# Do you consider film music to be classical music?



## flamencosketches

Let's settle this once and for all.

Edit: Since it seems some are not exactly answering the question I was asking in my head, it seems some clarification is necessary:

When I say film music, I'm not talking about film soundtracks, collections of pop music that is used in films, nor am I talking about existing classical music being used in films (à la 2001 A Space Odyssey or Fantasia). I also would like to exclude synthesizer-driven ambient or electronic film scores like Vangelis's work for Blade Runner etc. What this leaves is music, scored for orchestra or ensemble, written to accompany the film: the likes of John Williams, Danny Elfman, etc. Do you consider this to be classical music?


----------



## Phil loves classical

Tough call for me. I can't pigeonhole it either in or out. I don't consider Philip Glass in general as Classical any more than the stuff Richard Clayderman plays, and Glass is classified as Classical. But the stuff written by Bernard Herrmann and some others are more Classical to me than those minimalists, while stuff by Vangelis to me is not.

I think it can be considered a subgenre of Classical. Heck, even Prokofiev wrote some for Ivan the Terrible.


----------



## larold

I see no difference between a suite of film music and something like Richard Strauss's music for Le Bourgeois Gentilhomm, the Sibelius incidental music to Karelia, or Rameu's music for Pygmalion.

Does anyone deny those are pieces of classical music? If so what is the difference between them and collections of extended film music such as:







47 tracks







51 tracks


----------



## mikeh375

I voted no, but it was touch and go.
The quality of some is of course very high, but the narrative is almost always driven by a movie and not the composer and there is a compromise in the writing that isn't adhered to, nor desirable in concert music. And before fabulin gets here )), I'll just say that John Williams is brilliant and quite possibly an exception because his filmic narrative exists quite comfortably without a visual imv, such is the power of his thinking. He's not the only one, Hermann and Silvestri also stand out for me.
Most film cues are at a disadvantage because of their subordinating circumstances when being listened to out of context for me, but Williams and some others have shown that major themes can do well.
Still overall I vote no because the real freedom of writing is subjugated.

edit...I didn't notice the 'only sometimes' category...I'd have voted for that if i had.


----------



## JAS

It depends on the score. There is also a factor that score releases, at least in some cases, tend to re-emphasize the music in isolation, so that it becomes more like a suite (even if a rather long one). I think even more traditional forms, such as opera and ballet, have often made similar compromises to the material presented. (Even more mainstream forms had to make choices based on external factors that we may no longer appreciate. A nobleman might commission a concerto for flute, because he was an amateur flute player. A composer like Haydn had a regular orchestra to consider. All composers, particularly early ones, had to consider the limitations of the instruments of the time.) There is also the question of incidental for stage works, where the composer had even less control over the context.

Sadly, Williams is probably the last practitioner of the art that has the skill and status to make such scores.

Edit: I voted yes for the sake of the large body of better scores. My local classical station has noticeably started to include selections from big orchestral scores in their repertoire, a shift of which I strongly approve.


----------



## mbhaub

Define "classical". If it's just that an orchestra plays it, then yes. A film score is different from incidental music in many ways, but if a suite is put together in a meaningful way, then some movie scores are every bit as valid for being classical as the incidental scores by Mendelssohn, Sibelius and others. Prokofiev did recognize this and his Lt. Kije suite is a re-working of the original score. So is Nevsky. There are some brilliant movie score suites that have been made and should be better known. But for many reasons don't get taken seriously. I mostly blame conductors. Decades ago in Phoenix there was a director, James Sedares, who loved movie music and has made many recordings of it. He regularly programmed film music - those were the days!


----------



## norman bates

Sometimes it's the obvious choice.
There are movies with non classical music, and there are movies that use pieces of classical music. I mean, Lars Von Trier used Wagner's Tristan and Isolde, Kubrick used Ligeti, Bartok and Shostakhovich, Bach has been used in many movies so how can't it be that classical music? 
But I suspect the question should be read as "is the music, even the music written by a classical composer (like Prokofiev working for Eisenstein) really classical music"? In that case I'd say yes again. After all movies are sort of modern operas with music that is made as background for dialogues and scenes and I don't think anybody doesn't consider operas as classical music.


----------



## larold

_My local classical station has noticeably stated to include selections from big orchestral scores in their repertoire, a shift of which I strongly approve._

My local symphony orchestra regularly schedules and plays suites of film music during subscription concerts.


----------



## norman bates

mikeh375 said:


> I voted no, but it was touch and go.
> The quality of some is of course very high, but the narrative is almost always driven by a movie and not the composer and there is a compromise in the writing that isn't adhered to,


this sounds like opera to me.


----------



## Guest

I voted "No" simply because I make a distinction between film music and concert music.


----------



## JAS

Korngold, a composer of actual operas, certainly thought of his score to "Anthony Adverse" as a kind of opera without words. Here is a whole book on the subject: https://books.google.com/books?id=ujasqkHefIMC


----------



## Enthusiast

I voted "no" but do acknowledge some fine works by Prokofiev that were conceived as film music. Walton's film music also can almost he listened to without the films. I do also think that you need to differentiate between blockbusters and serious or art films. Blockbusters are like pop music and you can't really expect classical music to go with them.


----------



## JAS

Enthusiast said:


> I voted "no" but do acknowledge some fine works by Prokofiev that were conceived as film music. Walton's film music also can almost he listened to without the films. I do also think that you need to differentiate between blockbusters and serious or art films. Blockbusters are like pop music and you can't really expect classical music to go with them.


People tend to make concessions to composers who had careers primarily in the concert world (Prokofiev, Walton, Schostakovich, Hindemith, Copland), but forget that many of the film composers of the great age of films had formal training in composition. Miklos Rozsa, Erich Wolfgang Korngold, Franz Waxman, Hugo Friedhofer, and many others all had formal training at traditional institutions.

Among the more modern film composers, Jerry Goldsmith took courses at the University of Southern California, including some under Miklos Rosza, although he did not complete a degree. He also studied composition under Mario Castelnuovo-Tedesco. John Williams also studied with Castelnuovo-Tedesco, and took classes at the University of California, LA. Basil Poledouris also studied at the University of Southern California, as did James Horner (who not only obtained a formal degree there, but also a master's and was working on a doctorate).


----------



## norman bates

Enthusiast said:


> I voted "no" but do acknowledge some fine works by Prokofiev that were conceived as film music. Walton's film music also can almost he listened to without the films. I do also think that you need to differentiate between blockbusters and serious or art films. Blockbusters are like pop music and you can't really expect classical music to go with them.







Fantasia is one of the most successful movies at the box office of all times.


----------



## Guest002

Ralph Vaughan Williams : 49th Parallel, Bitter Springs, Scott of the Antarctic, Coastal Command, The Loves of Joanna Godden
Benjamin Britten: Night Mail, Love from a Stranger
William Walton: Major Barbara, Hamlet, Henry V, Three Sisters, As You Like It, Escape Me Never
Hans Zimmer: Da Vinci Code, Gladiator, True Romance, Interstellar etc.
James Horner: Titanic.
Howard Shore: The Lord of the Rings stuff (some of it!)

I'd say a film score can definitely count as 'serious music', as opposed to the disposable kind. That puts me in the "sometimes" camp.


----------



## JAS

norman bates said:


> Fantasia is one of the most successful movies at the box office of all times.


To this day, I can only manage to listen to Rites of Spring with dinosaurs.


----------



## larold

Shostakovich wrote a lot of film music as well including


----------



## CnC Bartok

I voted "only sometimes", as I find so much film music wouldn't stand up without the celluloid. Just my feeling.....

But then there's Alexander Nevsky!


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Obviously classical music used in films is still classical, but I do not believe film scores count as classical. Just because something uses an orchestra and is inspired by classical composers does not mean it is classical. For me something has to be written for performance in order to be classical.


----------



## Art Rock

Indeed, many famous composers of regular classical music composed film music (not mentioned yet I think Alwyn, Arnold, Honegger). And many famous film music composers also composed regular classical music (from Korngold to Williams). I make no distinction in that sense in my collection. But there are also plenty of film soundtracks which simply are not classical at all (e.g. a collection of pop songs). So I picked the Only sometimes option.


----------



## millionrainbows

The Greeks used music to accompany drama, so in that sense, film music has validity.

But is Danny Elfman running a computer, or video game music "classical?" That's a stretch.

"The Mario Brothers Symphonies"

"Pac-Man: The Complete Suites"

"Harry Potter: The Early Works"


----------



## eljr

flamencosketches said:


> Do you consider film music to be classical music? .


The films that use classical music, yes, the films that use other genre music no.

I think your question could have been worded differently. I am unable to answer as worded.


----------



## mikeh375

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Ralph Vaughan Williams : 49th Parallel, Bitter Springs, Scott of the Antarctic, Coastal Command, The Loves of Joanna Godden
> Benjamin Britten: Night Mail, Love from a Stranger
> William Walton: Major Barbara, Hamlet, Henry V, Three Sisters, As You Like It, Escape Me Never
> Hans Zimmer: Da Vinci Code, Gladiator, True Romance, Interstellar etc.
> James Horner: Titanic.
> Howard Shore: The Lord of the Rings stuff (some of it!)
> 
> I'd say a film score can definitely count as 'serious music', as opposed to the disposable kind. That puts me in the "sometimes" camp.


AB, how could you, a fellow Brit miss out Malcom Arnold?... all together now.."Hitler, has only got one...b***'


----------



## Flamme

YES, YES, YES...:angel:


----------



## Enthusiast

JAS said:


> People tend to make concessions to composers who had careers primarily in the concert world (Prokofiev, Walton, Schostakovich, Hindemith, Copland), but forget that many of the film composers of the great age of films had formal training in composition. Miklos Rozsa, Erich Wolfgang Korngold, Franz Waxman, Hugo Friedhofer, and many others all had formal training at traditional institutions.
> 
> Among the more modern film composers, Jerry Goldsmith took courses at the University of Southern California, including some under Miklos Rosza, although he did not complete a degree. He also studied composition under Mario Castelnuovo-Tedesco. John Williams also studied with Castelnuovo-Tedesco, and took classes at the University of California, LA. Basil Poledouris also studied at the University of Southern California, as did James Horner (who not only obtained a formal degree there, but also a master's and was working on a doctorate).


It is one thing to be classically trained and another to be producing recognisably classical music. Many pop artists and a good few jazz artists were classically trained.


----------



## Enthusiast

norman bates said:


> Fantasia is one of the most successful movies at the box office of all times.


Indeed. But this is an opposite case - the film is made to accompany the music.


----------



## Gray Bean

The term “classical music” is pretty broad covering many disparate types of music. So I would say that yes, some film music can be considered classical. Williams, Horner, Zimmer, Goldsmith, Morricone, just to name a few. Put me in the sometimes camp.


----------



## Caryatid

I voted yes. Film music is essentially incidental music, which is a genre of classical.

It has nothing to do with the _quality _of music.


----------



## Simplicissimus

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Obviously classical music used in films is still classical, but I do not believe film scores count as classical. Just because something uses an orchestra and is inspired by classical composers does not mean it is classical. For me something has to be written for performance in order to be classical.


I think this is tenable. We are really talking about agreeing on a shared vocabulary for naming something in the world, and ACB's approach can be applied in a straightforward, consistent way as a naming convention. I wanted to vote "sometimes," but I find that tautologous and therefore not interesting or helpful: Classical music written for films is classical music and non-classical music written for films is not classical music. But if I vote "yes," then I end up saying that Isaac Hayes's soundtrack for _Shaft_ is classical music, which is absurd, besides seeming to be unresponsive to the OP's intended question. So I will vote "no" under ACB's suggestion.

Now if answer the question, "Do you listen to non-classical music," I can answer yes, I like to listen to film music composed by Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Korngold, Goldsmith, Herrmann, Rota, Morricone, Shore, Desplat, Glass, and several others.


----------



## Nereffid

If the music is amenable to being removed from the context of the film and enjoyed in the same sort of way that other pieces of music that are definitely considered classical are enjoyed, then yes.


----------



## JAS

Enthusiast said:


> It is one thing to be classically trained and another to be producing recognisably classical music. Many pop artists and a good few jazz artists were classically trained.


It is, but I think film music, at least many, many examples by the composers listed, clearly are recognizable in following classical principles. Certainly they have a better claim than much of what has been produced by modern composers and dumped into the classical bucket for flimsier reasons.


----------



## Guest002

mikeh375 said:


> AB, how could you, a fellow Brit miss out Malcom Arnold?... all together now.."Hitler, has only got one...b***'


I know. I also missed out William Alwyn. And Arthur Bliss (Columbus). 
My excuse is I'm half Australian.


----------



## larold

Some of Phillp Glass's best music is in film scores such as "The Fog Of War"

https://music.apple.com/us/album/philip-glass-fog-war-soundtrack-from-motion-picture/41949394


----------



## Portamento

Film music is "classical" music in the sense that it adheres to the Western tradition and is increasingly played in concert halls as extracted suites.



Art Rock said:


> But there are also plenty of film soundtracks which simply are not classical at all (e.g. a collection of pop songs). So I picked the Only sometimes option.


You are conflating two things here. A film score contains music composed especially for the film, while a soundtrack includes ALL the music present in the film (which usually includes a few pop songs as well).

Some of you are making the argument that film music isn't classical music because its quality isn't high enough. There is an inherent assumption here that classical music has a higher hit rate than other genres which is simply not true. You probably haven't _heard_ the dreck (because it hasn't been recorded), but it certainly is there.


----------



## JAS

Portamento said:


> Some of you are making the argument that film music isn't classical music because its quality isn't high enough. There is an inherent assumption here that classical music has a higher hit rate than other genres which is simply not true. You probably haven't _heard_ the dreck (because it hasn't been recorded), but it certainly is there.


And I would argue that much of the dreck actually _has_ been recorded, but certainly not all of it, and probably not even most of it. Of course, tastes vary as to what that dreck might be, but there is probably a reason that there are so many options for some works, and so few for some others.


----------



## Flamme

I certainly do, 4 instance this 



 Vangelis made some beautoful ''neo-classical'' and ''ambient'' film music that has high artistic value...


----------



## Fabulin

Here comes the "Once and for all" part! :angel:

Sound design of the sort that won an Oscar this year---no.
Purely or primarily electronic scores---no.
Mancini-era easy listening scores with prominent pop songs instead of overtures---no.

The rest---yes.

_Sometimes _for me.


----------



## consuono

Yes, as long as it isn't ripped off pop songs or existing classical music.


----------



## Art Rock

Portamento said:


> You are conflating two things here. A film score contains music composed especially for the film, while a soundtrack includes ALL the music present in the film (which usually includes a few pop songs as well).


Fair enough. But since the question was about film music (not film scores) my opinion is still valid.


----------



## Guest

No, it's not, though film soundtracks have often drawn on classical traditions...but not the only tradition.


----------



## consuono

MacLeod said:


> No, it's not, though film soundtracks have often drawn on classical traditions...but not the only tradition.


Bernard Herrmann's scores for Psycho and Vertigo stand pretty well on their own.


----------



## Art Rock

So for the "nay" sayers....

Why is this classical music:
Massenet "Thais" Meditation

and this not:
Williams - Theme from Schindlers List


----------



## consuono

Art Rock said:


> So for the "nay" sayers....
> 
> Why is this classical music:
> Massenet "Thais" Meditation
> 
> and this not:
> Williams - Theme from Schindlers List


I was a little too dismissive of Williams earlier but you know, someone posted a video of some of his music from Close Encounters and it's actually really good and imaginative.


----------



## Guest

Well, as someone already asked, what is "classical music"? Until that is defined, how can anyone say definitively whether "film music" is classical.

I've not read the whole thread, but some have already raised other questions of definition, such as the difference between "score", "soundtrack", "suite" etc.

Since "classical" now embraces a much wider range of styles and instrumentation, all you can say is that the music written for a movie...which must surely include all the cues, not just the choice cuts put out on a CD...draws on a wide range of musical sources, including jazz, electronic, folk, pop, disco, rock, CP and modern classical, etc.

It's certainly not a matter of how good it is, or whether it "stands up" when played without the movie.


