cross boundaries of genre than simple statements of "classical music is music which contains the following aesthetic elements".


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

fbjim said:


> cultural context, by its nature, isn't cleanly cut. A lot of avant garde also falls under the genre of what would eventually become electronic music, for instance. At some points early in the 20th century you had crossover between classical and jazz before things diverged. I actually think this is a point in favor, as it gives a more realistic sense of how music can cross boundaries of genre than simple statements of "classical music is music which contains the following aesthetic elements".


So then there shouldn't be much of a problem with some, maybe most, considering some film scores to be serious/artistic/classical.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Sure. I just think the context of the composition is different enough, and crucially, the context of how to *evaluate* the composition is different enough that I consider them different disciplines.

The big thing for me is that I evaluate a film score which uses an orchestra, and one which uses synthesizers, etc the same way-it lives or dies based on how well it works with the film it's in. I think an orchestral film score has much more in common, and should be evaluated in the same way as a John Carpenter film score than it does a symphony. This doesn't preclude someone from evaluating it like classical music if they want to, but it feels weirdly like saying film scores with orchestras should be treated differently than ones without.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

fbjim said:


> Sure. I just think the context of the composition is different enough, and crucially, the context of how to *evaluate* the composition is different enough that I consider them different disciplines.
> ...


"Evaluate"? I thought that was passé.


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

Can film music be 'classical'?

Shostakovich, Malcolm Arnold, Arthur Bliss, RVW all wrote film music. And what's the difference between writing film scores in the 20th century and opera scores in the 19th? Of course that's a naive question, but I do my best to avoid over-thinking music.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

dissident said:


> So then there shouldn't be much of a problem with some, maybe most, considering some film scores to be serious/artistic/classical.


There is no problem with considering film music scored for orchestra as serious/artistic/classical except quality. Excellent film music is not necessarily, or even generally, good concert music. What extended examples of film music almost universally lack is an overall unifying musical conception or structure. This is obvious. The natural unifying factor in film music is plot and imagery - that is, extramusical factors that aren't present to support the music in concert. Composing film music is putting flesh over a non-musical skeleton. The most essential work behind classical symphonies, concertos, and sonatas is creating that very musical skeleton that is missing in film music. From a classical perspective, film music is musically invertebrate, a lower life form.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

EdwardBast said:


> There is no problem with considering film music scored for orchestra as serious/artistic/classical except quality. Excellent film music is not necessarily, or even generally, good concert music. ...


But some concert music isn't necessarily good concert music. But of those film scores that *are*, there's where the question lies. Is an excellent film score -- and there have been many, or at least several -- disqualified from consideration as "concert" or "art" or "serious" or "classical" music simply by virtue of the fact that it is a lowly film score? I don't think so.


> The natural unifying factor in film music is plot and imagery - that is, extramusical factors that aren't present to support the music in concert.


Applies also to incidental music played in a concert setting.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

EdwardBast said:


> From a classical perspective, film music is musically invertebrate


That's a cool metaphor! Some film music is quite amoeboid, but some is more like octopus, as intelligent at problem-solving as the most brilliant of vertebrates.

Still, in many cases fans of various scores have never seen the films those were written for, and sometimes (for me for example) seeing the film actually diminishes the enjoyment of the music, just like seeing illustrations in a novel annoys everyone who imagined a character or scene differently, just in a more abstract sense.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

EdwardBast said:


> From a classical perspective, film music is musically invertebrate, a lower life form.


Is it a "lower life form" than, say,




I like No.2 (starts at 2:00) in this, btw.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

When considering the differing levels of public comprehension regarding classical music and what it is or should be, I have no doubt that Williams for example, has a legitimate and deserved right to be represented in the concert hall. I think this is certainly justifiably so in a marketing sense too as it promotes orchestral music. His work has contributed enormously to expanding awareness and popularity of classical music.. He is a rare but also anachronistic exception though imv. (anachronistic in so far as current trends and approaches to scoring go that is).

However it is patently clear to me from listening to JW's concert music, that even the great man himself makes a technical and aesthetic distinction between a score and a work written for the concert hall when composing and that should tell people who are into classifications something. Composers have a different approach to both disciplines and with good reasons, but unless one is as gifted as JW and has his training - especially his classically orientated melodic/motivic sense and phrasing - there is a compromise with writing film music that is anathema to the ethos of concert music imv.

Of course one's definition of what art music in the concert hall actually comprises of and means comes into play here. Mine does not involve emotive and/or stylistic direction and worse still, actual input from a director or producer. Nor does it include timings on a screen that are more important than musical flow and development.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

mikeh375 said:


> ...- there is a compromise with writing film music that is anathema to the ethos of concert music imv.
> ....


But the point in bringing up ballet, opera and incidental music is that same sort of compromise is present there as well. They're also sort of "mixed media" and the music is created with the choreography or dramatic elements in mind. I think the most problematic difference may be in form. Take the Prokofiev Alexander Nevsky score. In its original state and separated from the film it's relatively sprawling and formless and goes on for quite a while, which is why Prokofiev had to make it more succinct and compact in creating a roughly half hour cantata. But the music in its essence isn't really different, just the form it's given for presentation in a concert setting.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

dissident said:


> But the point in bringing up ballet, opera and incidental music is that same sort of compromise is present there as well. They're also sort of "mixed media" and the music is created with the choreography or dramatic elements in mind. I think the most problematic difference may be in form. Take the Prokofiev Alexander Nevsky score. In its original state and separated from the film it's relatively sprawling and formless and goes on for quite a while, which is why Prokofiev had to make it more succinct and compact in creating a roughly half hour cantata. But the music in its essence isn't really different, just the form it's given for presentation in a concert setting.


This is one of the more appropriate posts on this issue, and points out the double standard when discussing film scores and film soundtracks:

Music written for Ballet (like Swan Lake), Opera, other incidental music written for theatrical presentations (I'm lookin' at YOU, Edvard Grieg) are barely different from Film Scores when brought to the Concert Hall. These types of works are often edited down to Suites, as in their _*"original state and separated from"*_ their initially intended use they may be _*"relatively sprawling and formless and goes on for quite a while."*_


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

pianozach said:


> This is one of the more appropriate posts on this issue, and points out the double standard when discussing film scores and film soundtracks:
> 
> Music written for Ballet (like Swan Lake), Opera, other incidental music written for theatrical presentations (I'm lookin' at YOU, Edvard Grieg) are barely different from Film Scores when brought to the Concert Hall. These types of works are often edited down to Suites, as in their _*"original state and separated from"*_ their initially intended use they may be _*"relatively sprawling and formless and goes on for quite a while."*_


Except that they are not comparable since ballets and operas are identified by the composer - recognition that the most important aspect of the work is the music. Films are the director's work, the music is just one of the collaborative ingredients, along with the costumes, art direction, and cinematography.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

People have stated - multiple times - that orchestral suites, and the act of composing them are classical music (if anyone disagrees, chime in).


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> Except that they are not comparable since ballets and operas are identified by the composer - recognition that the most important aspect of the work is the music. Films are the director's work, the music is just one of the collaborative ingredients, along with the costumes, art direction, and cinematography.


A ballet is the work of a choreographer, which Stravinsky wasn't. And Beethoven didn't write _ Egmont _.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

SanAntone said:


> Except that they are not comparable since ballets and operas are identified by the composer - recognition that the most important aspect of the work is the music. Films are the director's work, the music is just one of the collaborative ingredients, along with the costumes, art direction, and cinematography.


But that doesn't effect the musics genre. Classical music isn't defined as "it must be the most important thing in everything it is incorporated".



fbjim said:


> People have stated - multiple times - that orchestral suites, and the act of composing them are classical music (if anyone disagrees, chime in).


That is even more odd. Orchestral suites include literally identical music to the complete film scores or soundtracks. If you cut together music that doesn't change the musics genre.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

The performance tradition (and cultural context) of ballet just happens to be very much overlapping with the performance history of classical music. You could possibly say that there was a period where film music was this way, but the disciplines have significantly diverged over time since e.g. the composition of incidental music for a silent film.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Aries said:


> That is even more odd. Orchestral suites include literally identical music to the complete film scores or soundtracks. If you cut together music that doesn't change the musics genre.


The discipline changes. Arrangement of music for concert hall performance is specifically a different act and different discipline than composition of film music- even if the source material "stays the same".

Even if you wanted to discount avant-garde music, the disciplines and writing techniques in classical musical are so vastly different over time that it doesn't make a lot of sense to classify classical music as a big set of aesthetic rules, rather than a discipline based on performance/composition context.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

fbjim said:


> The discipline changes. Arrangement of music for concert hall performance is specifically a different act and different discipline than composition of film music- even if the source material "stays the same".
> 
> Even if you wanted to discount avant-garde music, the disciplines and writing techniques in classical musical are so vastly different over time that it doesn't make a lot of sense to classify classical music as a big set of aesthetic rules, rather than a discipline based on performance/composition context.


Its more about sound generation than aesthetics. Classical sound generation is non-electric. Aesthetics only matter for the distinction to jazz. But I prefer a more pragmatic definition over a dogmatic definition. Some jazz influence like in Rhapsody in Blue or some electrics like an e-guitar is ok as long as the pieces is still written for a classical music facility like a symphony orchestra. This leaves room for further development of classical music, like the inclution of some jazz rhythms or an electric instrument or the usage for films.

Classical film music is played by an classical orchestra, therefore it is classical.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

The classical orchestra as we know it today dates from like, the early 19th century, which raises significant problems given what we literally describe as the "classical era".


e) you're actually close to spot-on there- the difference is that I'm talking about performance practice, and the cultural context surrounding it (and the composition techniques which take that performance practice into account), rather than literal sound generation.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^Agreed. Also, a lot of music that springs from the classical tradition uses electronics. The instruments used in classical music have changed continuously through its history. The only definition of classical music that works will be based in a reference to this tradition in one way or another. Of course, if something is fresh and new then it may be hard for some to see the link to the tradition. It can seem like it is _changing _things. But that is how the tradition has been since the start.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

fbjim said:


> The classical orchestra as we know it today dates from like, the early 19th century, which raises significant problems given what we literally describe as the "classical era".


Instrumentation and size can change, but orchestras always had a (primarily) non-electric sound generation.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Enthusiast said:


> ^Agreed. Also, a lot of music that springs from the classical tradition uses electronics. The instruments used in classical music have changed continuously through its history. The only definition of classical music that works will be based in a reference to this tradition in one way or another. Of course, if something is fresh and new then it may be hard for some to see the link to the tradition. It can seem like it is _changing _things. But that is how the tradition has been since the start.


and this is true to an extent with a lot of disciplines of music. film composition has changed significantly over time since the days of Korngold. Pop music sounds nothing like Tin Pan Alley anymore. Modern electronic music is a vast richness of different aesthetic styles which have grown, and further fractured again. But all these represent specific traditions of performance and composition which give us the concept we know as "genre".


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

SanAntone said:


> Except that they are not comparable since ballets and operas are identified by the composer - recognition that the most important aspect of the work is the music. Films are the director's work, the music is just one of the collaborative ingredients, along with the costumes, art direction, and cinematography.


What about directors WHO COMPOSE FOR THEIR OWN MOVIES?

Alejandro Amenábar
Clint Eastwood
Charlie Chaplin
John Carpenter
Dario Argento
Alejandro Jodorowsky
David Lynch
Satyajit Ray


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

One of the most widely used forms for contemporary orchestral music has been the concerto. I doubt it is possible to write a concerto for one or more solo instruments with orchestra without a deep awareness of the concertos of, say, Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Bartok and their followers ... .


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Aries said:


> Instrumentation and size can change, but orchestras always _*had *_a (primarily) non-electric sound generation.


Always had doesn't mean always will or always must. And that's just orchestral music. Orchestras dominate the more popular forms of film music (the music written for rather over the top - IMO - big Hollywood films) but could never be an essential ingredient in a definition of classical music.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

a "i promise i'm not trolling" counter-question - if Bach's Cello Suite #1 appears in a film, does that mean Bach is a film composer?


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

pianozach said:


> What about directors WHO COMPOSE FOR THEIR OWN MOVIES?
> 
> Alejandro Amenábar
> Clint Eastwood
> ...


An irrelevant footnote. How often have these directors been hired to score a movie by a different director?


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Aries said:


> Instrumentation and size can change, but orchestras always had a (primarily) non-electric sound generation.


Orchestras have evolved, and some "old tech" instruments were discarded, while others embraced.

The Symphony Orchestra continues to evolve; the lute is gone, the viols are mostly gone (with the exception of the double bass), replaced by those newfangled stringed instruments from the violin family. The harpsichord is an obsolete instrument that generally only gets dragged onstage when we're play baroque classical music.

It wasn't until the early 1800s that there was a conductor that actually stood up in front of everyone with a baton and did nothing but conduct.

In one of his symphonies, Strauss wrote a part for an alphorn.

It seems to me that you are confusing Classical Music with the Symphony Orchestra. The "basic" 19th-century orchestra is still around, but there was a time when it was still a rapidly developing structure.

Sure, orchestras always had a (primarily) non-electric sound generation, but the use of electricity didn't really become a wide-spread thing until the early 1900s (Gas lighting began in the early 1800s and continued in widespread use for almost a hundred years).

The Vibraphone has been used in orchestras since the 1930s, and THAT is an "electric" instrument.

True, the orchestra IS "primarily" a "non-electric" entity, and that's mostly because of tradition, and the fact that the majority of the Tradional Classical repertoire (and the vast majority of Classical Music that is performed these days) was written prior to 1950. Using this history to discount the present ignores how things have evolved.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

SanAntone said:


> An irrelevant footnote. How often have these directors been hired to score a movie by a different director?


In the overall sense of music, it may be a footnote, but it's certainly not "irrelevant".

And it's point on in answer to your claim, which is dubious.

For instance, in the case of ballet, your claim that ". . . ballets and operas are identified by the composer - recognition that the most important aspect of the work is the music" belies that the music may have been commissioned by a Professional Ballet, and advertised as a BALLET (a dance artwork) with new music by "Insert Composer Here".

How many ballets were composed by the choreographer?

You seem to be applying different "rules" according to genre.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

pianozach said:


> You seem to be applying different "rules" according to genre.


i mean that's kind of the point of genre! just as an example - taking into account that a lot of house and techno music was historically made for dance floors, and that therefore the discipline of that genre's composition is entirely different (and should be evaluated differently) than that of say, a pop ballad, is also "applying different rules according to genre"!

applying different "rules" is kind of how we define genre boundaries in the first place, is what I'm saying


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

pianozach said:


> In the overall sense of music, it may be a footnote, but it's certainly not "irrelevant".
> 
> And it's point on in answer to your claim, which is dubious.
> 
> ...


Le Sacre du Printemps was a ballet commissioned by Sergei Diaghilev - but it is always identified as a work by Stravinsky. The same is true for Swan Lake, the Nutcracker, and every classical ballet.

Even though the names you listed also wished to control the score does not change the fact that their role was as the director of the film. The footnote is that they also took responsibility for the music.

I'm not the one wishing to change the rules, you are and your friends who wish to cross genres by calling film music classical.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

Enthusiast said:


> Always had doesn't mean always will or always must. And that's just orchestral music. Orchestras dominate the more popular forms of film music (the music written for rather over the top - IMO - big Hollywood films) but could never be an essential ingredient in a definition of classical music.


Yes, and that wasn't my statement. Chamber ensembles, solo classical instruments/singers and operas are as classical as orchestras.



pianozach said:


> It seems to me that you are confusing Classical Music with the Symphony Orchestra. The "basic" 19th-century orchestra is still around, but there was a time when it was still a rapidly developing structure.
> 
> Sure, orchestras always had a (primarily) non-electric sound generation, but the use of electricity didn't really become a wide-spread thing until the early 1900s


Electric light is a modern technique. Candels are classical for example.



pianozach said:


> True, the orchestra IS "primarily" a "non-electric" entity, and that's mostly because of tradition, and the fact that the majority of the Tradional Classical repertoire (and the vast majority of Classical Music that is performed these days) was written prior to 1950. Using this history to discount the present ignores how things have evolved.


My definition doesn't rule out electric instruments in classical orchestras/music. I said that explicitly. There is room for development. But as long as something is written for orchestra etc. there is a connection to the classical non-electric tradition.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> Le Sacre du Printemps was a ballet commissioned by Sergei Diaghilev - but it is always identified as a work by Stravinsky. The same is true for Swan Lake, the Nutcracker, and every classical ballet. ...


The *music* is identified as a work by Stravinsky. But initially that music was part of an overall package over which Stravinsky didn't have total control and the sole input. The same is true for Swan Lake and the Nutcracker.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

fbjim said:


> a "i promise i'm not trolling" counter-question - if Bach's Cello Suite #1 appears in a film, does that mean Bach is a film composer?


If it appears in a film, does it mean it's not "classical music" in that instance?


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

dissident said:


> If it appears in a film, does it mean it's not "classical music" in that instance?


That's an interesting question - in that instance, in its context as a film score, I'd say no - in the sense that if you were at a movie and Bach was playing in the background, you wouldn't say you were listening to a classical music performance. You're watching a movie.

This is different, however, to speaking of the Cello Suite as a specific work, for which background music during a film was not the intended context.

e) to be less controversial in the "if you sit on a stump, is it a chair" sense, i'd say that having classical music in it doesn't make a film a classical music performance (or pop music/a pop concert, or house/a rave, etc)


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> I'm not the one wishing to change the rules, you are and your friends who wish to cross genres by calling film music classical.


"What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." (Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet)

But, who makes the rules, and why? The commercial music industry divides its product into genres for marketing purposes. Musicologists and music historians divide music into genres for clarity and ease of reference. Talk Classical's administrators also must define what they mean by "classical music" for the purposes of discussions here.

These definitions are not necessarily identical to each other, nor are they set in stone or incapable of evolving over time. To me, any definition is legitimate so long as it is generally understood and useful. What isn't legitimate, to me, is to hide arguments over whether certain music is important, worthwhile or 'serious' behind a debate over whether it qualifies as "classical music", and that clearly is what some, but not all, posters are doing here.

Another problem here is that posters are confusing and mixing various traditional definitions of classical music: (1) music from a certain European tradition, mostly of the aristocratic class, from the late 18th to the early 19th centuries; (2) European 'serious' art music from 1600 until 1900, or 1950, or 2021; (3) art music from any old and long-accepted and respected cultural tradition, whether European or not, including Indian, Chinese and Japanese traditions.