----------



## consuono

MacLeod said:


> Since "classical" now embraces a much wider range of styles and instrumentation, all you can say is that the music written for a movie...which must surely include all the cues, not just the choice cuts put out on a CD...draws on a wide range of musical sources, including jazz, electronic, folk, pop, disco, rock, CP and modern classical, etc.
> 
> It's certainly not a matter of how good it is, or whether it "stands up" when played without the movie.


Yeah but "classical" doesn't really "embrace" disco and rock though. If music is disqualified from being classical or serious music by virtue of its being part of a film then Prokofiev's music for Alexander Nevsky is out of consideration.


----------



## Simplicissimus

Re Art Rock’s post concerning Massenet and John Williams:

The former was written for an opera and the latter for a film. Is all opera music classical? Hmm. The thing is, if you say that only some film music is classical, then you’re obliged (if you’re being rigorous) to explain what features exactly define music as classical. I know I can’t do that. I have to rely on fuzzy logic, a family resemblance approach in which my definition of classical is sure to be different from some other people’s. That’s why I find it unsatisfactory to say “some is.” That gets us nowhere. All it says is, “Music I define as classical (by some fuzzy reasoning) that is written for a film is classical and not ‘film music’, but music I don’t think is classical which is written for a film is not classical but rather ‘film music’.”

By my personal definition, the Massenet and the Williams are both classical. But as my kids would whisper to each other while rolling their eyes, “Nobody cares!”


----------



## Xisten267

It really depends I think. If it's music for orchestra composed in a classical style, then I think that it _is_ classical music. It should be noted that famous classical composers such as Saint-Saëns, Rachmaninoff, Shostakovich and Arnold composed film scores, and some well-established forms of classical music such as suites, ballets and incidental music also tend to not develop much, just like film scores.


----------



## pianozach

Almost a silly question, as there is quite a diversity of music used in film. Some is some isn't.

Some most certainly are: Max Steiner's *Gone With the Wind*, Maurice Jarre's *Lawrence of Arabia*, Elmer Bernstein's *The Magnificent Seven*, Korngold's *Robin Hood*.

As pointed out, there are films for which the soundtrack are specifically Classical: *2001*, or *Fantasia*, or *Immortal Beloved*.

Where does that put *West Side Story*?

Then there are scores that are mixtures of popular music and classical.

Scores by jazz artists. Classical composers have come over to the Dark Side, and film composers have composed purely classical works. There is no yes/no answer to this question, nor is there a 'hard' "maybe".

Film scores slide around genre-wise. Even John Williams' *Star Wars*, usually considered one of the best scores of all time, still has the Cantina scene.


----------



## pianozach

Portamento said:


> Film music is "classical" music in the sense that it adheres to the Western tradition and is increasingly played in concert halls as extracted suites.
> 
> You are conflating two things here. *A film score contains music composed especially for the film*, while *a soundtrack includes ALL the music present in the film* (which usually includes a few pop songs as well).
> 
> Some of you are making the argument that film music isn't classical music because its quality isn't high enough. There is an inherent assumption here that classical music has a higher hit rate than other genres which is simply not true. You probably haven't _heard_ the dreck (because it hasn't been recorded), but it certainly is there.


I appreciate you pointing out the difference between "Score" and "Soundtrack".

I like to be precise in terminology when discussing things, and I'm quite guilty of using the two terms interchangeably.

It doesn't help that some soundtracks ARE the score.

Some films will actually release both a *score* _AND_ a *soundtrack* album.

Some go even further and release a _non_-soundtrack soundtrack, advertised as *"Music inspired by the film _____"*.


----------



## Guest

consuono said:


> Yeah but "classical" doesn't really "embrace" disco and rock though. If music is disqualified from being classical or serious music by virtue of its being part of a film then Prokofiev's music for Alexander Nevsky is out of consideration.


To your first point, I would say, yes, obviously, but I'm not sure of its significance. To your second point, I would also say yes, though I'm not sure why you snuck in 'serious'. If you're offering that word as synonymous with 'classical', then we'd need to think again altogether.

Film music is 'serious' to the extent that it is composed for a serious purpose (when I say 'composed', I'm ignoring film music that uses already composed stuff as used in _2001_, for example).


----------



## Fabulin

Is this classical?





Or neo-baroque?


----------



## flamencosketches

I've updated the OP to clarify a few things that I expected would be self-evident, but apparently were not:



> Edit: Since it seems some are not exactly answering the question I was asking in my head, it seems some clarification is necessary:
> 
> When I say film music, I'm not talking about film soundtracks, collections of pop music that is used in films, nor am I talking about existing classical music being used in films (à la 2001 A Space Odyssey or Fantasia). I also would like to exclude synthesizer-driven ambient or electronic film scores like Vangelis's work for Blade Runner etc. What this leaves is music, scored for orchestra or ensemble, written to accompany the film: the likes of John Williams, Danny Elfman, etc. Do you consider this to be film music?


Does this change anyone's answer?

I haven't voted yet. I'm on the fence, but am leaning toward "no". I appreciate everyone's replies.


----------



## Fabulin

flamencosketches said:


> I've updated the OP to clarify a few things that I expected would be self-evident, but apparently were not:
> 
> Does this change anyone's answer?
> 
> I haven't voted yet. I'm on the fence, but am leaning toward "no". I appreciate everyone's replies.


You changed the rules. How can I change my answer?


----------



## flamencosketches

Fabulin said:


> You changed the rules. How can I change my answer?


Post. I don't believe I can reset the poll.

Really, I thought it would be clear what I'm talking about. Obviously, film soundtracks that are made up entirely of popular music are not classical.


----------



## Fabulin

flamencosketches said:


> Post. I don't believe I can reset the poll.
> 
> Really, I thought it would be clear what I'm talking about. Obviously, film soundtracks that are made up entirely of popular music are not classical.


You never know with the logic of people who question that film music of the type you singled out is classical


----------



## flamencosketches

Fabulin said:


> You never know with the logic of people who question that film music of the type you singled out is classical


Can you rephrase that? Not sure what you're trying to say.


----------



## consuono

MacLeod said:


> To your first point, I would say, yes, obviously, but I'm not sure of its significance. To your second point, I would also say yes, though I'm not sure why you snuck in 'serious'. If you're offering that word as synonymous with 'classical', then we'd need to think again altogether.
> ...


"Serious music", "art music" and "classical music" represent pretty much the same concept to most people.


----------



## Fabulin

flamencosketches said:


> Can you rephrase that? Not sure what you're trying to say.


You said you thought "it would be clear" that you meant some film music, and not all of it.

I replied that intentions behind a thread like this are nebulous by default. See the topic by some charlatan who called John Williams a charlatan in a thread title, for comparison.


----------



## Guest

flamencosketches said:


> Let's settle this once and for all.
> 
> Edit: Since it seems some are not exactly answering the question I was asking in my head, it seems some clarification is necessary:
> 
> When I say film music, I'm not talking about film soundtracks, collections of pop music that is used in films, nor am I talking about existing classical music being used in films (à la 2001 A Space Odyssey or Fantasia). I also would like to exclude synthesizer-driven ambient or electronic film scores like Vangelis's work for Blade Runner etc. What this leaves is music, scored for orchestra or ensemble, written to accompany the film: the likes of John Williams, Danny Elfman, etc. Do you consider this to be film music?


Last sentence...I assume you mean "classical", not "film"?


----------



## consuono

MacLeod said:


> Last sentence...I assume you mean "classical", not "film"?


What's the dichotomy? Music composed for a ballet can stand by itself without the dancers.


----------



## flamencosketches

Fabulin said:


> You said you thought "it would be clear" that you meant some film music, and not all of it.
> 
> I replied that intentions behind a thread like this are nebulous by default. See the topic by some charlatan who called John Williams a charlatan in a thread title, for comparison.


I don't think my thread is anywhere near that thread you reference, which is loaded from the get-go with derisive language. And yes, I thought it was reasonable to expect that people don't assume that I'm questioning whether non-classical, popular music used in films is classical. Apparently not.



MacLeod said:


> Last sentence...I assume you mean "classical", not "film"?


 Yes. Fixed, again.


----------



## Simon Moon

I voted no. Just because it's orchestral, doesn't make it classical.

I was leaning toward voting sometimes, but that only applies to classical music used in films. But I took the OP to mean music composed specifically for films.

Film music does not have the same sort of movement through the piece, leading toward and ending or resolution, on its own. It seems to need the visuals of the movie.


----------



## JAS

Simon Moon said:


> Film music does not have the same sort of movement through the piece, leading toward and ending or resolution, on its own.


Quite a bit of it _does_, actually, particularly for older scores.


----------



## DaddyGeorge

Simon Moon said:


> Film music does not have the same sort of movement through the piece, leading toward and ending or resolution, on its own. It seems to need the visuals of the movie.


I basically agree with your answer but the same can be said with a little exaggeration about ballet or with a great exaggeration about opera. Anyway I'm by no means a fan of film music and in fact I'm increasingly inclined to your opinion although I voted _Only sometimes_. Possibly because of e.g. Shostakovich or Korngold.


----------



## consuono

DaddyGeorge said:


> I basically agree with your answer but the same can be said with a little exaggeration about ballet or with a great exaggeration about opera. Anyway I'm by no means a fan of film music and in fact I'm increasingly inclined to your opinion although I voted _Only sometimes_. Possibly because of e.g. Shostakovich or Korngold.


I don't know. Film scores are essentially incidental music, and there's a little of that in the classical repertoire. As far as film scores go I'd say some are, some aren't.


----------



## caracalla

Simon Moon said:


> Film music does not have the same sort of movement through the piece, leading toward and ending or resolution, on its own. It seems to need the visuals of the movie.


Not if you take raw film scores as a whole - there are many incomplete passages, and scraps of music which may be better classified as sound effects. But there are exceptions, usually including the opening titles (or theme) music, which is essentially just a modern version of the overture, and there may be several self-contained (or nearly so) pieces within the body of the film as well. Morricone's 'Gabriel's Oboe' from The Mission, which to my mind is unquestionably CM, would be one example of this. If these things need tidying up for independent performance, then they often are, and suitable pieces combined into suites. I can't see any essential difference between this and the arrangements of earlier incidental music designed for the theatre.

What I suspect many people really object to is that film music is not autonomous, in fact is clearly subordinate (with ballet or opera, you can argue that the music is at least co-equal). But this is hardly new either. A huge and important body of unquestioned CM is sacred music designed for liturgical use. That wasn't autonomous either, it had to serve the liturgical needs of those commissioning it (who often laid down strict rules as to what was and wasn't permissible), and it certainly wasn't (isn't) supposed to be the most important thing going on when performed in its intended context. None of this has prevented some of it earning the status of great art music, eminently suitable for independent performance.

Of course, this is just an argument that film music can be CM, not that it must be. And even if it can be counted as CM, it doesn't necessarily mean that is CM of any great worth.


----------



## Guest

If film music does its job, then it's good quality film music. It doesn't get 'elevated' to the 'status' of classical music. It has value on its own terms.

As you might gather from my scare quotes, I don't believe in the superiority of so-called 'classical' anyway, nor in any _need_ for film music to be so categorised.


----------



## adriesba

caracalla said:


> Not if you take raw film scores as a whole - there are many incomplete passages, and scraps of music which may be better classified as sound effects. But there are exceptions, usually including the opening titles (or theme) music, which is essentially just a modern version of the overture, and there may be several self-contained (or nearly so) pieces within the body of the film as well. Morricone's 'Gabriel's Oboe' from The Mission, which to my mind is unquestionably CM, would be one example of this. If these things need tidying up for independent performance, then they often are, and suitable pieces combined into suites. I can't see any essential difference between this and the arrangements of earlier incidental music designed for the theatre.
> 
> What I suspect many people really object to is that film music is not autonomous, in fact is clearly subordinate (with ballet or opera, you can argue that the music is at least co-equal). But this is hardly new either. A huge and important body of unquestioned CM is sacred music designed for liturgical use. That wasn't autonomous either, it had to serve the liturgical needs of those commissioning it (who often laid down strict rules as to what was and wasn't permissible), and it certainly wasn't (isn't) supposed to be the most important thing going on when performed in its intended context. None of this has prevented some of it earning the status of great art music, eminently suitable for independent performance.
> 
> Of course, this is just an argument that film music can be CM, not that it must be. And even if it can be counted as CM, it doesn't necessarily mean that is CM of any great worth.


Thank you for your well-balanced, straightforward answer. These are pretty much my opinions as well. 

I asked this question in the movie section awhile ago, and, if I remember correctly, the answer was no.

I don't see why things like _Lieutenant Kijé_, _Alexander Nevsky_, or _The Gadfly_, etc. can be called classical but _Star Wars_ cannot.

If the idea is that classical cannot be subservient, then what are we to do with the _Peer Gynt_, _Egmont_, _A Midsummer Night's Dream_, _Aladdin_, etc. scores? Plus, I thought I remember someone saying in the ballet section that ballet composers would have many criteria placed on them for their scores (correct me if I'm wrong).

True, not all scores written for movies are good (some are just awful schmaltz!). But there is bad "regular" classical as well (what is bad depends on whom you ask, of course!).

Orchestras often perform things from newer movies too!

We are simply in newer times where more things can have incidental type music than traditional plays.


----------



## Guest

consuono said:


> "Serious music", "art music" and "classical music" represent pretty much the same concept to most people.


I don't think so. Some people may use these as synonyms, but not most.

All you do by introducing more terms is to muddy the waters, demanding more definitions.


----------



## Guest

consuono said:


> What's the dichotomy? Music composed for a ballet can stand by itself without the dancers.


See the OP's answer.


----------



## consuono

MacLeod said:


> I don't think so. Some people may use these as synonyms, but not most.
> 
> All you do by introducing more terms is to muddy the waters, demanding more definitions.


That's pedantic hair-splitting. Not to mention, wrong.


----------



## Guest

consuono said:


> That's pedantic hair-splitting. Not to mention, wrong.


I've often found I'm criticised for being a pedant. I wear such jibes as a badge of honour. If you wish to mangle the English language, be my guest. I will not yield to the idea that the three terms over which we disagree are exact synonyms. The whole point of this thread is about definition: precision is exactly what is called for (not pedantry, of course).


----------



## consuono

MacLeod said:


> I've often found I'm criticised for being a pedant. I wear such jibes as a badge of honour. If you wish to mangle the English language, be my guest. I will not yield to the idea that the three terms over which we disagree are exact synonyms. The whole point of this thread is about definition: precision is exactly what is called for (not pedantry, of course).


https://books.google.com/books?id=wZZ1_pQJnKEC&pg=PA3#v=onepage&q&f=false
https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/classical music


----------



## hammeredklavier

just like video game soundtracks, film scores derive from various genres.


----------



## Guest

consuono said:


> https://books.google.com/books?id=wZZ1_pQJnKEC&pg=PA3#v=onepage&q&f=false
> https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/classical music


https://leonardbernstein.com/lectur...oung-peoples-concerts/what-is-classical-music



> Now the question before the house today is: "What is Classical Music?" Now anybody knows that that piece of Handel we just played is classical music, for instance. Right? Right. So what's the problem - why are we asking this question? Well, there's a good reason, as we're going to find out today. You see, everybody thinks he knows what classical music is: just any music that isn't jazz, like a Stan Kenton arrangement or a popular song, like "I Can't Give You Anything but Love Baby," or folk music, like an African war dance, or "Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star." But that isn't what classical music means at all. People use this word to describe music that isn't jazz or popular songs or folk music, just because there isn't any other word that seems to describe it better. All the other words that are used are just as wrong, like "good" music for instance. You've all heard people say "I just love good music" - meaning that they love Handel instead of Spike Jones. Well, you know what they mean, but after all, isn't there such a thing as good jazz, or a good popular song? You can't use the word good to describe the difference. There's good Handel, and good Spike Jones; and we'll just have to forget that word.
> 
> Then people use the word "serious" music when they mean Handel or Beethoven, but there again, there's some jazz that's very serious, and heavens - what's more serious than an African war dance when the kettle is boiling. That word's no good either. Some people use the word high-brow, which means that only very smart, well-educated people can dig it, but we know that's wrong because we all know a lot of people who aren't exactly Einsteins who'll dig Beethoven the most. Well, what about "art" music? Now there's a word a lot of people use to try to describe the difference between Beethoven and Dave Brubeck, let's say. That's no good either, because just as many other people think that jazz is also an art - which indeed it is.