Obviously, film music can be derived from classical music under any of those definitions, or from something else entirely. What is unique to film music is the purpose for which it is edited, produced and used, i.e., to accompany a film or movie. IMO, it won't be long, given the advance of technology, before we begin to argue over what a movie is. Movie theaters are fading away, as is the distinction between movies and TV.

All of this is good reason to avoid semantic arguments such as those presented in this thread.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

If a tree falls in the forest, and no one hears it wipe out an entire symphony orchestra, is it still classical music?


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

fbjim said:


> That's an interesting question - in that instance, in its context as a film score, I'd say no - in the sense that if you were at a movie and Bach was playing in the background, you wouldn't say you were listening to a classical music performance. You're watching a movie.
> 
> This is different, however, to speaking of the Cello Suite as a specific work, for which background music during a film was not the intended context.
> ...


Uh..... yeah, no. That's sophistry. The music is still what it is. I'd be hearing this classical music used in a movie.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Genres (despite causing semantic arguments) are important because they give us a framework with which to evaluate music from. 

I hope I have been clear here (and others may have said differently - this is me) - the reason I believe in these distinctions is because I want to be fair to the music and evaluate it in the way that it was intended to be evaluated. In terms of film music, the artistry is in how well the music operates in the service of a film as a whole. This certainly does not preclude there being great film music that is enjoyable by itself, but I also don't want to forget that there is fabulous film music which absolutely does not work outside of the film- and that is no less a great work of scoring than something which happens to be fit for concert performance.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

dissident said:


> Uh..... yeah, no. That's sophistry. The music is still what it is. I'd be hearing this classical music used in a movie.


Let's say you happen to think Bach's Cello Suite #1 is a profound masterpiece. You're watching a film where it's playing in a manner that's distracting, and utterly unsuited to the scene it's in. Are you listening to a) a profound work of classical music, b) crappy film music, or c) both?

(this isn't a gotcha question, by the way- there isn't really a "right" answer here)


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

fbjim said:


> I want to be fair to the music and evaluate it in the way that it was intended to be evaluated.


That is a very good point, but again, no reason to fight over whether film music, or particularly great or effective film music, or film music of the long past but still remembered and respected "golden age" of Hollywood circa 1930s to 1960s, or film music using a Mozart piano concerto, or music by Toru Takemitsu or Philip Glass, is classical music. If you think certain film music is especially worthwhile or "great", then by all means advocate for it and explain why, but you won't accomplish much by diving down rabbit holes trying to establish what is or isn't "classical music". That is an arbitrary, and moving, target.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

If it helps the context, part of this is that I consider John Williams unconvincing and uninteresting as a classical composer but far more interesting as a film composer, and I'd rather evaluate him in a way that's favorable.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

dissident said:


> But the point in bringing up ballet, opera and incidental music is that same sort of compromise is present there as well. They're also sort of "mixed media" and the music is created with the choreography or dramatic elements in mind. I think the most problematic difference may be in form. Take the Prokofiev Alexander Nevsky score. In its original state and separated from the film it's relatively sprawling and formless and goes on for quite a while, which is why Prokofiev had to make it more succinct and compact in creating a roughly half hour cantata. *But the music in its essence isn't really different, just the form it's given for presentation in a concert setting.*


It's not just the form though, writing film scores in general, involves the composer dealing with curtailment in all technical and creative aspects, everything from orchestration and texture right down to basics such as line and motif and how they are conceived, shaped and developed (if at all). One should also mention the restriction on harmonic language which in the main and reasonably so, has to be rooted in the familiar. The end result _is_ very different to what a composer might have done otherwise with nascent material.

None of these restrictions, including the ones I mentioned in my post 107 above, are conducive to producing music that represents the highest ambitions and capabilities of a serious composer because the music is first and foremost a utility and more tellingly, actually conceived as such. The curtailments are a hindrance to more profound and personal expression. For me, that somewhat diminishes the claim that film music can be considered concert music.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

SanAntone said:


> I'm not the one wishing to change the rules, you are and your friends who wish to cross genres by calling film music classical.


Are you sure?

I searched a bit on Wikipedia and saw there isn't even an entry "film music", just "film score". But "film score" and "soundtrack" are listed under "Classical music genres": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_classical_music_genres

Great classical composers like Shostakovich and Prokofiev wrote film music. I think to separate film music from classical music is a rather new thought that only makes sense if you consider non-classical film music. Only classical film music is classical ofc.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

mikeh375 said:


> It's not just the form though, writing film scores in general, involves the composer dealing with curtailment in all technical and creative aspects, everything from orchestration and texture right down to basics such as line and motif and how they are conceived, shaped and developed (if at all). One should also mention the restriction on harmonic language which in the main and reasonably so, has to be rooted in the familiar. The end result _is_ very different to what a composer might have done otherwise with nascent material.
> 
> None of these restrictions, including the ones I mentioned in my post 107 above, are conducive to producing music that represents the highest ambitions and capabilities of a serious composer because the music is first and foremost a utility and more tellingly, actually conceived as such. The curtailments are a hindrance to more profound and personal expression. For me, that somewhat diminishes the claim that film music can be considered concert music.


1. Do you really view Williams's concerti as greater compositions than his film scores?
2. Do you think that the Warner Brothers, Lucas, Spielberg, Jackson, and other directors that commissioned the now legendary scores were actually culturally wrong and that the music we got is less worthy than what the composers would have written without their input?


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

fbjim said:


> Let's say you happen to think Bach's Cello Suite #1 is a profound masterpiece. You're watching a film where it's playing in a manner that's distracting, and utterly unsuited to the scene it's in. Are you listening to a) a profound work of classical music, b) crappy film music, or c) both?
> 
> (this isn't a gotcha question, by the way- there isn't really a "right" answer here)


If it's Bach's first cello suite I'm still listening to a profound masterpiece, regardless. 


mikeh375 said:


> It's not just the form though, writing film scores in general, involves the composer dealing with curtailment in all technical and creative aspects, everything from orchestration and texture right down to basics such as line and motif and how they are conceived, shaped and developed (if at all). ...


That's a little bit of an exaggeration. Prokofiev presumably dealt with similar yet I'd call the result "classical music". Heck, Prokofiev and Shostakovich had to deal with outside influences looking over their shoulders always. Tchaikovsky dealt with similar constraints in writing the music for the Sleeping Beauty ballet with the demands of the choreographer, Marius Petipa. No longer classical? I don't think so.

Sometimes limitations can create great works of art. In fact in a way working within narrow prescribed limits may be *the* way some of the greatest works of art were produced. I think the "totally unfettered artist" is a pretty modern concept, actually.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

dissident said:


> The *music* is identified as a work by Stravinsky. But initially that music was part of an overall package over which Stravinsky didn't have total control and the sole input. The same is true for Swan Lake and the Nutcracker.


It's at least superficially reasonable to argue for the potential classical concert viability of film music by analogy to ballet music, which is represented in the classical repertoire by a number of well-respected and well-loved works like those you've cited. But there are formal and historical factors making the leap easier and, arguably, more natural for ballet music than it is for film music. First, ballet scores nearly always subdivide into separate "numbers" that can be incorporated directly into orchestral suites, and these numbers are complete units from a dancers' perspective just as much as they are for musicians and listeners. By contrast, complete numbers beyond the theme and credits music are rare in film music because the structure of dramatic scenes only rarely mirrors musical forms and symmetries. Consequently, film music tends to require more recomposing, revision, and new interpolations and extensions to put it in a viable concert form - which invites the question of how much revision and composition can take place before the resulting work is no longer film music per se, but just intended concert music based on ideas from a film score.

The route from ballet music to the classical concert stage is smoothed by historical and evolutionary connections between the forms of dance music and those underlying sonatas, symphonies, and concertos. Sonata form developed out of binary dance form, the basis for Baroque dance suites, and the overall shape of symphonic form was influenced by the components and sequence of tempi of the dance suite. More to the point, the dance suite, the natural result of arranging ballet music for the concert stage, has been a standard classical form for centuries. Suites made from films would be closer to the more unwieldy and ad hoc concert arrangement of opera excerpts.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Edward Bast said:


> First, ballet scores nearly always subdivide into separate "numbers" that can be incorporated directly into orchestral suites, and these numbers are complete units from a dancers' perspective just as much as they are for musicians and listeners. By contrast, complete numbers beyond the theme and credits music are rare in film music because the structure of dramatic scenes only rarely mirrors musical forms and symmetries.


But the better film scores also have their thematic groupings, just as incidental music has, and just as ballet has. I think the essential argument 
or problem is that ballet is older, more tradition-bound and there isn't the presence of a "Flashdance" sort of musical background in ballet. That would be vaudeville or the Moulin Rouge or something. Ballet is Tchaikovsky and Stravinsky and the like, while film scores range from Herrmann, Auric and Goldsmith to mere stacking of songs, so that the term "film score" doesn't have that single unified meaning that "ballet" has. To me that doesn't take away the artistic value of the really good scores.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Fabulin said:


> 1. Do you really view Williams's concerti as greater compositions than his film scores?
> 2. Do you think that the Warner Brothers, Lucas, Spielberg, Jackson, and other directors that commissioned the now legendary scores were actually culturally wrong and that the music we got is less worthy than what the composers would have written without their input?


1. I view JW's concert music as being more personal to the composer as it clearly is and therefore a more searching and profound utterance, one hears this instantly. As I said earlier in another thread, JW approaches his concert music from a different paradigm, technically, musically and aesthetically. That should mean something to those who are into precise classifications imv.

2. Clever F but naughty too. You know I'm not saying that and have noted that JW's quality is evident in both disciplines..._no matter the style of music._ He can write great music that appeals and he can write great music with less appeal. It is telling again, that his concert music language is more intense than his film work and although there is much crossover, for example, in the use of dissonance when a score needs it, fundamentally the two approaches he takes produce very different results.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

dissident said:


> ........................
> That's a little bit of an exaggeration. Prokofiev presumably dealt with similar yet I'd call the result "classical music". Heck, Prokofiev and Shostakovich had to deal with outside influences looking over their shoulders always. Tchaikovsky dealt with similar constraints in writing the music for the Sleeping Beauty ballet with the demands of the choreographer, Marius Petipa. No longer classical? I don't think so.
> 
> Sometimes limitations can create great works of art. In fact in a way working within narrow prescribed limits may be *the* way some of the greatest works of art were produced. I think the "totally unfettered artist" is a pretty modern concept, actually.


For sure it's a given that restriction that fires invention and allows for tighter control is a driver in great music. Being totally unfettered by external influence is not a modern concept as I see it, rather a definition of 'absolute' music and has been for a long time.

I'm honestly not exaggerating about the restrictions a composer writing for film faces because I've actually been there, working in both disciplines. Whilst I accept that ballet and opera have some commonalities with film I'm only talking specifically about concert music in my posts above.

Regarding stage works, it's when you consider audience responses to film and stage works, that one can't help wondering if the music for film and stage are perceived in the same way by the audience. One will predominantly leave a cinema having watched a film, whilst with stage works, one will watch but more relevantly, _listen more attentively to the music too_, i.e. music is on an equal footing and not merely a utility. Besides, there are no restrictions in ballet and opera such as the ones I've already mentioned with film music and as a result, the expression is more uninhibited even though the action on stage will demand specific moods and perhaps some (looser) timings.

I doubt we'll come together on this judging from your posts in this thread, mainly because we are seeing the issue from opposite ends - that of a listener and a composer. But just for the record my answer to the OP is a qualified yes. For me, only music from the few who had or have the ability to straddle both disciplines with an overarching sense of the technique, depth and refinement required for powerful expression translate well to the concert hall. I fear with many of todays DAW scorers, the OP question is more moot than it ever was.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

SanAntone said:


> Le Sacre du Printemps was a ballet commissioned by Sergei Diaghilev - but it is always identified as a work by Stravinsky. The same is true for Swan Lake, the Nutcracker, and every classical ballet.
> 
> Even though the names you listed also wished to control the score does not change the fact that their role was as the director of the film. The footnote is that they also took responsibility for the music.
> 
> I'm not the one wishing to change the rules, you are and your friends who wish to cross genres by calling film music classical.


I'm not the last word in determining film scores' qualifications as "Classical Music".

But the Classical Music World, specifically the programs of music assembled for performances by Symphony Orchestras, has already decided that some film music IS Classical Music.

The decision whether film scores can be Classical Music is out of our hands, and has already been made.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

I need to just make a "orchestral transcriptions, arrangements, and suites are classical music" sign I can tap.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

fbjim said:


> I need to just make a "orchestral transcriptions, arrangements, and suites are classical music" sign I can tap.


you can always make it your signature :tiphat:


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

11 pages. So is the issue settled?


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Fabulin said:


> 1. Do you really view Williams's concerti as greater compositions than his film scores?
> 2. Do you think that the Warner Brothers, Lucas, Spielberg, Jackson, and other directors that commissioned the now legendary scores were actually culturally wrong and that the music we got is less worthy than what the composers would have written without their input?


That's an interesting question, even though it's not directed to me. I like Williams' film music more than his concert music to be honest. I guess I just don't like his more personal utterances and expressions, that's all (heck I'd rather listen to 50's and 60's oldies but goodies). His film music is definitely more catchy and at times tighter to me, like say the Imperial march, and stuff. He himself and a few others might like his concert music, better, but I just don't see him as a great concert music composer. I still hear lots of the effects he uses for films, but except more virtuosic and nimble, for me a bad mix of both worlds (ie. chattier film music that doesn't feel that original). I feel he's a wannabe serious composer personally, and not really that bold and interesting. I'd much rather listen to the masters and even contemporary masters. I think he excels at film music relative to others more than in his concert music.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Phil loves classical said:


> That's an interesting question, even though it's not directed to me. I like Williams' film music more than his concert music to be honest. I guess I just don't like his more personal utterances and expressions, that's all (heck I'd rather listen to 50's and 60's oldies but goodies). His film music is definitely more catchy and at times tighter to me, like say the Imperial march, and stuff. He himself and a few others might like his concert music, better, but I just don't see him as a great concert music composer. I still hear lots of the effects he uses for films, but except more virtuosic and nimble, for me a bad mix of both worlds (ie. chattier film music that doesn't feel that original). I feel he's a wannabe serious composer personally, and not really that bold and interesting. I'd much rather listen to the masters and even contemporary masters. I think he excels at film music relative to others more than in his concert music.


I am not sure if he values most of his concert music more than his film scores. He said many times over the years that the concert works are just "doing something different for a change", some free personal experimentation (he is taking a holiday from structural writing each time he writes for the concert hall). He has never had any grand designs for those concert works: for example, he said about his cello concerto that it wasn't exactly designed to replace Dvorak's.

I think he also said at one point that the concert pieces are but a small part of his life's work. That being said, he does bring one of them to the upcoming concert in Berlin he will conduct, so he clearly wants it to be known that he wrote such works too.

The most enduring concert works of his (so I've heard) are the Tuba and Bassoon concerti, which are not necessarily better than others, but rather face relatively smaller competition in their genres.

As a last thought, I recommend his newest _Violin Concerto No. 2_, which has just been premiered. It has been warmly received by those who enjoy his other work.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

^ "He has never had any grand designs for those concert works"

Makes sense. I think that's what I hear. Maybe I should revisit them, because I may had gotten the wrong impression that he was trying to do something he wasn't.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

...are we sure he isn't just being a little modest? High quality effort has gone into those concert works no matter what people make of them.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

mikeh375 said:


> ...are we sure he isn't just being a little modest? High quality effort has gone into those concert works no matter what people make of them.


Well, he usually is when speaking of his work, sometimes ridiculously so. At least he doesn't burn his works like Brahms did. As for the high quality, I think the same can be said about most works of most masters - that there is a perceptible skill behind them - even if they are not the most effective ones.

On a different note, Bernard Herrmann wrote his concert, radio, and film works using very much the same language, and would have considered most of the contrarian attitudes in here rubbish.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

It is natural for a film composer to wish for a afterlife for his film score. All the work that went into the composing only to see it disappear once the film has had its run. Pops concerts are a natural outlet for suites and other works based on music used in a film. I enjoyed Williams' work _Escapades_, alto sax concerto, based on the music from "Catch Me if You Can."


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Just out of interest Fabulin, to which contrarian attitudes do you refer?
JW's language for film is a less comprehensive form of his concert language. His technique is not limited to the popular. It's not just harmonic language neither, it's all aspects of composing because the thought process to write say a concerto is different to writing a cue or a theme for popular consumption.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

mikeh375 said:


> Just out of interest Fabulin, to which contrarian attitudes do you refer?


All the philosophical ones 



mikeh375 said:


> JW's language for film is a less comprehensive form of his concert language. His technique is not limited to the popular. It's not just harmonic language neither, it's all aspects of composing because the thought process to write say a concerto is different to writing a cue or a theme for popular consumption.


Yes, because intelligent film directors either prevent or ask to rewrite ineffective music. If Williams was a purely concert composer, as he stated about a year ago, his music would sound a bit like Varese's. He would have, to put it bluntly - the freedom to be ineffective - which freedom I, as an elective, not compulsive musician, neither care for nor sympathize with.

Don't get me wrong, I not only admire the music, but also the person behind it, but I do not agree with everything a creator says about his works.

My attitude is much closer to that of Tchaikovsky and Khachaturian, whose sincerity was not very distant from everyman's joy.


----------



## jojoju2000 (Jan 5, 2021)

mbhaub said:


> 11 pages. So is the issue settled?


From what it looks like; NOPE. Because for better or worse; all the conversations, seems to come down to John Towner Williams. Why ? Because he whether he knows it or not has made the definitions all the more blurry in the Music World. If John Williams did not exist, well perhaps Film Music and Classical Music would not have had that commingling.

But then again, if JW did not exist; would another composer fill up the gap ?


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

jojoju2000 said:


> From what it looks like; NOPE. Because for better or worse; all the conversations, seems to come down to John Towner Williams. Why ? Because he whether he knows it or not has made the definitions all the more blurry in the Music World. If John Williams did not exist, well perhaps Film Music and Classical Music would not have had that commingling.
> 
> But then again, if JW did not exist; would another composer fill up the gap ?


Oh I wouldn't say this much. Even without Williams, there would be the same conversation, just focusing more on Herrmann, Korngold, Waxman, Prokofiev, RVW, Shostakovich, Walton, Alwyn and so many others...