----------



## caracalla

MacLeod said:


> The whole point of this thread is about definition: precision is exactly what is called for (not pedantry, of course).


If it's precision we're after, I expect we're going to be disappointed. On the whole I favour 'classical music', hopeless though it is, because it's established, it's no more problematic than any of the alternatives, and we have a reasonably good idea of what we're talking about. Not a precise idea, as the voting every which way on this poll demonstrates, but probably as good as we're going to get.

Anyway, it's better than 'film music' which tells us nothing at all about the music except that it was used on a film track. It could be CM (disputed or undisputed), rock, jazz, country, anything at all.


----------



## Guest

caracalla said:


> If it's precision we're after, I expect we're going to be disappointed. On the whole I favour 'classical music', hopeless though it is, because it's established, it's no more problematic than any of the alternatives, and we have a reasonably good idea of what we're talking about. Not a precise idea, as the voting every which way on this poll demonstrates, but probably as good as we're going to get.
> 
> Anyway, it's better than 'film music' which tells us nothing at all about the music except that it was used on a film track. It could be CM (disputed or undisputed), rock, jazz, country, anything at all.


The thread calls for precision: how else can it be argued whether film music is, or isn't classical if it can't even be agreed what those terms mean? I don't say that is either what I want, or that it is achievable. The whole premise of the OP - that this discussion will finally resolve this dispute - is unrealistic.

But it's fun to debate, all the same.


----------



## DaddyGeorge

consuono said:


> I don't know. Film scores are essentially incidental music, and there's a little of that in the classical repertoire. As far as film scores go *I'd say some are, some aren't*.


I think the same.


----------



## Guest

MacLeod said:


> No, it's not, though film soundtracks have often drawn on classical traditions...but not the only tradition.


On the other hand...yes, when it's classical music. If it looks like a duck...


----------



## JAS

caracalla said:


> Not if you take raw film scores as a whole - there are many incomplete passages, and scraps of music which may be better classified as sound effects. But there are exceptions, usually including the opening titles (or theme) music, which is essentially just a modern version of the overture, and there may be several self-contained (or nearly so) pieces within the body of the film as well. Morricone's 'Gabriel's Oboe' from The Mission, which to my mind is unquestionably CM, would be one example of this. If these things need tidying up for independent performance, then they often are, and suitable pieces combined into suites. I can't see any essential difference between this and the arrangements of earlier incidental music designed for the theatre.


It has been recognized by the producers of films that there was often a separate market for the music, apart from the film even if it was in part in promotion of the film. Consequently, cues that might appear chopped up in the film might be given fuller treatment in a recording. Few people would want to hear the music exactly as it appeared in the film, with dialog and sound effects. (In some cases, where the music track has been lost, and there was insufficient interest to produce a new recording,, fans have been forced to settle for that.)


----------



## JAS

MacLeod said:


> I've often found I'm criticised for being a pedant. I wear such jibes as a badge of honour. If you wish to mangle the English language, be my guest. I will not yield to the idea that the three terms over which we disagree are exact synonyms. The whole point of this thread is about definition: precision is exactly what is called for (not pedantry, of course).


If we are being pedants, perhaps we should admit that "represent pretty much the same concept to most people" is not the same as "are exact synonyms."


----------



## Guest

JAS said:


> If we are being pedants, perhaps we should admit that "represent pretty much the same concept to most people" is not the same as "are exact synonyms."


Agreed. That's why I referred to "exact" synonyms.


----------



## JAS

I think that it is likely that people who are not fans of the forms use the terms imprecisely and interchangeably, just as I might mix up hip-hop and rap, or any number of rock forms, none of which are things I actively listen to or follow. I can see that a good deal of that also applies here, where people are making pronouncements about film music without really knowing much about the subject.


----------



## Fabulin

JAS said:


> *(1)* It has been recognized by the producers of films that there was often a separate market for the music, apart from the film even if it was in part in promotion of the film.
> *(2) *Consequently, cues that might appear chopped up in the film might be given fuller treatment in a recording.
> *(3) *Few people would want to hear the music exactly as it appeared in the film, with dialog and sound effects.
> *(4)* (In some cases, where the music track has been lost, and there was insufficient interest to produce a new recording,, fans have been forced to settle for that.)


(1) That's quite an understatement :lol: It came about because there was, back in the early 1940s, a tidal wave of letters arriving at the big studios asking for music to be released separately.
(2) Yes, this is known as "composer's intent".
(3) Supported. A recent poll about that on another forum resulted in a 92% "I hate it!" vote.
(4) Sadly, this happens even with very high quality music.


----------



## Enthusiast

JAS said:


> It is, but I think film music, at least many, many examples by the composers listed, clearly are recognizable in following classical principles. Certainly they have a better claim than much of what has been produced by modern composers and dumped into the classical bucket for flimsier reasons.


Could you be more specific? Which "classical principles" do you have in mind (and how are they classical rather than merely lessons in how to achieve certain emotional affects with music)? And are there some principles you don't find in film music?


----------



## JAS

Fabulin said:


> Sadly, this happens even with very high quality music.


Five Graves to Cairo is a classic example. Rozsa was so unhappy with the score being chopped up and lost behind battle effects that he financed his own release of a suite from the film (along with other suites and selections in a wonderful concert form). That LP set on the Polydor label has, I think, never gotten a proper CD release, which is odd. (That Rozsa self-financed this is a recollection, and I may be in error on the detail.)


----------



## JAS

Enthusiast said:


> Could you be more specific? Which "classical principles" do you have in mind (and how are they classical rather than merely lessons in how to achieve certain emotional affects with music)? And are there some principles you don't find in film music?


No, I don't know that I can be more specific, any more than advocates of more modern approaches can be. The use of instruments, orchestration, the relationship of notes and chords would often be recognizable to late romantics. Many scores use leitmotiv, and repeat and develop specific themes. I have often heard film scores relegated to the status of "pastiche," which certainly recognizes its adherence to older forms even as it does so with scorn.

One of the reasons, I suspect, that some are so dismissive of film scores is precisely because it has been where a lot of composers continued to practice traditional forms while the rest of the "classical" world went further and further into madness.


----------



## Enthusiast

I still do not get how the music that forms an important part of a popular "blockbuster" film can be considered classical or even art music. Real classical music, treated as such rather than merely quoted, would stick out like a sore thumb if it was used in a pop film. Yet no-one here is talking about the music of art films.


----------



## JAS

There are certainly film scores that I would not consider as being within the realm of the classical tradition. One problem with the topic, as presented, is that we are defining a broad range of music with one term. (There are even examples where a film mixes actual pop music, mixed with more traditional forms written specifically for the film. When such scores are released as albums, I usually prefer to separate these elements, mostly so that I can avoid the pop music.) When I discuss my interest in film music, I often resort to a shorthand of orchestral film music, to provide some sense of direction.


----------



## Guest

Just in case this thought was crossing anyone's mind, those who say that "film music is not classical music" should not be taken as necessarily dismissing film music.


----------



## Guest

Enthusiast said:


> I still do not get how the music that forms an important part of a popular "blockbuster" film can be considered classical or even art music. Real classical music, treated as such rather than merely quoted, would stick out like a sore thumb if it was used in a pop film. Yet no-one here is talking about the music of art films.


What's an 'art' film? Or rather, if there are two types of film (the one that has something meaningful to say, and the one made purely to make money), who's drawing the line and where?


----------



## JAS

MacLeod said:


> Just in case this thought was crossing anyone's mind, those who say that "film music is not classical music" should not be taken as necessarily dismissing film music.


Except that is usually the intent, even if it isn't in every case. At the very least, it tends to come with the implication that such music even as Ben Hur or Captain from Castille does not belong, in the form of suites or selections, on a classical concert or perhaps even a classical radio station. I strongly disagree.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ In this thread I would settle for vague use of the terms. I don't think anyone would suggest that, for example, Star Wars or Jaws are serious films. I guess films like the Godfather (the whole trilogy) and Apocalypse Now and 2001: A Space Odyssey could be taken more seriously. There are, of course, also films that most would recognise as art but I would be happy in this thread if there was at least an attempt to refer to films that can be taken seriously and have got some way towards treating reality, whether it be through having believable and nuanced characters, or situations or pictures of the world: films that try to tell us something true ... and ideally new.


----------



## JAS

2001 is more "serious" than "Jaws"? What is the basis for the distinction? Is it the fact that even after watching 2001 no one really knows what the film was about?

Edit: Clarke's sequel novel _2010: Odyssey Two_ pretty clearly showed that even he did not know what his original story was really about.


----------



## NLAdriaan

MacLeod said:


> What's an 'art' film? Or rather, if there are two types of film (the one that has something meaningful to say, and the one made purely to make money), who's drawing the line and where?


Jaws is as much an artfilm as any Lars von Trier movie. And there are as many classic compositions that were made for money. Bach and Beethoven needed to pay the bills too.

I recall a recent troublesome discussion here on TC about what defines art, just like this one. The entire discussion is only snobby. Shostakovich made many scores for films, Bernard Hermann made the most artsy score to accompany Psycho, a commercial horror movie. And Katchaturian and the Strauss brothers wrote pretty kitschy music that we all consider to be art.


----------



## EdwardBast

Nereffid said:


> If the music is amenable to being removed from the context of the film and enjoyed in the same sort of way that other pieces of music that are definitely considered classical are enjoyed, then yes.


I agree with this - except instead of "amenable" to being enjoyed like classical music, I would say "actually" being arranged (usually), performed, and enjoyed as classical music, that is, in orchestral concerts.


----------



## Enthusiast

JAS said:


> Except that is usually the intent, even if it isn't in every case. At the very least, it tends to come with the implication that such music even as Ben Hur or Captain from Castille does not belong, in the form of suites or selections, on a classical concert or perhaps even a classical radio station. I strongly disagree.


I don't think any of the nay-sayers are claiming that film music must be bad if it is not classical. Certainly I am not. Writing music that adds to and supports an entertaining film is obviously something that requires a lot of skill and talent ... and when it is effective that is something admirable. I don't really get why that is not enough for the yes-sayers. Why does it matter to them? Why do they need to misidentify it as "classical"? That suggests a sort of unhealthy snobbishness about classical music to me.

As for collecting moments from film music to make a suite for performance in concerts, I suppose that could be done and might even be done with skill and taste. It could even become a lot more worthy of the term classical if it was a set of variations on a theme from a film. I am not aware of any examples of such suites and variations but, if there are any, they must no longer be film music. And for the most part, with some much interesting contemporary classical music (of all possible flavours - including lush or bombastic neo-Romantic) being produced these days, is there really a need to recycle music that was written for another purpose?


----------



## JAS

Enthusiast said:


> I don't think any of the nay-sayers are claiming that film music must be bad if it is not classical. Certainly I am not.


Perhaps not on this thread, and perhaps just not yet. And it isn't that being something other than classical means bad. It is that it is somehow not a descendant of classical music worthy of being on the same stage, even as concerts are often a mix of greater and lesser works, and that compositions that put broken bits of glass and tin cans in a piano might be. (I have had many of these conversations, including once with the conductor David Zinman, so I am drawing on experience in this matter.)



Enthusiast said:


> Writing music that adds to and supports an entertaining film is obviously something that requires a lot of skill and talent ... and when it is effective that is something admirable. I don't really get why that is not enough for the yes-sayers. Why does it matter to them? Why do they need to misidentify it as "classical"? That suggests a sort of unhealthy snobbishness about classical music to me.


I would suggest that we want to recognize a parallel line of classical music tradition that continued during the rise of what is broadly called modern classical music.



Enthusiast said:


> As for collecting moments from film music to make a suite for performance in concerts, I suppose that could be done and might even be done with skill and taste. It could even become a lot more worthy of the term classical if it was a set of variations on a theme from a film. I am not aware of any examples of such suites and variations but, if there are any, they must no longer be film music.


There are many examples, including the suites I previously mentioned which were recorded for an LP set on the Polydor label. A fair number of concerts have been performed of precisely such suites.



Enthusiast said:


> And for the most part, with some much interesting contemporary classical music (of all possible flavours - including lush or bombastic neo-Romantic) being produced these days, is there really a need to recycle music that was written for another purpose?


Yes. And this is often the crux of the dispute. Advocates of that "interesting contemporary classical music'" don't want the competition, or for there to be an alternative.


----------



## Fabulin

Enthusiast said:


> Real classical music, treated as such rather than merely quoted, would stick out like a sore thumb if it was used in a pop film.


A sentiment of a "new wave" of ignorant late 1960s - early 1970s film producers that has long since been proven false...



Enthusiast said:


> Star Wars or Jaws


By the very films you are mentioning.



Enthusiast said:


> I guess films like the Godfather (the whole trilogy) and Apocalypse Now and 2001: A Space Odyssey could be taken more seriously. There are, of course, also films that most would recognise as art but I would be happy in this thread if there was at least an attempt to refer to films that can be taken seriously and *have got some way towards treating reality, whether it be through having believable and nuanced characters, or situations or pictures of the world: films that try to tell us something true ... and ideally new.*


Like Jaws and Jurassic Park, for example?


----------



## JAS

Fabulin said:


> Like Jaws and Jurassic Park, for example?


I certainly think it would be hard to argue that 2001 says something more about reality than Jaws. (Without getting into a political discussion, we are seeing aspects of Jaws playing out in real time in the current COVID-19 crisis.)

Edit: I also think that Jaws is one of those very rare examples where the film is much better than the book. (Others might disagree with me, of course, and are fully within their rights to do so.)


----------



## Fabulin

JAS said:


> I certainly think it would be hard to argue that 2001 says something more about reality than Jaws. (Without getting into a political discussion, we are seeing aspects of Jaws playing out in real time in the current COVID-19 crisis.)


Exactly. Back in March the _Jaws _references were all over the place, and the comparison was not funny.


----------



## Enthusiast

JAS said:


> Perhaps not on this thread, and perhaps just not yet. And it isn't that being something other than classical means bad. It is that it is somehow not a descendant of classical music worthy of being on the same stage, even as concerts are often a mix of greater and lesser works, *and that compositions that put broken bits of glass and tin cans in a piano might be*. (I have had many of these conversations, including once with the conductor David Zinman, so I am drawing on experience in this matter.)
> 
> Yes. And this is often the crux of the dispute. *Advocates of that "interesting contemporary classical music'" don't want the competition, or for there to be an alternative.*


I think some of this strand of argument is what gets referred to as "whataboutery". My point is not to defend the type of contemporary music that you clearly abhor - that is not what this thread is about - so much as to say that within modern and contemporary classical music there is something for everyone, including music written in a very conservative and backwards looking language. Like you there is a lot of it that I don't like - probably though we dislike and like different strands of it - but that is not the point. The point is that we do not need to convert competent and excellent film music into classical concert pieces. And, even if someone does so and the results are good, that would not make the original film music classical music.


----------



## Enthusiast

Fabulin said:


> A sentiment of a "new wave" of ignorant late 1960s - early 1970s film producers that has long since been proven false...
> 
> By the very films you are mentioning.
> 
> Like Jaws and Jurassic Park, for example?


I probably don't get what you are saying. But if you think Jaws and Jurassic Park are serious films - more than mere entertainment - then I do not think we can discuss the question further.


----------



## Enthusiast

JAS said:


> I certainly think it would be hard to argue that 2001 says something more about reality than Jaws. (Without getting into a political discussion, we are seeing aspects of Jaws playing out in real time in the current COVID-19 crisis.)
> 
> Edit: I also think that Jaws is one of those very rare examples where the film is much better than the book. (Others might disagree with me, of course, and are fully within their rights to do so.)


Really? You can't see more of relevance to our world in 2001 than in Jaws? And you really feel that Jaws tells us something true and new about our world? I can't even begin to see how you feel that way but I suppose it's helpful for me to see where you might be coming from in inflating (I feel) the nature of the music that accompanies it.