----------



## jojoju2000 (Jan 5, 2021)

Fabulin said:


> Oh I wouldn't say this much. Even without Williams, there would be the same conversation, just focusing more on Herrmann, Korngold, Waxman, Prokofiev, RVW, Shostakovich, Walton, Alwyn and so many others...


Yeah but Williams as I have said before; is the epitome of this comingling. So much so that the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra took the bait and invited Williams to play his music in a " non pops " setting in Jan of 2020.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

jojoju2000 said:


> Yeah but Williams as I have said before; is the epitome of this comingling. So much so that the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra took the bait and invited Williams to play his music in a " non pops " setting in Jan of 2020.


Yes, that we can credit him for. But you don't need to convince me about that, first of all I still see him as the greatest composer alive since the death of Shostakovich, and second - I was there in Vienna, and I know a fair bit of the behind-the-scenes.

What I meant is that one could argue nearly everything I have argued in this thread without referencing Williams _or _his music. Just like the existence of Mozart doesn't change the basic paradigm of the world of brothers Bach, the Haydns, and their contemporaries.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

amfortas said:


> If a tree falls in the forest, and no one hears it wipe out an entire symphony orchestra, is it still classical music?


No. It is vibrations in the air. There are no sounds until there is a listener.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Fabulin said:


> Yes, that we can credit him for. But you don't need to convince me about that, first of all I still see him as the greatest composer alive since the death of Shostakovich, and second - I was there in Vienna, and I know a fair bit of the behind-the-scenes.
> 
> What I meant is that one could argue nearly everything I have argued in this thread without referencing Williams _or _his music. Just like the existence of Mozart doesn't change the basic paradigm of the world of brothers Bach, the Haydns, and their contemporaries.


But you are aware that a great many do not hear him as being that great and also don't consider Shostakovich to be the greatest of his time? I do wonder what it is about their music that makes you think them _that _great.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Fabulin said:


> Yes, that we can credit him for. But you don't need to convince me about that, first of all I still see him as the *greatest composer alive since the death of Shostakovich*, and second - I was there in Vienna, and I know a fair bit of the behind-the-scenes.
> 
> What I meant is that one could argue nearly everything I have argued in this thread without referencing Williams _or _his music. Just like the existence of Mozart doesn't change the basic paradigm of the world of brothers Bach, the Haydns, and their contemporaries.


I think you alluded to that before, if not stated it outright. Pretty eye-popping to me, considering you like his film music more than his concert work. I think his film scores are justly popular. But in the end, they are more simply entertaining to me even if it's rousing or moving, rather than something that sticks with me, or that I find fascinating. I sort of see it like a cartoon next to some serious drama.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Phil loves classical said:


> I think you alluded to that before, if not stated it outright. Pretty eye-popping to me, considering you like his film music more than his concert work. I think his film scores are justly popular. But in the end, they are more simply entertaining to me even if it's rousing or moving, rather than something that sticks with me, or that I find fascinating. I sort of see it like a cartoon next to some serious drama.


Well, composers don't seem philosophically deep to me, since their musical means have no consequence in the realm of a linguistical discourse, so I see no point in judging them by such measure. A composer wailing about his imminent death for an hour is as good to me as one crying over a butterfly with a broken wing. The real difference is the effectiveness of their music.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Fabulin said:


> Well, composers don't seem philosophically deep to me, since their musical means have no consequence in the realm of a linguistical discourse, so I see no point in judging them by such measure. A composer wailing about his imminent death for an hour is as good to me as one crying over a butterfly with a broken wing. The real difference is the effectiveness of their music.


I agree on the philosophy part. I'd extend that to life experiences as well. The effectiveness is the part where I think we're divided. I think J Williams is great at doing whatever he does in film (maybe the best, ok wait I like Herrmann better, but who cares), and his music does everything expected of it, but I think those expectations are what's different than with serious music. To me, I'm sure Mike won't agree, I think his film music is overall more effective than his concert music, just not as fluid. But his music is not as effective, at least in some way, as other composers' like say Lutoslawski. But then effectiveness is a broad term, and can't be pinned down.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Phil loves classical said:


> I agree on the philosophy part. I'd extend that to life experiences as well. The effectiveness is the part where I think we're divided. I think J Williams is great at doing whatever he does in film (maybe the best, ok wait I like Herrmann better, but who cares), and his music does everything expected of it, but I think those expectations are what's different than with serious music. To me, I'm sure Mike won't agree, I think his film music is overall more effective than his concert music, just not as fluid. But his music is not as effective, at least in some way, as other composers' like say Lutoslawski. But then effectiveness is a broad term, and can't be pinned down.


I find it fascinating how the instrument one plays profficiently influences whom one views as great.

Which pieces by Lutosławski would you recommend?


----------



## MarChant (Jul 25, 2021)

I am not going to read through all 12 pages, so maybe it has been said before, but here's my take on this question:

Why couldn't it? The music in films is used to accompany the events on screen, to set the mood etc.
This to me seems very similar to Ballet music, Opera music, and music to accompany a stage play. For all these 'genres' there are a multitude of Orchestral suites, all considered without a doubt as Classical music. (eg. Tchaikovsky's Swan Lake suites or Prokofiev's Romeo & Juliet suites for Ballet, Bizet's Carmen suites for Opera, and Peer Gynt suites for Stage Play), so I don't see why Film music should be treated different.
Of course this also greatly depends on the style and instrumentation, wich brings me to another argument, namely Movie composers borrowing thematic material from established Classical works (eg. James Horner borrowing thematic material from Schumann's 3d Symphony for the movie Willow).

So yes, I think if it looks like Classical music and sounds like Classical music, it can be considered Classical music.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Fabulin said:


> I am not sure if he values most of his concert music more than his film scores. He said many times over the years that the concert works are just "doing something different for a change", some free personal experimentation (he is taking a holiday from structural writing each time he writes for the concert hall). He has never had any grand designs for those concert works: for example, he said about his cello concerto that it wasn't exactly designed to replace Dvorak's.
> 
> I think he also said at one point that the concert pieces are but a small part of his life's work. That being said, he does bring one of them to the upcoming concert in Berlin he will conduct, so he clearly wants it to be known that he wrote such works too.
> 
> ...


I can say with certainty that John Williams makes a great deal more writing films scores than writing violin concertos. (His net worth is estimated to be around $300 million.)

I think he saves his best for the moneymakers that will be heard by millions of people, rather than the "serious" music that gets heard by thousands.

Here's your *JOHN WILLIAMS FUN FACT* *of the Day*:

John Williams was married to Barbara Ruick from 1956 to her death in 1974. Together they had three children including Joseph Stanley Williams, the lead singer of *Toto*.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

MarChant said:


> I am not going to read through all 12 pages, so maybe it has been said before, but here's my take on this question:
> 
> Why couldn't it? The music in films is used to accompany the events on screen, to set the mood etc.
> This to me seems very similar to Ballet music, Opera music, and music to accompany a stage play. For all these 'genres' there are a multitude of Orchestral suites, all considered without a doubt as Classical music. (eg. Tchaikovsky's Swan Lake suites or Prokofiev's Romeo & Juliet suites for Ballet, Bizet's Carmen suites for Opera, and Peer Gynt suites for Stage Play), so I don't see why Film music should be treated different.
> ...


Had you read through the thread you would have learned that your points had all be raised before and dealt with, convincingly, IMO.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

SanAntone said:


> Had you read through the thread you would have learned that your points had all be raised before and dealt with, convincingly, IMO.


Minus the "dealt with" part, whatever it means.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

There is a lot of classical music which does not "look like or sound like classical music", is the sticking point. And simply going "well if it shares superficial similarities with some music in a genre, it must be in that genre" raises problems of its own.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Fabulin said:


> Minus the "dealt with" part, whatever it means.


If you are incapable of acknowledging the differences in how music for films and music for ballet and operas has been treated throughout their histories, that is your specific blind spot.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

SanAntone said:


> If you are incapable of acknowledging the differences in how music for films and music for ballet and operas has been treated throughout their histories, that is your specific blind spot.


For all your denials of this being the case, you seem to actually passively care a lot about how other people treat something, both in the present and the past sense.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

How does one determine, by the way, if a film score is "classical sounding" enough to be classical music?


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

After all this back and forth, is it possible to agree that "classical music" can be defined in various ways, which may or may not include some kinds of film music? And is there any real need to agree on anything beyond that?


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

jojoju2000 said:


> Ironically, Phillip Glass says that he is more free to add in avant garde atonal techniques in his film scores because the very function of the film in his view doesn't call for the big brassy tonality.


Phillip Glass' work in a nutshell: Phillip Glass Phillip Glass Phillip Glass Phillip Glass Phillip Glass Phillip Glass Phillip Glass Phillip Glass Phillip Glass Phillip Glass Phillip Glass Phillip Glass Phillip Glass Phillip Glass... Ad nauseam.

Two-hundred years from now they'll be in awe at his 'genius'.

:tiphat::tiphat::tiphat:


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

He's better at film scores than John Williams, anyway.


----------



## Haydn70 (Jan 8, 2017)

Fabulin said:


> I find it fascinating how the instrument one plays proficiently influences whom one views as great.
> 
> *Which pieces by Lutosławski would you recommend?*


I know this question was not directed at me so please excuse my jumping in with my Lutoslawski recommendation: Preludes and Fugue for 13 Solo Strings:


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Fabulin said:


> For all your denials of this being the case, you seem to actually passively care a lot about how other people treat something, both in the present and the past sense.