----------



## JAS

Enthusiast said:


> Really? You can't see more of relevance to our world in 2001 than in Jaws? And you really feel that Jaws tells us something true and new about our world? I can't even begin to see how you feel that way but I suppose it's helpful for me to see where you might be coming from in inflating (I feel) the nature of the music that accompanies it.


Yes, really. We just gave you an example, in general terms. (What we are alluding to is the tendency of some factions to downplay risk perceived as being to others for their own economic or immediate political gain. There is also the related issue of what happens when one person tries to stand up to the system that does not want to admit the existence of the problem, and how tempting it can be to give in.)

Is there something equally "real" in 2001? (I must admit some personal bias here as well. Other than being influential on science fiction for its overall design, which is impressive, I hated 2001, and still do. I love Jaws, and always have. One reason I love it is precisely because I recognize its relevance to real life. It manages that very rare thing of being serious _and_ entertaining. It also has the advantage of being very well made, with skill and inspiration that rose above challenges encountered during its production. The documentary on the making of the film is almost as compelling as the film itself.)


----------



## NLAdriaan

Enthusiast said:


> Really? You can't see more of relevance to our world in 2001 than in Jaws? And you really feel that Jaws tells us something true and new about our world? I can't even begin to see how you feel that way but I suppose it's helpful for me to see where you might be coming from in (I feel) the nature of the music that accompanies it.


 This idea is doomed to fall apart.

If 'relevance to our world' defines art from something else (non art?), we can as well skip all the simplistic love story opera's from the opera houses, along with the dreadful acting that most opera singers are giving us in fact tear down the pompous opera houses altogether.

What tells us the 'Kunst der Fuge' about the world? It has at least the word 'Kunst' in its title, I consider it as one of the most beautiful things ever created. But it doesn't pretend to tell me anything about the world. Madame Butterfly has one of the most outdated and horrific storylines, nowadays you can consider it as a justification of child abuse, Pinkerton should be thrown in jail. But the music is great. And did you ever hear Bernard Herrmanns music for Psycho, without watching the film? I can go on and on.


----------



## Guest

If what we like is in any way relevant to the question under discussion, I love both 2001 and Jaws, and I like Jurassic Park.

We seem, however, to have wandered away from the music.


----------



## Fabulin

Enthusiast said:


> I probably don't get what you are saying. But if you think Jaws and Jurassic Park are serious films - more than mere entertainment - then I do not think we can discuss the question further.


I think you are drawing a very weirdly placed philosophical "significance" divide. To me there is plenty of room for the daily lessons and symbols from Spielberg on one hand, and a lecture of, say, Tarski's papers on the other.

Praising "works of art" that cannot match serious philosophical or scientific inquiries and offer only ambiguity, and disdaining other works that do not go down this rabbit hole, but instead offer well-made points about the earthly business that the viewer or reader will face the moment they turn their face away from the screen, is the sort of middlebrow elitism that begs a Dunning-Kruger diagnosis, and that is the real "entertainment" here.

Let's get back to music, shall we?


----------



## caracalla

adriesba said:


> True, not all scores written for movies are good (some are just awful schmaltz!). But there is bad "regular" classical as well (what is bad depends on whom you ask, of course!).


And there I think you hit on another important (and possibly decisive) reason why so many CM-lovers are reluctant to admit film music to the fold. They think too much of it just isn't good enough.

And they have a point, afaic. Although I accept that much of this stuff should be classified as CM, there's only a very small proportion of it that I'm interested in listening to as independent music. Some of the rest is fine just as soundtrack; some is pretty dire in any circumstances.

But there's no law that says CM has to be good music. I won't argue about 'regular classical' contemporaneous with film for the simple reason that I just don't get what much of it is trying to do. But so far as historic CM is concerned, I have no doubt that what we listen to (or are willing to respect, even if we don't want to listen to it) is the very superior tip of a large iceberg of dross. This is only what was good enough to survive, or to get itself revived.

How bad was the rest? Well, music students know. The rest of us get a few clues, among them pot-boilers and misfires from the great, and amateur stuff from people famous for other reasons. Vast boxed sets of the complete whatever are a fertile source. And then there's Telemann, where time's filter seems to have malfunctioned. But I would argue that even the dullest, most vapid and repetitive concerto phoned in by Telemann at his least inspired is just as much CM as Bach's double-violin. It doesn't get disqualified just because it's weak. Why should we apply different criteria to modern film music?


----------



## Simplicissimus

While we discuss the status of film music with respect to classical music, there are people whose actual jobs it is to make decisions surrounding this topic. They curate the play lists for CM radio stations and program concerts. I think it's interesting to look at how they appear to do this--not looking behind the scenes, as I am not privy to that, but just at how the play lists and concert programs turn out in my area and how the curation is evolving.

Until 2001, there were two CM radio stations in my area, one considered highbrow and one middlebrow. The latter folded. Its regular playlists included (as I recall) a little film music from Rozsa, Morricone, Herrmann, Williams, and a few others. The highbrow station never played film music except for the pieces by acknowledged classical composers that were firmly established in the repertoire like Nevsky. After the middlebrow station folded, the highbrow station very gradually started to play some film music. This tracks with what I perceive is a common view that film music is less highbrow than fully ratified classical music which is played in regular symphony orchestra concerts. The station currently has a recently-added weekly program featuring film music and video game music new releases, and film music occasionally shows up on the regular morning and afternoon playlists.

I’ve thought a lot about the concert scene in my area with respect to film music, but I’m having a hard time sussing out the current state of affairs. There is a “CSO at the Movies” special series of concerts, which certainly didn’t exist until recent years, but there doesn’t seem to be any film music on the regular subscription programs of the Chicago Symphony Orchestra. I’ve noticed that film music is sometimes part of the programs of the local summer classical music festivals, and is sometimes on the year-around program of the CSO’s training orchestra, which somewhat functions as the city’s pops orchestra. Very roughly speaking, it seems like people don’t want to hear film music while dressed in evening or business attire at Orchestra Hall but are happy to listen to it wearing jeans or shorts at Ravinia, Grant Park, or listening to the Civic Orchestra at a free concert.

I wonder if any of the professionals responsible for programming CM radio and concerts are following our discussion on this thread?


----------



## Enthusiast

JAS said:


> Yes, really. We just gave you an example, in general terms. *(What we are alluding to is the tendency of some factions to downplay risk perceived as being to others for their own economic or immediate political gain. There is also the related issue of what happens when one person tries to stand up to the system that does not want to admit the existence of the problem, and how tempting it can be to give in.)*
> 
> Is there something equally "real" in 2001? (I must admit some personal bias here as well. Other than being influential on science fiction for its overall design, which is impressive, I hated 2001, and still do. I love Jaws, and always have. One reason I love it is precisely because I recognize its relevance to real life. It manages that very rare thing of being serious _and_ entertaining. It also has the advantage of being very well made, with skill and inspiration that rose above challenges encountered during its production. The documentary on the making of the film is almost as compelling as the film itself.)


I am sorry but you have lost me completely with the part I have bolded. Who are "we"? How does politics and risk come into it?

I had gathered that you preferred Jaws to 2001 (which was one of three examples I gave). Fair enough but I can't even think how they end up in competition ... unless you mean at the box office (not a way of measuring merit IMO).


----------



## JAS

At the moment, "we" would be at least me and Fabulin, since we seemed to be touching on the same point. As for 2001 and Jaws as films, both are certainly very professionally made (even if the elements of both in terms of setting and story are very different). I mostly think that Jaws makes sense, and 2001 confuses being obtuse with being profound.


----------



## isorhythm

If it's written in a classical style, sure. Incidental music has a long history in the classical tradition.

This has nothing to do with whether the music is any good or holds up to listening apart from the film.


----------



## Enthusiast

MacLeod said:


> If what we like is in any way relevant to the question under discussion, I love both 2001 and Jaws, and I like Jurassic Park.
> 
> We seem, however, to have wandered away from the music.


Film music. That means thinking about film. But I agree it should not lead us to a detailed discussion of film. For myself, I thought all would agree that some films are quite simply more serious as art than others and that all would see the difference. This is not, of course, about what we enjoy. I like all sorts of music and even all sorts of classical music but I am still able to discriminate between pieces as art regardless of which I enjoy most. As it turns out that even this is not self evident to all then I can't see how to make further discussion of films themselves possible within the confines of this thread. Thankfully, we didn't get into literature as having popular fiction (much of which I like although I probably avoid the middlebrow) held up as worthy successors to George Elliot would probably exasperate me.


----------



## JAS

Simplicissimus said:


> I wonder if any of the professionals responsible for programming CM radio and concerts are following our discussion on this thread?


Not meeting that qualification, I can only note that the Baltimore Symphony Orchestra tended to include film music on its "pops" series, and I know that the musicians, mostly, looked down on them, but that those concerts actually brought in much needed music.


----------



## JAS

Enthusiast said:


> This is not, of course, about what we enjoy.


But that is actually an important part of the discussion. I enjoy traditional classical music, and I enjoy film music that follows the same forms. And I appreciate them in part for many of the same reasons, even if that is not easily explained in detail. The similarity, at least, can hardly be denied and taken seriously (unless one is intentionally mixing contrasting examples).


----------



## Fabulin

An interesting point about Lieutenant Kije is that it reminds me of the story of (Grenada-born) pianist and singer Leslie Hutchinson, who, despite being more cultured and having a better accent than many upper class Englishmen, had to enter their fancy London clubs through the kitchen entrance, because of the more or less formal racial divides. 

Of course I am sure some of the club members argued that "if it quacks like a gentleman, and resembles a gentleman, it must be a gentleman", and pointed at Hutchinson's accent and cultural knowledge. But others, shall we say... 35%, but with some among them being respected in the club, made it seem that it is "unnecessary" to change the status quo, and if "the likes" of Hutchinson wanted a fancy club, why didn't they stick to "their own kind"?

I am fairly sure that if the "high society" decided to moon around and try to out-vulgar each other, many would put on ball masks so as to keep up the claim that the high society is as gentle as it ever was. But for the love of the Allmighty, they would not let "the likes of" Hutch in. If pressed, they would, in fact, rather kick him out as well, to avoid definition problems.

Some would turn to scare-mongering, to predictions how opening the doors to those "imitators" would destroy "the level" of the club.

But in the end such racism inevitably fell as a mainstream policy of the international upper class.

This is where the "is film music classical" is going.

P.S. I am sure our literature enthusiasts know how much has been written about such divides in the anglophone high prose and poetry alike.


----------



## JAS

adriesba said:


> True, not all scores written for movies are good (some are just awful schmaltz!). But there is bad "regular" classical as well (what is bad depends on whom you ask, of course!).


There are people, even here at TC, who dismiss Tchaikovsky as "awful schmaltz," but I have not seen anyone suggest that he was strongly in the tradition of classical music.

Interestingly, he was the unintentional father of horror movie music since his Swan Lake was used as the main title for several early Universal horror films, including the original Dracula with Bela Lugosi.


----------



## mikeh375

Another interesting point about Lieutenant Kije is how Zimmer got away with aping it so closely in Gladiator. I sympathise though, having been there when a director is pressing a composer to get close to a temp track he/she has been editing too for probably a month or so. Any change in the music is keenly contested at that point between the director and composer. The composer unwilling to get close to the temp track and sometimes, the director unable to accept anything else. Witness Horner in Troy and the appalling rip of Britten's Sanctus from his War requiem.
It's a recurring pickle in media work.


----------



## Flamme

Didnt know that YAS...Tnx 4 the input...:tiphat:


----------



## Enthusiast

JAS said:


> But that is actually an important part of the discussion. I enjoy traditional classical music, and I enjoy film music that follows the same forms. And I appreciate them in part for many of the same reasons, even if that is not easily explained in detail. The similarity, at least, can hardly be denied and taken seriously (unless one is intentionally mixing contrasting examples).


OK but I could never use the argument "music I enjoy must be classical" - that would mean calling Hendrix and Coltrane classical musicians. No-one has yet told us in what way film music distinctively follows classical forms (aside from the suggestion that it can be worked up in suites for concert performance.


----------



## Fabulin

mikeh375 said:


> Another interesting point about Lieutenant Kije is how Zimmer got away with aping it so closely in Gladiator. I sympathise though, having been there when a director is pressing a composer to get close to a temp track he/she has been editing too for probably a month or so. Any change in the music is keenly contested at that point between the director and composer. The composer unwilling to get close to the temp track and sometimes, the director unable to accept anything else. Witness Horner in Troy and the appalling rip of Britten's Sanctus from his War requiem.
> It's a recurring pickle in media work.


Zimmer gets away with many other things as well, such as having a factory (RCP) team of ghost writers who may get aknowledged or not next to his surname stamp, and continuous pitching and spinning of an industry-wide shift towards "sound design" phasing out "composition". He is hardly a paragon of artistic integrity...

While Horner was perhaps the most well known plagiarist among big name composers in the industry (Silvestri is an unsung "hero" of this as well), it must be admitted that he had very limited time, and was hired to replace within weeks what Gabriel Yared had been writing for many months.


----------



## Fabulin

Enthusiast said:


> No-one has yet told us *in what way film music distinctively follows classical forms* (aside from the suggestion that it can be worked up in suites for concert performance.


*Here you go:
*Harmony and orchestration particular to or developing what the predecessors had built.
Exemplars: Herrmann, Goldsmith, Williams


----------



## mikeh375

Fabulin said:


> Zimmer gets away with many other things as well, such as having a factory (RCP) team of ghost writers who may get aknowledged or not next to his surname stamp, and continuous pitching and spinning of an industry-wide shift towards "sound design" phasing out "composition". He is hardly a paragon of artistic integrity...
> 
> While Horner was perhaps the most well known plagiarist among big name composers in the industry (Silvestri is an unsung "hero" of this as well), it must be admitted that he had very limited time, and was hired to replace within weeks what Gabriel Yared had been writing for many months.


Yep true about Horner being called in at the last minute, but all the same, I've never heard anything sooo close to a temp as his cue in Troy, no wonder the Britten Estate went after him. I knew the musicologist who dealt with that case. I also knew one of the Zimmer boys but I'll leave it at that.


----------



## Guest

JAS said:


> Except that is usually the intent, even if it isn't in every case. At the very least, it tends to come with the implication that such music even as Ben Hur or Captain from Castille does not belong, in the form of suites or selections, on a classical concert or perhaps even a classical radio station. I strongly disagree.


Well, I've not really seen such intent to dismiss here. For the moment, let's confine ourselves to what posters are actually saying here , rather than what others have said elsewhere.



Enthusiast said:


> ^ In this thread I would settle for vague use of the terms. *I don't think anyone would suggest that, for example, Star Wars or Jaws are serious films.* I guess films like the Godfather (the whole trilogy) and Apocalypse Now and 2001: A Space Odyssey could be taken more seriously. There are, of course, also films that most would recognise as art but I would be happy in this thread if there was at least an attempt to refer to films that can be taken seriously and have got some way towards treating reality, whether it be through having believable and nuanced characters, or situations or pictures of the world: films that try to tell us something true ... and ideally new.


I would, but they are 'about' different things than the other two you mention. Since I was the one who asked you to distinguish between art and non-art films - but only because you seemed to want to say that film music can only be considered classical if it's for an art film - I can see that I would profoundly disagree with your point. Just because Prokofiev composed for Nevsky (a really, really, serious art film by one of the greatest of arty directors, surely!) doesn't make it more classical than what Williams composed for Jaws



NLAdriaan said:


> Jaws is as much an artfilm as any Lars von Trier movie.


Yes.



Enthusiast said:


> I don't think any of the nay-sayers are claiming that film music must be bad if it is not classical. Certainly I am not. Writing music that adds to and supports an entertaining film is obviously something that requires a lot of skill and talent ... and when it is effective that is something admirable. I don't really get why that is not enough for the yes-sayers. Why does it matter to them? Why do they need to misidentify it as "classical"? That suggests a sort of unhealthy snobbishness about classical music to me.


Possibly. As with JAS' comment earlier, let's see what people are saying here, now.



Enthusiast said:


> Film music. That means thinking about film. But I agree it should not lead us to a detailed discussion of film. *For myself, I thought all would agree that some films are quite simply more serious as art than others and that all would see the difference.* This is not, of course, about what we enjoy. I like all sorts of music and even all sorts of classical music but I am still able to discriminate between pieces as art regardless of which I enjoy most. As it turns out that even this is not self evident to all then I can't see how to make further discussion of films themselves possible within the confines of this thread. Thankfully, we didn't get into literature as having popular fiction (much of which I like although I probably avoid the middlebrow) held up as worthy successors to George Elliot would probably exasperate me.


We can all 'discriminate' in our own way, and yes, of course, because some films 'speak' to us more than others, we might get more out of it, regardless of what some arty-art critic tells me I must enjoy. I'd rather watch Spielberg than Eisenstein any day of the week.

None of which moves the music debate forward.

I've probably said this more than once in many other threads, but for the this thread, I'll say it again. To my mind, film music is not the same as that which is composed for the explicit purpose of being 'sat and listened to' for its own sake, and for the music alone. Generally, much of what we commonly accept as 'classical' is composed by the composer for the audience to sit and listen to, and nothing else. I'm sure there are a few people who go to the cinema just to listen to the film score and never mind the images, but that is not what the director and composer intend.

(And yes, I would therefore suggest that ballet and opera should be considered separate genres from 'classical'.)


----------



## JAS

Enthusiast said:


> OK but I could never use the argument "music I enjoy must be classical" - that would mean calling Hendrix and Coltrane classical musicians.


Except that isn't at all what I said. I did not say that two unrelated things that I liked were related merely because I liked both. I said that two things that were related were things that I liked. Part of what I like about is in the similarities.



Enthusiast said:


> No-one has yet told us in what way film music distinctively follows classical forms (aside from the suggestion that it can be worked up in suites for concert performance.


No one has yet told us in what way it doesn't.


----------



## JAS

MacLeod said:


> Well, I've not really seen such intent to dismiss here. For the moment, let's confine ourselves to what posters are actually saying here , rather than what others have said elsewhere.


But if we are limited to what is said here, it is likely to be a very dull conversation, even by TC standards. Even here, I am sensing a good deal of opinion on the topic at hand, based on very little experience or understanding of said topic.


----------



## JAS

Fabulin said:


> While Horner was perhaps the most well known plagiarist among big name composers in the industry (Silvestri is an unsung "hero" of this as well), it must be admitted that he had very limited time, and was hired to replace within weeks what Gabriel Yared had been writing for many months.


Cough . . . Bill Conti . . . cough.


----------



## Enthusiast

MacLeod said:


> I would, but they are 'about' different things than the other two you mention. Since I was the one who asked you to distinguish between art and non-art films - but only because you seemed to want to say that film music can only be considered classical if it's for an art film - I can see that I would profoundly disagree with your point. Just because Prokofiev composed for Nevsky (a really, really, serious art film by one of the greatest of arty directors, surely!) doesn't make it more classical than what Williams composed for Jaws


An extraordinary view. You are welcome to your taste and opinion - I don't call them wrong - but you seem to need to hijack the word classical to give it some sort of credence. To me Prokofiev's Nevsky is classical music or at least was very easy to rewark as classical music. It also belongs to a great film. Jaws - great music? Nah. Great film? Nah. Entertaining and with very effective film music? Yes, sure.



MacLeod said:


> We can all 'discriminate' in our own way, and yes, of course, because some films 'speak' to us more than others, we might get more out of it, regardless of what some arty-art critic tells me I must enjoy. I'd rather watch Spielberg than Eisenstein any day of the week.


You obviously have a chip on your shoulder about art critics - it reminds me of our British populist politicians who insist that experts know nothing and then try to convince people that they know more - but that still doesn't give you licence to suggest that the only reason I could value one over the other is that I am slavishly following those critics. I hardly ever read film critics - I'm not that interested - and, perhaps like you, I like what I like and I know in what way I like it. You are more than welcome to your taste but please do not pretend that it is informed or anything other than a gut reaction to something like cheap thrills and two dimensional characters. I know which films and film scenes live in my memory as powerful and none of them were directed by Spielberg or set to music by Williams.

I don't think we're getting anywhere. I think I can see where you are coming from and there is just no way for me to bridge the gap. We feel very differently about film and probably other art forms.


----------



## Guest

JAS said:


> But if we are limited to what is said here, it is likely to be a very dull conversation, even by TC standards. Even here, I am sensing a good deal of opinion on the topic at hand, based on very little experience or understanding of said topic.


I was only referring to posters making "accusations" about what people are saying, when such accusations are not valid in this thread.


----------



## consuono

MacLeod said:


> Agreed. That's why I referred to "exact" synonyms.


This sort of ****-retentive pedantry is what I hate about classical music...or should I say "attempted pedantry". "Art music", "serious music" and "classical music" are synonymous, regardless of what Ultimate Authority Leonard Bernstein said. And Bernstein's point is that you can't think of "serious music" as tuxedos, violins and tympani exclusively. And no, an "art music" film score doesn't have to be part of an "art film", although such a quality score could enhance a film. You've just gotta love online argumentation.


----------



## Guest

Enthusiast said:


> An extraordinary view. You are welcome to your taste and opinion - I don't call them wrong - but you seem to need to hijack the word classical to give it some sort of credence. To me Prokofiev's Nevsky is classical music or at least was very easy to rewark as classical music. It also belongs to a great film. Jaws - great music? Nah. Great film? Nah. Entertaining and with very effective film music? Yes, sure.


You read far too much into what I've written, and miss the point entirely. But then, perhaps I've missed yours.

What I'm saying is that just because a renowned classical composer composes a work for a renowned film does not make it any more entitled to be called "classical". As you might see from my ealier posts, I have, briefly, argued both for and against the inclusion of film music as 'classical'. If the Nevsky score is classical, so is the Jaws. If the Jaws isn't, neither is the Nevsky, regardless of the quality of the music, regardless of the quality of the film.

In my last post, I put forward a more extended view, based on what I see as critical differences between the intent of the composer and the purpose of the music. On that basis, neither Williams' score, nor Prokofiev's score are 'classical'. But obviously, you'd have to accept my extended view in the first place, to agree with my conclusion.



Enthusiast said:


> You obviously have a chip on your shoulder about art critics - it reminds me of our British populist politicians who insist that experts know nothing and then try to convince people that they know more - but that still doesn't give you licence to suggest that the only reason I could value one over the other is that I am slavishly following those critics. I hardly ever read film critics - I'm not that interested - and, perhaps like you, I like what I like and I know in what way I like it. *You are more than welcome to your taste but please do not pretend that it is informed or anything other than a gut reaction to something like cheap thrills and two dimensional characters. *I know which films and film scenes live in my memory as powerful and none of them were directed by Spielberg or set to music by Williams.


My comment about art critics was a throwaway - I have no chip on my shoulder. I have a lot of time for them, nor was I suggesting that you are slavishly following them. Please don't take my posts so personally.

In the meantime, be careful what you say about my taste. I don't know on what basis you infer what my taste is, or how informed it is, given I've only mentioned a couple of films.


----------



## Guest

consuono said:


> This sort of ****-retentive pedantry is what I hate about classical music.


I wish you'd say something about the subject of the OP, and not keep tailing me.


----------



## consuono

MacLeod said:


> I wish you'd say something about the subject of the OP, and not keep tailing me.


You quoted me first, Perfesser.


----------



## Guest

consuono said:


> You quoted me first, Perfesser.


I think you quoted me first, young Padawan 

Do you consider film music to be classical music?


----------



## consuono

MacLeod said:


> I think you quoted me first, young Padawan
> 
> Do you consider film music to be classical music?


My goodness, you're right. Well I'll close the circle and end it with an "I win". :lol:


----------



## Enthusiast

MacLeod said:


> You read far too much into what I've written, and miss the point entirely. But then, perhaps I've missed yours.
> 
> What I'm saying is that just because a renowned classical composer composes a work for a renowned film does not make it any more entitled to be called "classical". As you might see from my ealier posts, I have, briefly, argued both for and against the inclusion of film music as 'classical'. If the Nevsky score is classical, so is the Jaws. If the Jaws isn't, neither is the Nevsky, regardless of the quality of the music, regardless of the quality of the film.
> 
> In my last post, I put forward a more extended view, based on what I see as critical differences between the intent of the composer and the purpose of the music. On that basis, neither Williams' score, nor Prokofiev's score are 'classical'. But obviously, you'd have to accept my extended view in the first place, to agree with my conclusion.


OK. The film music scores of both are for film music (rather than classical). But one gave rise to a great piece of classical music and the other hasn't and IMO couldn't.



MacLeod said:


> In the meantime, be careful what you say about my taste. I don't know on what basis you infer what my taste is, or how informed it is, given I've only mentioned a couple of films.


Yes, I know nothing of your taste in films or literature. But don't you equate artistic "value" with what you enjoy rather than discriminating between something that is merely entertaining and something that is powerful and life enhancing?


----------



## Andrew Kenneth

Gramophone interviewed Philip Glass and John Corigliano; two composers who also wrote film music.

=> 
"Philip Glass: Today film is what opera was formerly, it's the popular art form of our time. Now John and I are both film composers and opera composers, and it may be easier for people who are experienced in theatre to work in films than for people who only work in concert music, because both theatre and films are about subject matter.

John Corigliano: I think also you can see the difference between concert music, theatre and film if you work in all three genres. You relate to the projects differently; it's like a balancing act. When I write a symphonic piece, the orchestra, the conductor, and the soloist, no matter how famous or important they are, all try to express my artistic vision. When you write an opera, it's in the middle. They sort of want to honour your vision, but the diva wants this, the director has his or her ideas, the stage designer wants such and such. When you get to film…

Philip Glass: (laughs) You've lost it completely and utterly.

John Corigliano: It's the director who's in charge and you're supposed to write music that makes that director happy and the studio happy."

Full interview =>
https://www.gramophone.co.uk/features/article/debate-when-is-film-music-classical
worth reading.


----------



## Fabulin

Enthusiast said:


> But don't you equate artistic "value" with what you enjoy rather than discriminating between something that is merely entertaining and something that is powerful and life enhancing?


The music of John Williams made countless people into very good musicians, and inspired many others, whatever their careers are. His scores have a near universal acclaim as far as creating powerful scenes goes. The flow of people asking for a contact adress to sent Williams a message about how his music changed the lives of theirs, or their family members, is unending.

Funny you consider yourself an expert, but the only thing you bring in are your own qualia.

And don't get me started on how, in Freudian slips, you betray that you think you are talking to people who are ignorant about high literature or related in philosophy to politicians who cater to the hoi polloi. Belly laughter.

MacLeod is right about quite a few things here. If a divide between "concert music" and "theatrical music" is made, it should be consistent.


----------



## consuono

Enthusiast said:


> OK. The film music scores of both are for film music (rather than classical). But one gave rise to a great piece of classical music and the other hasn't and IMO couldn't.


I don't understand the distinction. Prokofiev reworked the Nevsky music into a cantata. I don't quite see how the film score itself ceases to be, or never was, "classical music". Ditto with, say, Copland's music for the film versions of Of Mice and Men and The Red Pony. The following two videos are (or are from) film scores. They are also "art music", "classical music", "serious", whatever you want to call it. The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The same goes for Williams and Herrmann and Tiomkin and others.








I would also call the score for this movie "artistic", "serious" or "classical":


----------



## Simplicissimus

MacLeod said:


> I've probably said this more than once in many other threads, but for the this thread, I'll say it again. To my mind, film music is not the same as that which is composed for the explicit purpose of being 'sat and listened to' for its own sake, and for the music alone. Generally, much of what we commonly accept as 'classical' is composed by the composer for the audience to sit and listen to, and nothing else. I'm sure there are a few people who go to the cinema just to listen to the film score and never mind the images, but that is not what the director and composer intend.
> 
> (And yes, I would therefore suggest that ballet and opera should be considered separate genres from 'classical'.)


I find this the most coherent position. It is relatively straightforward to differentiate forms of music from each other based upon the intent of the composer, whereas differentiating them based on their strictly musical properties is much more problematic, at least for me as one with middling musical training. (Hat tip to more musically sophisticated people who are making progress sorting this out, like *Fabulin* writing about "harmony and orchestration particular to or developing what the predecessors had built.") The intent to compose music for the concert hall, versus for a film, versus for a ballet, versus for an opera, and so forth, is central to the music's ultimate aesthetic and communicative force. The intent defines the music in a very real way, and that is of interest to me as an enthusiast, and I find it a good way to categorize music.

Of course, we can enjoy film and ballet music in a concert hall, or opera music without viewing the stage performance. What if you played me an unfamiliar piece of film music and told me that it was written for the concert hall. Would I know the difference? Maybe, actually probably not; or I could say, "That sounds like film music." But I contend that it is better for the audience if they are informed about what kind of music it is intended to be so they can effectively enter into a "collective intentionality" with the composer. There are, or should be, social contracts between composers and audiences.

I am happy to say that film music is not classical music but that it has its own merits. I like much of the music of Herrmann, Rozsa, Morricone, Goldsmith, Williams, Desplat, and others, and I am glad that it gets exposure on CM radio and in concerts (well, pops concerts anyway). I don't want to call it classical music, I want to call it film music that I like and which evidently appeals to many other CM enthusiasts for one reason or another. Asserting that some film musical is classical and some isn't leads to a slippery slope into incoherence, IMO.


----------



## eljr

Fabulin said:


> "concert music" and "theatrical music" is made.


nothing but sub genres are they not?


----------



## consuono

Simplicissimus said:


> ...
> Of course, we can enjoy film and ballet music in a concert hall, or opera music without viewing the stage performance. What if you played me an unfamiliar piece of film music and told me that it was written for the concert hall. Would I know the difference?


What would it matter? Your not being able to tell one way or the other might be evidence that such music is indeed "art" or "serious" or "classical" or whatever your acceptable terminology is.



> I am happy to say that film music is not classical music but that it has its own merits. I like much of the music of Herrmann, Rozsa, Morricone, Goldsmith, Williams, Desplat, and others, and I am glad that it gets exposure on CM radio and in concerts (well, pops concerts anyway). I don't want to call it classical music, I want to call it film music that I like and which evidently appeals to many other CM enthusiasts for one reason or another. Asserting that some film musical is classical and some isn't leads to a slippery slope into incoherence, IMO.


So Schubert's Rosamunde music and Mendelssohn's for A Midsummer Night's Dream are not really "classical music"? I don't think a genre is defined by its intended utility alone. Otherwise there would be about as many genres as there are pieces. Following that logic, a Chopin waltz is nothing more than something for dancing, and if there aren't any dancers present it really can't be called "classical music". It's waltz music.


----------



## Simplicissimus

consuono said:


> What would it matter?
> 
> So Schubert's Rosamunde music and Mendelssohn's for A Midsummer Night's Dream are not really "classical music"? I don't think a genre is defined by its intended utility alone. Otherwise there would be about as many genres as there are pieces. Following that logic, a Chopin waltz is nothing more than something for dancing, and if there aren't any dancers present it really can't be called "classical music". It's waltz music.


It matters to me because I prefer to understand as much about the composer's intentions as I can when I listen to the music. As I wrote, I consider there to be a type of social interaction between the composer and his/her audience, and beliefs about intentions are involved in most social interactions.

I agree, it is somewhat awkward to say that incidental, etc., music is not classical music. I just consider this awkwardness less bad than trying to sustain the incoherent argument that some incidental, film, etc. music is classical and some isn't. But if you want to talk about film, etc. music that you consider classical as "classical music," I'm happy to converse on your terms. I hope in the first instance to communicate effectively, not just to make a point.


----------



## Guest

Enthusiast said:


> But don't you equate artistic "value" with what you enjoy rather than discriminating between something that is merely entertaining and something that is powerful and life enhancing?


I'm not sure I understand. I value what I enjoy. I'm not sure it's any more complicated than that, though the word 'entertaining' might be worthy of consideration. At least, to the extent that I'm not willing to use the term in a way that separates it from "Powerful and life enhancing". I find _The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp _entertaining precisely _because _it is powerful and life enhancing. I also enjoy the score: it mattersnot in the slightest whether it is classical.



Andrew Kenneth said:


> When you get to film…
> 
> Philip Glass: (laughs) You've lost it completely and utterly.
> 
> John Corigliano: It's the director who's in charge and you're supposed to write music that makes that director happy and the studio happy."