I care more about intellectual honesty.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Red Terror said:


> Phillip Glass' work in a nutshell: Phillip Glass Phillip Glass Phillip Glass Phillip Glass Phillip Glass Phillip Glass Phillip Glass Phillip Glass Phillip Glass Phillip Glass Phillip Glass Phillip Glass Phillip Glass Phillip Glass... Ad nauseam.
> 
> Two-hundred years from now they'll be in awe at his 'genius'.
> 
> :tiphat::tiphat::tiphat:


I recently purchased, viewed, and greatly enjoyed the new Metropolitan Opera DVD of _Satyagraha_, and am looking forward even more to the _Akhnaten_ coming out in August.

I don't imagine I'll be around two hundred years from now to participate in any discussion.


----------



## MarChant (Jul 25, 2021)

fbjim said:


> How does one determine, by the way, if a film score is "classical sounding" enough to be classical music?


I have often wondered who was responsible for determining the boundaries of music genres. Is there an International Authority on Music Genres that decides wich music goes where?

I agree with amfortas, music can be defined in various ways.


----------



## jojoju2000 (Jan 5, 2021)

"Classical Music Goes Hollywood"

https://live.stanford.edu/blog/february-2018/classical-music-goes-hollywood


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

amfortas said:


> If a tree falls in the forest, and no one hears it wipe out an entire symphony orchestra, is it still classical music?


Yes. Or possibly no. But certainly a good prompt for hours of heated discussion.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> I care more about intellectual honesty.


So do I. "B-b-b-but that's BALLET!" isn't it.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

amfortas said:


> I recently purchased, viewed, and greatly enjoyed the new Metropolitan Opera DVD of _Satyagraha_, and am looking forward even more to the _Akhnaten_ coming out in August.
> 
> I don't imagine I'll be around two hundred years from now to participate in any discussion.


In a world such as ours, we should be ever thankful that the human life-span is rather brief.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

MarChant said:


> I have often wondered who was responsible for determining the boundaries of music genres. Is there an International Authority on Music Genres that decides wich music goes where?


This answer is all too easy, as there have been deep inquiries into this field. See here:

_"These people at work know some things (or two thangs) about johnreys of music. (Maybe two things but most definitely some thangs.) If we ever put our minds to the task, what could be accomplished in the study of johnreys and their field? It really can make you wonder, the depth and sufficastation of this guy Back, and his broke johnrey."_


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

jojoju2000 said:


> What attributes does Film Music have to have in order to be " Classical " ?


Can I ask, does Film Music have to be "Classical"? I mean, can't it just be 'Film Music'? I mean, I may be wrong, but I don't think anyone asks whether images from the movies can stand against the art of the Old Masters...do they?


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

MarChant said:


> So yes, I think if it looks like Classical music and sounds like Classical music, it can be considered Classical music.


Your post begs the question of what you think classical music sounds like? Most of the film music praised in this thread sounds nothing like current/contemporary classical music. It sounds more or less like the classical music of 120+ years ago. That seems to qualify it for the label pastiche. I have no problem with film music or the composers who shine in it. They are highly skilled and very talented. But I don't greatly like the blockbuster films they write for and I certainly don't think their music can qualify as classical music. They take the classical music of a distant past and use its language in their modern and commercial art.

You may then ask about the film music of Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Walton and others. They wrote in a more or less contemporary (if comparatively conservative for their time) language. The composers being praised in this thread do not. Rather they have squeezed out (making huge profits in the process) the genuine contemporary composers from the opportunities that Walton, Prokofiev et al enjoyed.

Whenever I read a thread about film music and how great our current practitioners are at it, it seems to me that the fans have very limited knowledge of contemporary classical music and are concerned to dismiss it as "not popular" and not appealing. That's OK - it's not for everyone - but what I don't get is why they can't get their Romantic CM from the composers who created it at its frontier.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Fabulin said:


> I find it fascinating how the instrument one plays profficiently influences whom one views as great.
> 
> Which pieces by Lutosławski would you recommend?


I think this one is easy on the ears, even though his Symphony No. 3 is more famous and original. I relistened to Williams first violin concerto, it can be quite eloquent, especially the violin part, but I think the parts with the orchestra, still sounds 'cinematic'. It's as if it's a serious thing at first, and times, but then it gets framed as something different. It's a weird blend of cinema with modernism, and the music doesn't seem to go anywhere to me, but there is undoubtedly a lot of skill putting it together. I'll try out his cello concerto again later. I think J Williams knows he's still more suited to the concerto, with his sort of aspect in music, which is able to bring out some redeeming qualities in that form, rather than something like a symphony, which needs more absolute sort of qualities than programmatic.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

SanAntone said:


> If you are incapable of acknowledging the differences in how music for films and music for ballet and operas has been treated throughout their histories, that is your specific blind spot.


Do you acknowlede that operas, symphonies, sonatas and masses have been treated differently in history and that this doesn't change their state as classical music?

That film music is treated differently doesn't really matter because classical music is a wide spectrum in which many things are treated differently.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

I feel like we are running in circles. 

First off - if someone theoretically wanted to say a ballet performance is not classical music by a strict definition - I don't agree, but fine- but to a large extent this doesn't really help much because a) there is a long performance tradition of performing ballet music as part of a classical program without choreography, b) unlike film composers, most famous ballet composers are also renowned classical composers, c) ballet music, unlike film music, has been extremely influential on the tradition and development of classical music at large, and d) we've already established that both film and ballet orchestral suites are classical music. 

Basically I don't really get the point of this argument except as a rhetorical gotcha that proves nothing.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

fbjim said:


> First off - if someone theoretically wanted to say a ballet performance is not classical music by a strict definition - I don't agree, but fine- but to a large extent this doesn't really help much because a) there is a long performance tradition of performing ballet music as part of a classical program without choreography


Ballet is an older form than film music, so there can't be such a long tradition of performing film music as part of a classical program without film. But it seems like that it develops. Didn't someone complain here, that John Williams performances reached a ridiculous amount?



fbjim said:


> b) unlike film composers, most famous ballet composers are also renowned classical composers


Ballet is an older form than film music, when classical music overall was better known and before the immense style pluralism of the 20th century emerged. So classical composers of today are overall less known and more specialized.

But specialist existed earlier too. Richard Wagners non-opera output is not that different in size from John Williams non-film output.



fbjim said:


> c) ballet music, unlike film music, has been extremely influential on the tradition and development of classical music at large


Ballet music is older than film music and existed in the time before the style pluralism of the 20th century. Therefore it had a more influence.



fbjim said:


> d) we've already established that both film and ballet orchestral suites are classical music.


If the suites are classical the film music is classical too, because its the same music just compressed.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

I'm not sure how any of that is supposed to be a rebuttal. Yes, ballet music is older than film music, which is a big reason why it is part of the cultural tradition of classical music and film music is very much a modern, separate practice



Aries said:


> If the suites are classical the film music is classical too, because its the same music just compressed.


No. Orchestral suites are composed for orchestral performance as part of performance practices and contexts associated with the tradition of classical music. Film music in general is composed as part of a film production. That is the difference.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

fbjim said:


> I'm not sure how any of that is supposed to be a rebuttal. Yes, ballet music is older than film music, which is a big reason why it is part of the cultural tradition of classical music and film music is very much a modern, separate practice


But classical normally doesn't mean just old, so that something new is automatically non-classical. You could define it like that, but why not talk than about "old music" instead? For me it seems more senseful to relate "classical" to the characteristics of the music instead of the time of composition.



fbjim said:


> No. Orchestral suites are composed for orchestral performance as part of performance practices and contexts associated with the tradition of classical music. Film music in general is composed as part of a film production. That is the difference.


I talk about what they *are* you talk about what they are *for*. They contain sections of literally the same music.

If the talk is about what classical music is, we talk about what it *is*, not about what it is *for*? You understand?


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Genre is not an inherent property of music. It is determined by the context of the music. This can include aesthetic elements but is not limited to them.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

fbjim said:


> Genre is not an inherent property of music. ...


Well, yeah it is. Rock, disco, blues and bebop are pretty much recognizable just by hearing a few measures. A disco tune played in a concert hall (with a mirror ball, maybe) is still going to be a disco tune. The music itself informs the context.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

This is from the program booklet for the upcoming 21/22 season of the Berlin Philharmonic.









If film music is good enough for them, then it's good enough for me: this is legitimate "classical" music. This would NEVER have happened in the days of Furtwangler, Karajan, or Abbado. Maybe Rattle. Bravo BPO!


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

mbhaub said:


> This is from the program booklet for the upcoming 21/22 season of the Berlin Philharmonic.
> 
> View attachment 157883
> 
> ...


I especially enjoy hearing "etc." :lol:

I _DO_ think it's nice that they've included one of his "serious" works in the setlist, *Elegy for VC and Orchestra*

Even nicer that he's the guest conductor. I think he spent something like 17 years as the resident conductor of the Boston Pops.