QED!



consuono said:


> I don't think a genre is defined by its intended utility _alone_. Otherwise there would be about as many genres as there are pieces. Following that logic, a Chopin waltz is nothing more than something for dancing, and if there aren't any dancers present it really can't be called "classical music". It's waltz music.


I don't think a genre is defined by its intended utility _alone_ either. But in considering whether there is a definable difference between film music and classical music, I find it more helpful than whether it is of quality or not; and more useful than whether a score by Ligeti and Strauss is classical, but a score by Glass or Stetson isn't.


----------



## Dimace

In many cases yes and more than yes. John Barry, for example, (for me always) is one modern Beethoven, a composer of stellar music quality and originality. His music will be after 200 years, what is today for us the music of the great classical composers. Not to mention the music of Nino Rota or this of Alfred Schnittke.


----------



## consuono

Simplicissimus said:


> ...
> I agree, it is somewhat awkward to say that incidental, etc., music is not classical music. I just consider this awkwardness less bad than trying to sustain the incoherent argument that some incidental, film, etc. music is classical and some isn't. ...


It's because "film score" is not a monolithic concept. There are different varieties.

Is Kurt Weill music for Brecht plays "art" or "classical" or "serious" music?


----------



## Simplicissimus

consuono said:


> It's because "film score" is not a monolithic concept. There are different varieties.
> 
> Is Kurt Weill music for Brecht plays "art" or "classical" or "serious" music?


IMV, Weil's _Kleine Dreigroschenmusik_, for example, is incidental music which I (obviously a CM guy) like and have in two versions in my CD collection. Please forgive me for declining to comment on its status as classical, art, or serious music, and feel free to label it as you like.


----------



## consuono

Simplicissimus said:


> IMV, Weil's _Kleine Dreigroschenmusik_, for example, is incidental music which I (obviously a CM guy) like and have in two versions in my CD collection. Please forgive me for declining to comment on its status as classical, art, or serious music, and feel free to label it as you like.


And you listen to it without watching a performance of the play. No further comment is needed. (My usual edit): and I don't mean to sound smug or trite. It's tough to say. There aren't any really clear, carved-in-stone dividing lines, at least in my opinion.


----------



## Simplicissimus

consuono said:


> And you listen to it without watching a performance of the play. No further comment is needed. (My usual edit): and I don't mean to sound smug or trite. It's tough to say. There aren't any really clear, carved-in-stone dividing lines, at least in my opinion.


I've seen the play several times live and know the script pretty well and have a copy of it. But you're right, I listen to the music by itself also. My favorite film music is probably Herrmann's for _Vertigo_, and I've only seen that movie once. I'm not very into movies but I like a lot of film music. I understand your point and think it's a good one. You don't sound smug or trite to me.


----------



## mikeh375

Simplicissimus said:


> I find this the most coherent position. It is relatively straightforward to differentiate forms of music from each other based upon the intent of the composer, whereas differentiating them based on their strictly musical properties is much more problematic, at least for me as one with middling musical training. (Hat tip to more musically sophisticated people who are making progress sorting this out, like *Fabulin* writing about "harmony and orchestration particular to or developing what the predecessors had built.") *The intent to compose music for the concert hall, versus for a film, versus for a ballet, versus for an opera, and so forth, is central to the music's ultimate aesthetic and communicative force. The intent defines the music in a very real way, and that is of interest to me as an enthusiast, and I find it a good way to categorize music.*
> 
> Of course, we can enjoy film and ballet music in a concert hall, or opera music without viewing the stage performance. What if you played me an unfamiliar piece of film music and told me that it was written for the concert hall. Would I know the difference? Maybe, actually probably not; or I could say, "That sounds like film music." But I contend that it is better for the audience if they are informed about what kind of music it is intended to be so they can effectively enter into a "collective intentionality" with the composer. There are, or should be, social contracts between composers and audiences.
> 
> I am happy to say that film music is not classical music but that it has its own merits. I like much of the music of Herrmann, Rozsa, Morricone, Goldsmith, Williams, Desplat, and others, and I am glad that it gets exposure on CM radio and in concerts (well, pops concerts anyway). I don't want to call it classical music, I want to call it film music that I like and which evidently appeals to many other CM enthusiasts for one reason or another. Asserting that some film musical is classical and some isn't leads to a slippery slope into incoherence, IMO.


From a composer's pov, it is this. I also touched on this in my post 4 in this thread.
The approach to an empty ms is most assuredly different for writing a cue than it is to writing a concert work. The freedom of expression is compressed when music has to be in the main a lesser consideration. Form is dictated by on screen events and musical line can be a problem if it impinges too much onto the dialogue in more sensitive scenes. In fact all elements of composition are often compressed into simpler ways for ease of use by the films narrative, its director and dubbing engineer. Scoring is a particularly nuanced skill, timbre often having to be sensitive and subservient in order to combine intelligibly into a mixed timbre (audio) of music, dialogue and effects (sfx).

I could go into much more detail as there are many exceptions to the rules, which are not set in stone - even the most outlandish, off the wall approach to writing a score can work. But in terms of whether or not film music is classical (I prefer 'concert/art' to avoid any historical ambiguity), my definition of that particular word leads me to say (generally speaking that is), no. This is because the creative paradigm and parameters for putting something down on that blank ms with the clock ticking is totally different to writing without external restriction....except for Williams...


----------



## consuono

mikeh375 said:


> ...
> I could go into much more detail as there are many exceptions to the rules, which are not set in stone - even the most outlandish, off the wall approach to writing a score can work. But in terms of whether or not film music is classical (I prefer 'concert/art' to avoid any historical ambiguity), my definition of that particular word leads me to say (generally speaking that is), no. This is because the creative paradigm and parameters for putting something down on that blank ms with the clock ticking is totally different to writing without external restriction....except for Williams...


The thing is though that can apply to many, many commissioned works throughout the history of "art music". Many were for a specific event, or were commissioned to showcase a particular virtuoso player. Working *within* disciplined limits and boundaries is what has made some of the greatest art.


----------



## Enthusiast

Fabulin said:


> Funny you consider yourself an expert, but the only thing you bring in are your own qualia.


I don't know where you got that from?! I am certainly no expert in any art field.



Fabulin said:


> And don't get me started on how, in Freudian slips, you betray that you think you are talking to people who are ignorant about high literature or related in philosophy to politicians who cater to the hoi polloi. Belly laughter.


Oh, Freudian slips! That's how you know what I unconsciously think and feel!

But perhaps you are reading something that is not there into my words? I have tastes as do everyone else here. We discuss them. Most of us manage most of the time without ad hominems and even without getting angry with people who have different tastes to them. Freud - you brought him up - would wonder if you were suffering from some sort of inferiority complex.


----------



## Enthusiast

MacLeod said:


> I'm not sure I understand. I value what I enjoy. I'm not sure it's any more complicated than that, though the word 'entertaining' might be worthy of consideration. At least, to the extent that I'm not willing to use the term in a way that separates it from "Powerful and life enhancing". I find _The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp _entertaining precisely _because _it is powerful and life enhancing. I also enjoy the score: it mattersnot in the slightest whether it is classical.


It is true that I hold the currently unfashionable view that some art is greater that other art and that there is some sort of hierarchy in terms of value. The language involved in expressing it is quite beyond me as is coming up with anything more than very rough and ready assessments of which works of art belong where. You feel somewhat differently which was what made me say that I thought our tastes are quite different (which is what led to here).


----------



## mikeh375

consuono said:


> The thing is though that can apply to many, many commissioned works throughout the history of "art music". Many were for a specific event, or were commissioned to showcase a particular virtuoso player. Working *within* disciplined limits and boundaries is what has made some of the greatest art.


Yes, I quite agree. However there is another dimension to this courtesy of the Digital Audio Workstation (DAW) that has a considerable bearing.
These days, there are a lot of film composers who cannot read music but are quite virtuosic at production and software composing within their computer. Throughout the history of music, the lack of training would have been an un-breachable obstacle to a composer, however these days, it is quite acceptable to work within an industry that once traditionally relied on mastery in the understood way.

Williams and his best known style of scoring is now considered old-hat by many composers and directors, irrespective of his brilliant and virtuosic musicality. The decline in the traditional way to score is mainly because of the DAW, which makes manipulation of samples and synths very easy for a non reader, creating a new way and a new sound. This new way is not beholden to any of the traditional approaches to the main elements of music.
One could go into aesthetics and - depending on one's pov - conclude that the quality of film writing has suffered as a result of the democratising effect between composers the DAW has had within media work, but I'm not one who would fully concur with that view. There is no doubt now that the actual 'writing' of music for most film scores is influenced by the articulation lists found in sample sets and how convincing the resultant mock-up can be for the director to listen to. This is now the norm, rather than the imagination one can bring to music if fully versed in all its techniques, especially orchestration.

It is what it is and to be fair, it's better than the days when a composer would have to play his music on a piano, oft times to a bewildered director who had no chance of imagining the orchestral version.
(As an aside, I once worked with Michael Anderson on a re-make of 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea and in a break asked him how the theme for 'The Dambusters' came about. He told me he wasn't particularly bowled over by the theme played on piano, but then along came the orchestral recording session and he was, as you can imagine, sold).

All of this does bring up even more nuanced questions about the definition of the word 'classical' if one wants to delve further. I'm not sure I do though.


----------



## Fabulin

Enthusiast said:


> I am certainly no expert in any art field.


I'm glad we agree at least on that.



Enthusiast said:


> Oh, Freudian slips! That's how you know what I unconsciously think and feel!
> 
> But perhaps you are reading something that is not there into my words? I have tastes as do everyone else here. We discuss them. Most of us manage most of the time without ad hominems and even without getting angry with people who have different tastes to them. Freud - you brought him up - would wonder if you were suffering from some sort of inferiority complex.


I don't know where you inferred anger from, considering that in two posts already I have declared a different disposition, namely: being entertained. Ironic. And as for ad hominems, it is not I who first compared adverse posters to populist politicians. I only play the game as it unfolds. If you wish do discuss in cockney or in verse next, be my guest.



Enthusiast said:


> It is true that I hold the currently *unfashionable view that some art is greater that other art and that there is some sort of hierarchy in terms of value.* The language involved in expressing it is quite beyond me as is coming up with anything more than very rough and ready assessments of which works of art belong where. You feel somewhat differently which was what made me say that I thought our tastes are quite different (which is what led to here).


I don't see anyone disagreeing with that here. It's the application of this philosophy that is disputed.


----------



## Guest

Enthusiast said:


> *It is true that I hold the currently unfashionable view that some art is greater that other art* and that there is some sort of hierarchy in terms of value. The language involved in expressing it is quite beyond me as is coming up with anything more than very rough and ready assessments of which works of art belong where. You feel somewhat differently which was what made me say that I thought our tastes are quite different (which is what led to here).


Well if true, that makes both of us unfashionable. I'm not sure about the 'hierarchy' bit. That implies an attempt to set these things in stone, with film music by *for example*, Shostakovich and Prokofiev at the top, Hans Zimmer Studio at the bottom and John Williams somewhere in between. 

A further thought on definition of 'classical'. If an audience decides to do something else with a piece of film music - such as listen to it without watching the film - that's beyond the control of the composer and the original purpose of the commission. The fact that some film music is attractive enough to stand on its own at a concert, does not mean it must be 'concert' music (since the term 'concert music, was surely never intended to mean _anything _that is played at a concert!)


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

The answer is no. The reasons have already been given in this thread.


----------



## millionrainbows

flamencosketches said:


> Let's settle this once and for all.
> 
> Edit: Since it seems some are not exactly answering the question I was asking in my head, it seems some clarification is necessary:
> 
> When I say film music, I'm not talking about film soundtracks, collections of pop music that is used in films, nor am I talking about existing classical music being used in films (à la 2001 A Space Odyssey or Fantasia). I also would like to exclude synthesizer-driven ambient or electronic film scores like Vangelis's work for Blade Runner etc. What this leaves is music, scored for orchestra or ensemble, written to accompany the film: the likes of John Williams, Danny Elfman, etc. Do you consider this to be classical music?


No. "Art" music is not 'functional' in purpose like film music is.

"Art" music is composed strictly for its own ends, which are non-utilitarian.

Film music is composed for films.


----------



## millionrainbows

Andrew Kenneth said:


> Gramophone interviewed Philip Glass and John Corigliano; two composers who also wrote film music.
> 
> =>
> "Philip Glass: Today film is what opera was formerly, it's the popular art form of our time. Now John and I are both film composers and opera composers, and it may be easier for people who are experienced in theatre to work in films than for people who only work in concert music, because both theatre and films are about subject matter.
> 
> John Corigliano: I think also you can see the difference between concert music, theatre and film if you work in all three genres. You relate to the projects differently; it's like a balancing act. When I write a symphonic piece, the orchestra, the conductor, and the soloist, no matter how famous or important they are, all try to express my artistic vision. When you write an opera, it's in the middle. They sort of want to honour your vision, but the diva wants this, the director has his or her ideas, the stage designer wants such and such. When you get to film…
> 
> Philip Glass: (laughs) You've lost it completely and utterly.
> 
> John Corigliano: It's the director who's in charge and you're supposed to write music that makes that director happy and the studio happy."


I'm very happy to read this, and I agree with it, especially the part about opera. I've always considered opera a "lesser" art form than concert pieces.

I think the minimalists' most valuable contribution to opera is that they took much of the "fluff" out of it. Nixon in China, Doctor Atomic, Akhnaten, are all "objective" approaches to opera, leaving less room for drama divas.


----------



## caracalla

millionrainbows said:


> No. "Art" music is not 'functional' in purpose like film music is.
> 
> "Art" music is composed strictly for its own ends, which are non-utilitarian.


Using these criteria, can you identify the fundamental difference between a Williams film score and a Palestrina mass?


----------



## adriesba

millionrainbows said:


> I'm very happy to read this, and I agree with it, especially the part about opera. I've always considered opera a "lesser" art form than concert pieces.
> 
> I think the minimalists' most valuable contribution to opera is that they took much of the "fluff" out of it. Nixon in China, Doctor Atomic, Akhnaten, are all "objective" approaches to opera, leaving less room for drama divas.


Oh boy, where are my opera buddies?! Thou art playing with matches!


----------



## Fabulin

millionrainbows said:


> No. "Art" music is not 'functional' in purpose like film music is.
> 
> "Art" music is composed strictly for its own ends, which are non-utilitarian.
> 
> Film music is composed for films.





millionrainbows said:


> I've always considered opera a "lesser" art form than concert pieces.


Art that serves no utilitarian purpose is anything but better than art that manages to do so.


----------



## Enthusiast

MacLeod said:


> Well if true, that makes both of us unfashionable. I'm not sure about the 'hierarchy' bit. That implies an attempt to set these things in stone, with film music by *for example*, Shostakovich and Prokofiev at the top, Hans Zimmer Studio at the bottom and John Williams somewhere in between.
> 
> A further thought on definition of 'classical'. If an audience decides to do something else with a piece of film music - such as listen to it without watching the film - that's beyond the control of the composer and the original purpose of the commission. The fact that some film music is attractive enough to stand on its own at a concert, does not mean it must be 'concert' music (since the term 'concert music, was surely never intended to mean _anything _that is played at a concert!)


The hierarchy I was imagining would be extremely fluid and not at all cast in stone.

I am concerned about giving audiences the choice of what is and isn't classical music. If audience preference is what makes a work worth programming in a classical concert then wouldn't the audience grow considerably (and swamp the averages) the closer the music gets to pop? I know some members disagree, but I have a horror - one that predated punk - of prog rock of the type that Genesis and Yes produced becoming part of the broad repertoire I expect in a classical concert.


----------



## Fabulin

Enthusiast said:


> The hierarchy I was imagining would be extremely fluid and not at all cast in stone.
> 
> I am concerned about giving audiences the choice of what is and isn't classical music. If audience preference is what makes a work worth programming in a classical concert then wouldn't the audience grow considerably (and swamp the averages) the closer the music gets to pop? I know some members disagree, but I have a horror - one that predated punk - of prog rock of the type that Genesis and Yes produced becoming part of the broad repertoire I expect in a classical concert.