----------



## jojoju2000 (Jan 5, 2021)

pianozach said:


> I especially enjoy hearing "etc." :lol:
> 
> I _DO_ think it's nice that they've included one of his "serious" works in the setlist, *Elegy for VC and Orchestra*
> 
> Even nicer that he's the guest conductor. I think he spent something like 17 years as the resident conductor of the Boston Pops.


He was the Conductor of the Boston Pops from 1980 to 1993 and now he is it's Laureate conductor.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

mbhaub said:


> If film music is good enough for them, then it's good enough for me: this is legitimate "classical" music. This would NEVER have happened in the days of Furtwangler, Karajan, or Abbado. Maybe Rattle. Bravo BPO!


It may be instructive to read about the BPO and what their philosophy is - if you can find it. What I did find on their website was a history of the BPO and I noted these points from the early beginnings:



> in March 1882 50 members of the ensemble run by the popular musical director Benjamin Bilse refused to sign their new contracts - [and] decided to set up on their own and from then on to work at their own risk. The new orchestra first called itself - referring to their origin - "The Former Bilse's Ensemble" and they pursued programming concepts similar to those of their former employer: at so-called "Popular Concerts" they usually relied more on entertaining works, while presenting more challenging works and "novelties", i.e. new pieces by contemporary composers, in their "Symphony Concerts".
> 
> [...] the first performances of the "Philharmonisches Orchester" - as the ensemble was soon called - took place in an open-air restaurant. Starting in the summer of 1882, the orchestra played in the hall of a former roller skating rink in Bernburger Strasse with 2,000 seats.


So, 'pops' concerts were not only NOT alien to the spirit of the BPO, but part of their very foundation, whatever management and conductors might have desired.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I take back all I said before. If Philip Glass is considered Classical, I don't see how John Williams can't be.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

...sorry for the digression, I'm just listening to JW's new violin concerto and liking it. For me, his concert hall mode has so much more potential and depth than his film mode. Interesting too that his language is 'tougher'.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Forster said:


> It may be instructive to read about the BPO and what their philosophy is - if you can find it. What I did find on their website was a history of the BPO and I noted these points from the early beginnings:
> 
> So, 'pops' concerts were not only NOT alien to the spirit of the BPO, but part of their very foundation, whatever management and conductors might have desired.


True. For many many years they've been doing concerts at the Tiergarten, outside of course, to vast audiences. And they play lighter fare mostly. I like their idea of a pops concert far more than what pops concerts in the US have become. B


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Forster said:


> It may be instructive to read about the BPO and what their philosophy is - if you can find it. What I did find on their website was a history of the BPO and I noted these points from the early beginnings:
> 
> So, 'pops' concerts were not only NOT alien to the spirit of the BPO, but part of their very foundation, whatever management and conductors might have desired.


To be honest this has confused me a bit when people talk about pops concerts as like, a new strategy for orchestras. Like half the old LPs I see in classical sections are light/pops, things like Richard Rodgers suites were super well performed!


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

fbjim said:


> To be honest this has confused me a bit when people talk about pops concerts as like, a new strategy for orchestras. Like half the old LPs I see in classical sections are light/pops, things like Richard Rodgers suites were super well performed!


I was responding to the suggestion that some orchestras, such as the BPO, might be resistant to performing a concert programme of 'light' music. As you say, such music has been around in recorded form since recordings were possible, but some traditional classical music orchestra were much less likely to perform it live.

It seems that the suggestion, in the case of the BPO, was not true, though I couldn't say whether that initial willingness was maintained throughout the evolution of the BPO.

I've noticed that when light music appears on a programme at a particular venue, it's either not the establisehd orchestra, or if it, it's not the most prestigious of the conductors. At the BBC Proms, it's the John Wilson Orchestra that usually does the Hollywood/Broadway numbers. When the BPO or the ACO comes, they're usually doing something from the standard repertoire - not John Williams!


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

dissident said:


> Well, yeah it is. Rock, disco, blues and bebop are pretty much recognizable just by hearing a few measures. A disco tune played in a concert hall (with a mirror ball, maybe) is still going to be a disco tune. The music itself informs the context.


A lot of the time this is because the music is informed by the context. Disco (and techno/house/etc) are recognizable because their forms are informed by the music's intent as dance music, which requires the form to take on specific aspects for it to function as dance music.

not all disco/techno/etc is intended in this way, however- just as back in the classical/romantic period, people would write minuets/trios/waltzs/etc for "artistic" reasons which sometimes caused them to not actually function as dance music anymore (see: the Diabelli theme which isn't a "proper" waltz)

And this also isn't strictly true. Without context, would you immediately recognize "Bron-Y-Aur Stomp" by Led Zeppelin as a rock song?


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

for the record what i'm trying to avoid is a definition of classical music which is something like "it has to include these aesthetics to be classical" which a) has way too many limitations and exceptions, and b) is frequently used as an attack on modern/postmodern/avant-garde music


which is why I don't buy the "film music which sounds kind of like classical music is classical music" argument. especially since "sounds kind of like classical music" virtually always means "sounds like a simple common-practice-tonality romantic tone poem or something". I hardly would expect someone to use that argument on a film score inspired by avant-garde electroacoustic work!


----------



## jojoju2000 (Jan 5, 2021)

Forster said:


> I was responding to the suggestion that some orchestras, such as the BPO, might be resistant to performing a concert programme of 'light' music. As you say, such music has been around in recorded form since recordings were possible, but some traditional classical music orchestra were much less likely to perform it live.
> 
> It seems that the suggestion, in the case of the BPO, was not true, though I couldn't say whether that initial willingness was maintained throughout the evolution of the BPO.
> 
> I've noticed that when light music appears on a programme at a particular venue, it's either not the establisehd orchestra, or if it, it's not the most prestigious of the conductors. At the BBC Proms, it's the John Wilson Orchestra that usually does the Hollywood/Broadway numbers. When the BPO or the ACO comes, they're usually doing something from the standard repertoire - not John Williams!


Here is Seiji Ozawa; Conductor of the Boston Symphony Orchestra conducing the Flying Theme from ET with the Full Boston Symphony Orchestra. 




Here is another performance with Seiji Ozawa conducting the Boston Symphony with John Williams as Soloist.


----------



## jojoju2000 (Jan 5, 2021)

Oh and here's GUSTAVO DUDAMEL and the LA Philharmonic.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

fbjim said:


> for the record what i'm trying to avoid is a definition of classical music which is something like "it has to include these aesthetics to be classical" which a) has way too many limitations and exceptions, and b) is frequently used as an attack on modern/postmodern/avant-garde music
> 
> which is why I don't buy the "film music which sounds kind of like classical music is classical music" argument. especially since "sounds kind of like classical music" virtually always means "sounds like a simple common-practice-tonality romantic tone poem or something". I hardly would expect someone to use that argument on a film score inspired by avant-garde electroacoustic work!


Classical music is defined as written music intended to stand alone in the writing/score, intended to be transferred do others to use, not music of one particular performance the composer intends in conducting (singing, playing) themselves. In other words, Classical is music fully contained in the score. If some forgotten composer wrote his music down in 1712 with the intention of it being transferred, even though it's not performed by the community today, he was writing Classical. Whether it's good or complex or not is a different topic.


----------



## Alfacharger (Dec 6, 2013)

Ethereality said:


> Classical music is defined as written music intended to stand alone in the writing/score, intended to be transferred do others to use, not music of one particular performance the composer intends in conducting (singing, playing) themselves. In other words, Classical is music fully contained in the score. If some forgotten composer wrote his music down in 1712 with the intention of it being transferred, even though it's not performed by the community today, he was writing Classical. Whether it's good or complex or not is a different topic.


Something like this?























]


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

fbjim said:


> for the record what i'm trying to avoid is a definition of classical music which is something like "it has to include these aesthetics to be classical" which a) has way too many limitations and exceptions, and b) is frequently used as an attack on modern/postmodern/avant-garde music
> 
> which is why I don't buy the "film music which sounds kind of like classical music is classical music" argument. especially since "sounds kind of like classical music" virtually always means "sounds like a simple common-practice-tonality romantic tone poem or something". I hardly would expect someone to use that argument on a film score inspired by avant-garde electroacoustic work!


Atonal music is classical music too, and because of that it is better to define the music by the musicians instead of the aestetics. If music is for a classical ensemble of musicians it is classical.

Who plays Schubert? Classical musicians! Who plays Schönberg? Classical musicians! Who plays John Williams? Classical musicians! This makes it just very hard too deny that all three are classical composers. Why do we have to talk about this? Just ask the musicians who play John Williams, whether they are classical musicians. The answer will be yes.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

I've never felt so sorry for a dead horse.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

fbjim said:


> ... I hardly would expect someone to use that argument on a film score inspired by avant-garde electroacoustic work!


Why not? Are you saying Stockhausen isn't classical?


fbjim said:


> And this also isn't strictly true. Without context, would you immediately recognize "Bron-Y-Aur Stomp" by Led Zeppelin as a rock song?


Yeah. It's bluesy-folksy but still recognizably rock.


----------



## jojoju2000 (Jan 5, 2021)

We're never going to settle this are we ?


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

jojoju2000 said:


> Here is Seiji Ozawa; Conductor of the Boston Symphony Orchestra conducing the Flying Theme from ET with the Full Boston Symphony Orchestra.
> 
> Here is another performance with Seiji Ozawa conducting the Boston Symphony with John Williams as Soloist.