It might interest you that the annual "Hollywood in Vienna" festival, with all their amplifiers, lightshow, smoke, Hans Zimmer with an electric guitar (he can't conduct) etc. tried for many years to get Williams to conduct in Vienna, but he rejected all offers of taking part in such an event.

Only when the Wiener Philharmoniker invited him instead - to conduct a classical concert in their hall - did he find it appropriate.

I suppose that is the demarcation line for which film music is classical, and which not.


----------



## Art Rock

Enthusiast said:


> ....prog rock of the type that Genesis and Yes produced becoming part of the broad repertoire I expect in a classical concert.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ Aaghh! :scold::scold:
(runs for cover in a nuclear shelter)


----------



## eljr

Enthusiast said:


> ^ Aaghh! :scold::scold:
> (runs for cover in a nuclear shelter)


:lol::lol::lol:


----------



## Guest

Enthusiast said:


> The hierarchy I was imagining would be extremely fluid and not at all cast in stone.
> 
> I am concerned about giving audiences the choice of what is and isn't classical music. If audience preference is what makes a work worth programming in a classical concert then wouldn't the audience grow considerably (and swamp the averages) the closer the music gets to pop? I know some members disagree, but I have a horror - one that predated punk - of prog rock of the type that Genesis and Yes produced becoming part of the broad repertoire I expect in a classical concert.


I think a hierarchy that is flexible would be a contradiction in terms, but if such a thing were possible, who's determining the hierarchy, who's allowed to flex it, 
and remembering that this is about film music, who would be where in the hierarchy?

(I agree that the audience shouldn't have the final say, but it must be allowed some contribution towards what it finds acceptable. The jibe at Prog seems to me to be a red herring).


----------



## Enthusiast

MacLeod said:


> I think a hierarchy that is flexible would be a contradiction in terms, but if such a thing were possible, who's determining the hierarchy, who's allowed to flex it,
> and remembering that this is about film music, who would be where in the hierarchy?


Picture a long glass or bottle filled with liquids of differing densities. Leave it to stand and and the liquids would form layers. Shake it and it will homogenise. But, of course, my metaphor doesn't work that well because once the liquid settled again it would do so in the old hierarchy. Perhaps when you shake it you can add a solid that will dissolve in some of the liquids but not in others. That would change their relative densities. Sorry, not so much an argument as playing with the term I used - fluid!

And, as for human/social hierarchies, they do change over time. Revolution, new technology (that makes some players more powerful than they were), changing fashions ...


----------



## millionrainbows

caracalla said:


> Using these criteria, can you identify the fundamental difference between a Williams film score and a Palestrina mass?


I see your point.










We take enormous comfort in the notion that art began in ancient Greece, or maybe even the Renaissance, and that its progress can be traced through a long series of masterpieces. We believe even more firmly in the idea that art is transcendent and universal. With The Invention of Art, Larry Shiner challenges these articles of faith and invites us to reconsider the history of art entirely. He argues that the category of fine art is a modern invention-that the lines drawn between art and craft resulted from key social transformations in Europe during the long eighteenth century. 
The idea of fine art was inextricably linked to the development of new market economies and the rise of the middle classes, both constituting enormous changes in Western culture. During this period, the art museum, a place where art could be viewed, digested, and contemplated, first came into being. Meanwhile, critics became less interested in how art and literature functioned, and more fascinated with art's aesthetic worth. At the same time, the performance of classical music shifted from places of worship and political ceremonies to more secular and commercial venues where it could be listened to silently. And accompanying these institutional changes was the dissolution of the patronage system for producing art and the advent of a new market system supported by consumers.


----------



## isorhythm

What about music for dancing? Or accompanying aristocrats' dinner parties? That includes a decent chunk of music that's generally considered classical.


----------



## millionrainbows

isorhythm said:


> What about music for dancing? Or accompanying aristocrats' dinner parties? That includes a decent chunk of music that's generally considered classical.


It's really a matter of what your criteria are for fine art. By your logic, Britney Spears could be classical.

So, to prevent this, you need to give us a more specific reply, and start making more substantive observations.


----------



## isorhythm

millionrainbows said:


> It's really a matter of what your criteria are for fine art. By your logic, Britney Spears could be classical.
> 
> So, to prevent this, you need to give us a more specific reply, and start making more substantive observations.


Not trying to start an argument just noting that the western classical music tradition includes plenty of utilitarian music.

I never mentioned anything about "fine art."


----------



## pianozach

Perhaps what we're seeing is a dissolving of Classical music. Just as the Baroque style of Classical music dissolved into Classical, and then to Romanticism, perhaps the whole of Classical has dissolved into something else. It may have been a long slow slide of a hundred years, or two hundred years, or perhaps longer. 

Maybe it was the fact that Classical music had always been appropriating folk tunes. Maybe it was the advent of Opera, which led to operetta, which led to the Stage Musical.

Perhaps the lines have blurred so much that it's no longer appropriate to refer to new Classical music as Classical at all.

Maybe we've moved on to something else; we could call it "Art music", so that the different aspects of chamber and orchestral music can include film music, television music, and some of the Broadway repertoire.


----------



## eljr

pianozach said:


> Perhaps what we're seeing is a dissolving of Classical music. Just as the Baroque style of Classical music dissolved into Classical, and then to Romanticism, perhaps the whole of Classical has dissolved into something else. It may have been a long slow slide of a hundred years, or two hundred years, or perhaps longer.
> 
> Maybe it was the fact that Classical music had always been appropriating folk tunes. Maybe it was the advent of Opera, which led to operetta, which led to the Stage Musical.
> 
> Perhaps the lines have blurred so much that it's no longer appropriate to refer to new Classical music as Classical at all.
> 
> Maybe we've moved on to something else; we could call it "Art music", so that the different aspects of chamber and orchestral music can include film music, television music, and some of the Broadway repertoire.


art music already exists
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_genre


----------



## larold

_Perhaps what we're seeing is a dissolving of Classical music. _

There used to be a term for music that merged classical discipline and popular freedom: crossover. I doubt anyone thinks that about film scores.


----------



## pianozach

pianozach said:


> Perhaps what we're seeing is a dissolving of Classical music. Just as the Baroque style of Classical music dissolved into Classical, and then to Romanticism, perhaps the whole of Classical has dissolved into something else. It may have been a long slow slide of a hundred years, or two hundred years, or perhaps longer.
> 
> Maybe it was the fact that Classical music had always been appropriating folk tunes. Maybe it was the advent of Opera, which led to operetta, which led to the Stage Musical.
> 
> Perhaps the lines have blurred so much that it's no longer appropriate to refer to new Classical music as Classical at all.
> 
> Maybe we've moved on to something else; we could call it "Art music", so that the different aspects of chamber and orchestral music can include film music, television music, and some of the Broadway repertoire.





eljr said:


> art music already exists
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_genre


Fine. Call it something else.



larold said:


> _Perhaps what we're seeing is a dissolving of Classical music. _
> 
> There used to be a term for music that merged classical discipline and popular freedom: crossover. I doubt anyone thinks that about film scores.


Crossover.

Film scores cover such a wide range of musical styles. they can be anything they want or need to be.

How many ballets have been composed in the last ten years?


----------



## caracalla

isorhythm said:


> Not trying to start an argument just noting that the western classical music tradition includes plenty of utilitarian music. I never mentioned anything about "fine art."


Actually, the issues we have here are very similar to those in the visual arts, but let's focus first on the music. I'm not wild about the term 'utilitarian' music, as it seems unnecessarily disparaging, but would be happy to settle for 'applied'. Anyway, we know what we're talking about, and as you say there is plenty of it.

Thus far we have identified: opera, ballet, incidental music, dance music, music designed to adorn other social functions and entertainments, state ceremonial and church music. Those of us arguing for the inclusion of film music would put it in this group; probably in close proximity to incidental music for the theatre. Obviously, in all these cases, we are only claiming music in the classical genre - ie, in the same style as serious/art music designed for concert performance.

Some people seem to be arguing not only that film music should be barred from the CM fold, but also that all these other categories of applied/functional/utilitarian music should be banished from it. That is at least consistent, and I think it's the argument you have to make if you want respectable grounds for keeping film out. But let's talk through the consequences. If all these things are thrown under a bus, CM is sadly diminished. Obviously there are severe losses throughout the repertoire, but the further back you go, the worse it gets. The Baroque is stripped bare; the Renaissance is virtually wiped out. I can't believe most anti-filmics really want to go there, and even if they do, fans of EM and/or opera aren't going to let them. This is a not a runner and it is not going to resolve the issue.

In the visual arts, of course, people have been squabbling for centuries about the demarcation between the fine and the applied (or decorative) arts. 'Fine art' is just the equivalent of concert music - stuff designed to serve no other purpose than be appreciated for its own sake. It needn't be fine in any other sense, and often isn't. The 18thC wanted to think otherwise, and made heroic attempts to separate the (inherently superior) fine from the (inherently inferior) applied arts, but there were always big problems. How to classify portraiture, for example? And what to do about Greek vase painting? That had to be put on a pedestal because it was Greek, but was inconveniently as decorative as it gets.

In the 19thC, the mess got a lot worse, especially after people acquired a taste for quattrocento and earlier art. If you could no longer dismiss these things as 'primitive', you had to face the fact that most of them had been produced to serve didactive functions in church, or devotional in the home. Worse, much of the secular stuff - which had particular appeal - had begun life as decorative panels for furniture. Unsurprisingly, I think, a powerful movement had developed by the end of the century demanding that the fine/applied dichotomy be finally and completely abandoned, but that never really happened either.

Anyway, if we absolutely had to, I think we could probably work out a similar demarcation in CM beween concert and applied/functional music. This wouldn't be burdened with the snobbish historical baggage of the visual arts, and there needn't be any issue of relative status. Obviously, it helps that so much of the applied stuff is acknowledged to be as good as CM gets.

If we can't/won't do that (and we very probably won't), then, sorry, but film has to be in there anyway. I don't care if most of it (or even all of it) is deemed to be lousy. There's loads of lousy music in all CM categories, including concert. The concert stuff is the worst, because there's nothing else to be done with it and never was. Happily, most of it has long since sunk into oblivion, and bad film music is quite capable of following suit.


----------



## Guest

Enthusiast said:


> Picture a long glass or bottle filled with liquids of differing densities. Leave it to stand and and the liquids would form layers. Shake it and it will homogenise. But, of course, my metaphor doesn't work that well because once the liquid settled again it would do so in the old hierarchy. Perhaps when you shake it you can add a solid that will dissolve in some of the liquids but not in others. That would change their relative densities. Sorry, not so much an argument as playing with the term I used - fluid!


Interesting playing...but I'm not sure I get it.



Enthusiast said:


> And, as for human/social hierarchies, they do change over time. Revolution, new technology (that makes some players more powerful than they were), changing fashions ...


"Change" is not the same, to my mind, as "flexible". I assumed you meant that your hierachy of composers/compositions would not the the same as mine; or that it could flex over time, to accommodate new composers perhaps. But you could illustrate your point with reference to _your _hierarchy of music and who's in it.

@caracalla

I follow your broad argument, but would query some points



caracalla said:


> Some people seem to be arguing not only that film music *should *be barred from the CM fold, but also that all these other categories of applied/functional/utilitarian music *should *be banished from it.


We might need to be clear which people. My own starting point - which has led me to say both 'yes' and 'no' - is that it doesn't matter, so for me, there is no 'should' about it.



caracalla said:


> If all these things are thrown under a bus, CM is sadly diminished. Obviously there are severe losses throughout the repertoire, but the further back you go, the worse it gets. The Baroque is stripped bare; the Renaissance is virtually wiped out. I can't believe most anti-filmics really want to go there, and even if they do, fans of EM and/or opera aren't going to let them. This is a not a runner and it is not going to resolve the issue.


Only if one has such a proprietorial of classification that one believes the right music must belong to one's own cherished genre, or it is somehow diminshed. It's not as if the music has gone anywhere. It just doesn't "belong" to one any more. (that sounded more laboured than it needed, just trying to avoid using the potentially confusing 'you'!)



caracalla said:


> The 18thC wanted to think otherwise, and made heroic attempts to separate the (inherently superior) fine from the (inherently inferior) applied arts,


And that is the 'problem' that persists to this day. For those who want to retain the purity of 'their' version of classical music, film music is inherently inferior, a bastardised corruption of the real thing. For those who want film music to be admitted, it's about achieving greatness by association with that purity. But since it can't even be agreed what "classical" music is - though you can find dictionary definitions, the application of the definition is always an inexact science - how can it be possible to decide, once and for all, whether film music does or does not belong?

The only people I picture being genuinely vexed by this is those in the shops who have to decide where/how to display their wares, or music historians who can't deal with more than one thread at a time.


----------



## mikeh375

It is right for Macleod and others to attempt to attempt to hammer out some definitions of the genre 'classical' imv, especially when considering extraneous influences. 
For example, my instinct is that John Williams approaches his scores with a different mindset to his concert work, he has to because the artifice and discipline for film scoring has differences in approach to concert writing. That alone is a possible justification for saying his film work _isn't_ classical in at least one broad, professional and musical sense, i.e. not fulfilling the criteria for an ordered (or unordered!) artistic expression with an implicit freedom from restrictions, other than those the composer imposes upon themselves - imagination unhinged and not beholden.

Even classical music that has a literary source has unlimited creative options that do not impinge on the composer to the extent film scoring does which in Williams case and out of necessity, sometimes tempers his language into a more user friendly one. One only need to compare the opening of his violin concerto to any of his blockbuster tunes to hear how drastic the musical paradigm shift is.

I keep mentioning Williams because he is the best example of one who excels in both film and concert work. In his work there is obviously much technical and musical crossover between the two disciplines and that contributes to his greatness and perhaps his somewhat ambiguous standing with listeners.


----------



## Fabulin

I am not sure if intention is a groud for categorization. Classical music tradition has been built by people who interpret pieces differently than the composers intended.

Gabriel Yared's (rejected) music for _Troy_, or Alex North's music for _2001: A Space Odyssey_ are by some considered to do just fine with the footage, or even better in some scenes than what the filmmakers actually went with. Both are pleasing standalone listens as well. Since they were written for film but both were judged to be too close to a composer's vision and too far from the vision of the filmmakers, does it make them rejected because they were conceived with an unconquerable classical mindset?

Another issue that came to my mind:

I often see lightly tossed comments that (great) film music "works well in a film", which makes it good film music, but _since _it does not work in concert, it is not classical music. Considering their own logic, if it did, it would not be excluded from classical music. And considering that they are factually wrong about it not working in concerts, it cannot be excluded on that ground.
I am not sure if they are to be found in this thread, but in older threads and the Williams-charlatan one certainly.

Bernard Herrmann said once:

"It is one of the paradoxes of cinema music that music correctly used can be music of very poor quality and be efffective, or be music of magnificent quality, and also serve it's purpose".

He then went on to directly compare this music to the incidental and church genres:

"I feel that it is a responsibility of any gifted composer of our time to do a certain amount of creative work in these new media. I believe that all composers at all times had to do music of their time and meet the... music that was needed. I mean, after all, Mozart and Haydn were not above writing dinner music while their patrons ate, and they were not above writing music for special singers or instrumentalists, and on the other hand Bach certainly thought nothing of writing his weekly cantata for a church service. It's only a question of the time one lives in. The present time we live in cinema and television is a great vehicle for contemporary music, and by contemporary music I mean that you can have experimentation in both those mediums and the most avant-garde musical techniques and an audience will accept it, provided it is compatible with a dramatic situation of the film".

Compatible is an interesting take; not the same as a complete slave.

This paradox of quality is often encountered in discussions of recent film music; some defend bare-bones compositions for films, which are full of non-musical sounds tossed in, long sustained notes (or layers thereof) drones, electronic beats and basses, and perhaps singular intruments"playing something",and not much actual composition, whether of tonal or any significant atonal logic, on the grounds that such music is sufficiently effective in a film, and that one doesn't need symphonic music to serve the picture.

The detractors on the other hand point out that such music has no or little outside potential as a standalone listening experience, not to mention as a concert experience, and point to a detriment of a culture where music written for film has been written with a thought of a possible double life as concert music.