And he looks ecstatically happy about it. 



jojoju2000 said:


> Oh and here's GUSTAVO DUDAMEL and the LA Philharmonic.


Like I said, I've noticed it's minor orchestras and not the top conductors :devil:

I should have made clear that I was referring to what I've noticed in the UK. But given what I'd already posted about the BPO, you'll note, joking aside, that I'm not claiming that film scores aren't played by leading orchestras.



Alfacharger said:


> Something like this?


Written for the purpose of accompanying a film, not for the purpose of a concert.



jojoju2000 said:


> We're never going to settle this are we ?


Who's 'we'? It's settled as far as I'm concerned. Film music is film music: it doesn't matter whether it may or may not also be classified as 'classical'. Remember too that some film music is, in any case, jazz or rock, alt, country etc - you'd still have the argument then about the ambiguous 'modern' music score - say, Johansson's score for _Arrival_


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

mbhaub said:


> This is from the program booklet for the upcoming 21/22 season of the Berlin Philharmonic.
> 
> View attachment 157883
> 
> ...


The attraction of that programming for the BPO is probably partly financial and partly a reflection of the orchestra's commendable desire to broaden its audience. It is interesting that they perform the works in a ghetto - away from any other part of their (classical) repertoire - which seems to suggest JW doesn't belong with much of their work?


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther (Aug 6, 2021)

Very interesting question. Here is a new annoucement from the Berliner Phil on the topic of their concert:





"We can't wait to have John Williams here to conduct his own music; it will be a bit like having Mozart here to conduct his symphonies".


----------



## jojoju2000 (Jan 5, 2021)

Enthusiast said:


> The attraction of that programming for the BPO is probably partly financial and partly a reflection of the orchestra's commendable desire to broaden its audience. It is interesting that they perform the works in a ghetto - away from any other part of their (classical) repertoire - which seems to suggest JW doesn't belong with much of their work?


The Boston Symphony as I have showed above has been performing JW's works for years outside of the Film context. The Boston Pops under JW's tenure; performed a wide range of light classical, heavy classical works in additions to JW's film works. 




Here is Yo Yo Ma.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

VoiceFromTheEther said:


> "We can't wait to have John Williams here to conduct his own music; it will be a bit like having Mozart here to conduct his symphonies".


Mozart here to conduct John Williams's symphonies?

Sounds like a bit of a missed opportunity. :devil:


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

amfortas said:


> Mozart here to conduct John Williams's symphonies?
> 
> Sounds like a bit of a missed opportunity. :devil:


LOL.

But, seriously - I think the reason that this discussion has gone on for so long is that there is no _*one*_ accepted definition that defines the phrase "Classical Music". We all have our own perception of what makes a piece of music "Classical".

Classical Music has evolved for centuries, and continues to do so. Wasn't there a time when non-liturgical music was frivolous (at best) and heretical (at worst)? Wasn't there a time when *Schubert*'s Symphonies weren't taken seriously because he was thought of as a "songwriter"? Was *Stockhausen*'s stuff considered an anomaly at first, and decidedly NOT "Classical"? Are the rags of *Scott Joplin* "Classical"? Is *Scott Joplin*'s opera *Treemonisha* "Classical"?

The question of whether *film scores* are *"Classical Music"* will not be agreed on in this forum because we failed at the outset of agreeing on a definition of what sort of music can be considered "Classical" because, collectively, *we have failed to define it*.


----------



## jojoju2000 (Jan 5, 2021)

pianozach said:


> LOL.
> 
> But, seriously - I think the reason that this discussion has gone on for so long is that there is no _*one*_ accepted definition that defines the phrase "Classical Music". We all have our own perception of what makes a piece of music "Classical".
> 
> ...


Unfortunately for us, there doesn't seem to be a definition overall. Look up " Classical Music Definition " on Google and you have thousands of opinions.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

pianozach said:


> The question of whether *film scores* are *"Classical Music"* will not be agreed on in this forum because we failed at the outset of agreeing on a definition of what sort of music can be considered "Classical" because, collectively, *we have failed to define it*.


I would agree with all you say, except that I don't necessarily see our not defining classical music as a "failure." Any absolute, clear-cut definition would be too arbitrary and restrictive. Better to leave the term somewhat flexible, depending on the context of the discussion. From that perspective, some film music would or would not qualify, as the situation warrants.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

No one yet answered the question, "Does it matter?"
Or, "Why do some people want it to be classed as classical?"


----------



## whispering (Oct 26, 2013)

So on page number 26 are we any nearer to answering the original question? Thought not. The tone of the question gave a clue. Can we settle this once and for all was sounding like a cry for clarity based on despair. In the end I suggest such subjective matters are beyond being settled. As many have said how do you define the term classical music, before even deciding what then can be put into that box. Can it not just be accepted some film music is highly enjoyable. 

I have an interest in Astronomy and there is debate about what happens on the event horizon of a black hole. The matter is debated and what becomes apparent is our knowledge is still incomplete. What is very certain is if you could ever teleport onto an event horizon you might get the answer in the nano second you lived before being crushed into oblivion.

My mother died earlier this year after years of fighting Dementia. It has taken me months to even start to get over her loss. I now realise life is full of beauty and most of it is in the grey areas. Ultimately who really cares if film music fits into classical music. Just ask does this music touch something inside of me. Does it make me feel great to be a live and listening to it. Debates raging about angels on a pin head are really not worth the energy. Mum lost her battle, my caring role ended and slowly life is coming back to me. The effect a piece of music has on me will always be the deciding point, not the category others wish to put it in. 

This forum is a great place to come, learn, ask questions, receive helpful replies, etc. My only contribution would be when raising a thread look carefully at the title. Like this one sometimes the answer is there in the words. People vary, hold different opinions and views, meaning general definitions and categories are usually the best you can hope for.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

whispering said:


> ...
> My mother died earlier this year after years of fighting Dementia. It has taken me months to even start to get over her loss. ...


I commiserate; the same thing happened to me in early January, and then my father's health declined steeply and 2 1/2 months later he was also gone.


----------



## whispering (Oct 26, 2013)

Dear Dissident

Thank you for your reply. I am truly sorry to hear about the loss of both of your parents. My dad died many years ago. Getting over the loss of mum is still very hard. I cannot imagine the extra heart ache losing two parents in a short space of time. Please take your time to grieve and be gentle with yourself. We both know the old phrases like time heals are not relevant. After a few months I have found listening to music has helped me. My other great passion of reading I still cannot settle to. Working my way through Beethoven and Haydn string quartets has helped me find some beautiful music. Thank you again for your reply. Best wishes for the future.


----------



## Chilham (Jun 18, 2020)

whispering said:


> ... People vary, hold different opinions and views, meaning general definitions and categories are usually the best you can hope for.


Exactly. We all draw the line in different places.

I enjoy some film music and will continue to listen to it. Is it, "Classical"? Who cares?

Commiserations on your loss.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

pianozach said:


> The question of whether *film scores* are *"Classical Music"* will not be agreed on in this forum because we failed at the outset of agreeing on a definition of what sort of music can be considered "Classical" because, collectively, *we have failed to define it*.





jojoju2000 said:


> Unfortunately for us, there doesn't seem to be a definition overall. Look up " Classical Music Definition " on Google and you have thousands of opinions.





amfortas said:


> I would agree with all you say, except that I don't necessarily see our not defining classical music as a "failure." Any absolute, clear-cut definition would be too arbitrary and restrictive. Better to leave the term somewhat flexible, depending on the context of the discussion. From that perspective, some film music would or would not qualify, as the situation warrants.





whispering said:


> So on page number 26 are we any nearer to answering the original question? Thought not. The tone of the question gave a clue. Can we settle this once and for all was sounding like a cry for clarity based on despair. In the end I suggest *such subjective matters are beyond being settled*. As many have said how do you define the term classical music, before even deciding what then can be put into that box. Can it not just be accepted some film music is highly enjoyable.


Boom!

.....
.....
.....


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther (Aug 6, 2021)

A take on the question of serving the picture and what is classical:

(from the interview with a prominent recording restorer Michael Matessino)



> "Did you ever figure out why John [Williams] doesn't particularly like to have source music out there on the recording?"
> 
> "Yes, he sees them as serving a utilitarian need, period. (...) If it goes in the direction of a cheesy 1970s pseudo-disco or pseudo-rock kind of vibe, that's just intended to be 10 seconds on the car radio going by (...) he doesn't see it as more than serving a utilitarian purpose, but if it's more classical in its basis, he is not necessarily opposed to it".


----------



## EnescuCvartet (Dec 16, 2016)

david johnson said:


> Being 'classical' is not the point of film music, but some selections have made it to the classical realm. Prokofiev's "Alexander Nevsky" is what I consider an example. Of course, tons of classic musical chunks fulfil the op idea - check out the sdtrk of Excalibur.


As well as the Lieutenant Kije Suite.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

Dimitri Shostakovich gave every of his film musics an opus number. This indicates that he saw it in a row with his other classical works. And when he made a suite out of a film music, he gave the suite the same opus number with a letter attached. So he saw it just as a different subversion of the same opus. This also indicates that the music stayed in the same genre.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

John Williams's most Classical piece? Sounds like Brahms and Mozart met John Adams:

*0:51*





Though I still prefer his more semi-Classical, tone-poem like *2:37*:


----------