Some may say that this quality of film music, for example of Williams, is not a result a conscious ambition to place it in a tradition of classical music, but rather of a general "pious" hard labour on the quality of the music for it's own sake, like Bach's or of other baroque composers when they wrote as good as possible for the abstract purpose of honoring their God.

But doesn't that "pure" goal of making quality music, composed via conservatoire tactics, make it classical by birth?

And anyway, in terms of categorizing and definitions, what "quality" is Herrmann talking about that is not, at the same time, what others would call, a mark of "good film music"?


----------



## millionrainbows

caracalla said:


> Some people seem to be arguing not only that film music should be barred from the CM fold, but also that all these other categories of applied/functional/utilitarian music should be banished from it. That is at least consistent, and I think it's the argument you have to make if you want respectable grounds for keeping film out. But let's talk through the consequences. If all these things are thrown under a bus, CM is sadly diminished. Obviously there are severe losses throughout the repertoire, but the further back you go, the worse it gets. The Baroque is stripped bare; the Renaissance is virtually wiped out. I can't believe most anti-filmics really want to go there, and even if they do, fans of EM and/or opera aren't going to let them. This is a not a runner and it is not going to resolve the issue.


The problem with the rejection of a "fine art" distinction in music is that social and cultural contexts have changed. In Bach's day, the Church was the seat of power, so all music produced for religious purposes could (unfairly) be classified as "utilitarian." It was the only game in town.

Now that the middle class has emerged, the Church is no longer the power, and things are secular, then we have to examine the new contexts of power in which music is created.

The main flaw in arguing against the "utilitarian" stance is that the "fine art" criteria are being applied to music of the past from different contexts, produced under different circumstances. To make the "fine art" argument work, we need to stop 'objectifying' the music to include the _subjective element of the artist. _
Bach, for instance: Was the artist sincere? What was the artist's true intent? Is there real motivation behind the work which could be identified as "reaching for the sublime" which causes it to "transcend" its utilitarian purpose? In Bach's case we would say "yes."
In the case of John Williams and film music, there is no doubt that this is "music produced on demand."

The question we must now ask is, "Is this music good enough to _transcend_ its intended utilitarian purpose to become fine art?"

This can even apply to pop artists: The Beatles transcended their utilitarian boundaries and are considered as "art" to many. Old blues artists are seen in the same way.

So, this argument is really an "art" argument which can be universally applied. It's not just a question of "classical" music.


----------



## millionrainbows

Fabulin said:


> I am not sure if *intention *is a groud for categorization. Classical music tradition has been built by people who interpret pieces differently than the composers intended.


Intention of the composer is certainly a factor in determining if music is "fine art" and has a "sublime purpose" which transcends its utilitarian context. In this sense, this reinforces mikeh375's argument that John Williams is a sincere composer who produces quality music which transcends its status as 'merely film music.'


----------



## mikeh375

Fabulin said:


> ............................................
> .......................*Some may say that this quality of film music, for example of Williams, is not a result a conscious ambition to place it in a tradition of classical music, but rather of a general "pious" hard labour on the quality of the music for it's own sake, l*ike Bach's or of other baroque composers when they wrote as good as possible for the abstract purpose of honoring their God.
> 
> *But doesn't that "pure" goal of making quality music, composed via conservatoire tactics, make it classical by birth?
> *
> And anyway, in terms of categorizing and definitions, what "quality" is Herrmann talking about that is not, at the same time, what others would call, a mark of "good film music"?


That's a good point fabulin for sure. We know that Williams is the ultimate pro - in fact he is schooled so well that he has no choice but to deliver in brilliant fashion, whatever the medium - he can't do it any other way, he wouldn't know how to.

I still hold out that the paradigm is different for writing for film as opposed to 'art' music when considering it from the composers' pov. To take one aspect, the linear narrative is dictated by on screen events and the resultant music - albeit it technically and musically perfect when delivered - has still been created because of an external imposition that is far more restrictive than any other external input or source. The only goal of the music is to be subservient (in the main) and on ocassion, to be on a level pegging and that is part of the mindset that informs the writing - it has to be that way. My pov suggests that _could_ be grounds for not calling film music classical. (I get the argument that compares my pov with opera but I think that opera and it's narrative are the composer's to control and freedom of expression is not limited).

I still believe Williams does crossover and even cross-fertilise comfortably enough, despite the apparent contradiction to this in my line of reasoning. Ultimately though there is a limit as to how expressive one can be and even the expression in a cue is being dictated to by the clock. This is not the case in concert music and probably also explains Williams' own excursions into the concert hall---there is more to say and to be said for its own sake and on its own terms.


----------



## flamencosketches

OK, finally voted in my own poll. My final answer: *No*, film music is not classical music. It's film music. There are classical composers who composed film music, like Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Arnold, etc-but that doesn't make it classical music. That being said, much like classical music can be made into film music by being used in film, film music can be made into classical music by being adapted for the concert hall, à la Prokofiev's Lt. Kijé Suite, or say someone made a theme and variations on Williams's Star Wars themes. Furthermore, I'm not entirely sure incidental music is classical music either.


----------



## Fabulin

mikeh375 said:


> I still hold out that the paradigm is different for writing for film as opposed to 'art' music when considering it from the composers' pov. To take one aspect, the linear narrative is dictated by on screen events and the resultant music - albeit it technically and musically perfect when delivered - has still been created because of an external imposition that is far more restrictive than any other external input or source. The only goal of the music is to be subservient (in the main) and on ocassion, to be on a level pegging and that is part of the mindset that informs the writing - it has to be that way. My pov suggests that _could_ be grounds for not calling film music classical. (I get the argument that compares my pov with opera but I think that opera and it's narrative are the composer's to control and freedom of expression is not limited).
> 
> Ultimately though there is a limit as to how expressive one can be and even the expression in a cue is being dictated to by the clock.


I've been writing prose, poetry, and even some music for my own amusement and expression since I was a child. I have to say that some degree of external structure or goals next to personal expression is very beneficial towards weeding out melodramatic and lazy tendencies that I think all human beings, especially those artistically inclined, and all of their idols, have or in their time have had within. The problem classical music faced during Romanticism and beyond were the dissolving structures. By the mid-20th century, anything went. Film music meanwhile has structures, and music listeners like those (I like fugues and rondos, for example). The goal is not wallowing or chirping around, but the suspense and driving towards an incoming event. Film music can be as full of those, as are symphonies.

The fact that said structures and incoming events are provided on a silver platter (the silver screen) is simply convenient for the listener, and as a form of constraint on the composer does not differ in _kind _(even if it does in degree) from a patron giving a more or less fortunate fugue subject. Would it in this philosophical context surprise you that Williams' favourite composer is Joseph Haydn?


----------



## mikeh375

Fabulin said:


> I've been writing prose, poetry, and even some music for my own amusement and expression since I was a child. I have to say that some degree of external structure or goals next to personal expression is very beneficial towards weeding out melodramatic and lazy tendencies that I think all human beings, especially those artistically inclined, and all of their idols, have or in their time have had within. The problem classical music faced during Romanticism and beyond were the dissolving structures. By the mid-20th century, anything went. Film music meanwhile has structures, and music listeners like those (I like fugues and rondos, for example). The goal is not wallowing or chirping around, but the suspense and driving towards an incoming event. Film music can be as full of those, as are symphonies.
> 
> *The fact that said structures and incoming events are provided on a silver platter (the silver screen) is simply convenient for the listener, and as a form of constraint on the composer does not differ in kind (even if it does in degree)* from a patron giving a more or less fortunate fugue subject. Would it in this philosophical context surprise you that Williams' favourite composer is Joseph Haydn?


Yes, a question of degree. How much a degree of imposition is there - are the strictures imposed at their most limiting in film, dictating as they often do, everything from duration and expression through to timbre and dynamic? Does the extent to which a compromise in the writing that is forced upon the composer, actually compromise (perhaps a better term would be subdue), the natural inclination of the gifted and able voice to express him/her self more fully?

It is that externally imposed technical and expressive restraint the music needs as a score that seems to be at odds with what I expect from concert music, where one can expect to encounter profundity, personal highly charged meaning and expression all written with the fullest power required at any time without hindrances other than the internal logic of the composers aesthetics and proclivities.

Structure and goal orientated working is vital but music does not need a movie, neither does a composer. Strictures are good too as we know - essential in fact - but again, no movie needed. The 20thC generally speaking, did not lose structure as far as the composer was concerned imv. It certainly lost comprehension with audiences which is of course a different thing altogether, however ymmv.

I seem to be arguing against film music being considered classical but only depending upon the definition of the word. I hope you know me a bit better these days and might recognise that I'm coming at that definition from a composer perspective, one who has written both ways (not that my experience is definitive on this of course). From a listeners definition and pov I believe I have a different view as to whether or not quality, orchestral/chamber music is classical.


----------



## Fabulin

mikeh375 said:


> Yes, a question of degree. How much a degree of imposition is there - are the strictures imposed at their most limiting in film, dictating as they often do, everything from duration and expression through to timbre and dynamic? Does the extent to which a compromise in the writing that is forced upon the composer, actually compromise (perhaps a better term would be subdue), the natural inclination of the gifted and able voice to express him/her self more fully?
> 
> It is that externally imposed technical and expressive restraint the music needs as a score that seems to be at odds with what I expect from concert music, where one can expect to encounter profundity, personal highly charged meaning and expression all written with the fullest power required at any time without hindrances other than the internal logic of the composers aesthetics and proclivities.
> 
> Structure and goal orientated working is vital but music does not need a movie, neither does a composer. Strictures are good too as we know - essential in fact - but again, no movie needed. The 20thC generally speaking, did not lose structure as far as the composer was concerned imv. It certainly lost comprehension with audiences which is of course a different thing altogether, however ymmv.
> 
> I seem to be arguing against film music being considered classical but only depending upon the definition of the word. I hope you know me a bit better these days and might recognise that I'm coming at that definition from a composer perspective, one who has written both ways (not that my experience is definitive on this of course). From a listeners definition and pov I believe I have a different view as to whether or not quality, orchestral/chamber music is classical.


I wouldn't say that everything is determined beyond choice, unless we are talking most extreme autocratic demands of following the temp track. I don't have personal experience with that, but over the history of cinema film directors often went for composers who leaned towards certain sound palette anyway, so chose fish for swimming jobs and birds for flying jobs. Even George Lucas, after the first Star Wars film, which is notorious for a classical temp track, said that the music delivered was much better than he expected. So even there there was quite a field for the artist to play. One only needs to look at the music written by Nino Rota, Ennio Morricone, John Barry, or Bernard Herrmann indeed to see that there is plenty of potential for interpretation of drama into one's own personal language.

The composer has all the knowledge necessary to surprise a layman filmmaker with music better than they thought and get them on board of their ideas, no? When Danny Elfman presented his dark Batman theme, it was considered too brooding and not heroic enough; but when he took it into a symphonic pass the ball game and added snares that play the theme anyway, his result was accepted with great enthusiasm, and his plan for the aesthetics of the music in this film (which were his reaction to walking around the film sets and various art and props) was accepted.

As for the second aspect of expression, my take is that music as a medium can only have an illusion of profundity. Of course a composer of wordless music can tell their emotional story to some extent, but not much more. Even at their scientific (psychology and engineering) best, non-linguistical sound signals can only convey so much. Unless we are talking sung philosophical poetry, the rest is placebo, not to call it delusions of individual listeners, I'm afraid.

You said that film is unnecessary for quality (as a structure), but for a vast majority of observers, including many well educated ones (conductors, analysts) the film music of Herrmann and Williams stands on a higher level than their concert work, with exceptions few and far between. I've heard (I think) all concert pieces of both composers, as well as their film scores---in many cases, especially with Herrmann---without having seen the film or knowing anything about it, and I would agree. If it was only about expression, then the moment those composers were untamed, their music would have been much better off, wouldn't it?

Programmatic music has depended heavily on written or told programmes even before motion pictures of human actors or land- or cityscapes and so on came to provide such context. Musically conscious filmmakers such as Steven Spielberg, Sergio Leone or Peter Jackson leave space (in the sense of long takes and sequences) for music on purpose, to rely on it for telling some of the story. I think that is, together with providing well written scenarios, what makes film structures invite good music. This was my point.


----------



## caracalla

MacLeod said:


> And that is the 'problem' that persists to this day. For those who want to retain the purity of 'their' version of classical music, film music is inherently inferior, a bastardised corruption of the real thing. For those who want film music to be admitted, it's about achieving greatness by association with that purity. But since it can't even be agreed what "classical" music is - though you can find dictionary definitions, the application of the definition is always an inexact science - how can it be possible to decide, once and for all, whether film music does or does not belong?


I agree that trying to nail down 'classical music' raises all kinds of difficulties, but for practical purposes some kind of working definition is highly desirable. For example, what might people reasonably expect to find on a music forum calling itself 'Talk Classical'? Why is it called that and not just 'Talk Music'?

Afaiac, CM doesn't really exist as a coherent entity, it's more an agglomeration of musics through the ages that have been bundled together under that rubric. An artificial construct with very partial internal logic, though of course it has also developed some unifying traditions. We know where we are, more or less, with historic music (it's there or not because the CM tradition says so), but boundaries need to be negotiated wrt other kinds of music in the present or CM dissolves altogether as a concept. When new forms like film music arise, they raise legitimate questions of inclusion or exclusion - as do new things for any tradition that doesn't want to consider itself a closed museum piece.

I think you're right to suggest that the quality/cachet issue is probably a major factor on both sides of the film fence, though this is hard to weigh as overt argument on these grounds is often shy. Be that as it may, I'm entering a personal plea of 'not guilty'. On the one hand, I don't really hold a candle for film music (I find it convenient to catalogue as CM the tiny quantity I've thought worth collecting, but I don't need TC's endorsement for that). On the other, I dislike the aura of exclusiveness and awed religiosity that so easily attaches to the arts - 'great' literature, 'fine' art, 'classical' music. Most of the stuff generated by professionals has been at least competent; a tiny proportion has been sublime. Our familiarity with the latter probably leads us to judge the mediocre too harshly, but even so. Time's filter creates a fantastically distorted impression wrt overall quality.

How can the question of film music as CM be decided one way or the other? Not by chewing over the fat like this. It will be decided pragmatically. If enough people involved in realising CM - as performers, radio hosts, record producers, etc - find it advantageous to include it in their programmes, and their audiences do not reject it, then over time it will simply become established as a natural part of the CM repertoire. My impression is that this process is already underway.


----------



## EdwardBast

caracalla said:


> How can the question of film music as CM be decided one way or the other? Not by chewing over the fat like this. It will be decided pragmatically. If enough people involved in realising CM - as performers, radio hosts, record producers, etc - find it advantageous to include it in their programmes, and their audiences do not reject it, then over time it will simply become established as a natural part of the CM repertoire. My impression is that this process is already underway.


I wrote a wordier version of the above argument before I read caracalla's post. I think the above nails the issue. It's just a mundane, practical, institutional question in the long run.


----------



## Woodduck

"Classical music" is a category, not a thing. Categories are subject to change, and in different contexts things get categorized differently. Sometimes how we categorize things is important, but nothing of consequence hangs on whether something wins inclusion in the category "classical music." If enough symphony orchestras and classical musicians play an arrangement of music from "ET" and their audiences accept it and enjoy it (which I do), it inhabits two categories: film music and classical music. We can still say that a score "sounds like movie music" when we hear in a concert work qualities we perceive as typical of music written for films.


----------



## hammeredklavier

flamencosketches said:


> OK, finally voted in my own poll. My final answer: *No*, film music is not classical music. It's film music. There are classical composers who composed film music, like Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Arnold, etc-but that doesn't make it classical music. That being said, much like classical music can be made into film music by being used in film, film music can be made into classical music by being adapted for the concert hall, à la Prokofiev's Lt. Kijé Suite, or say someone made a theme and variations on Williams's Star Wars themes. Furthermore, I'm not entirely sure incidental music is classical music either.


I think in order for a piece of music to be considered "classical music", it has to be performed, recorded by various artists over time. There should be some sort of "practice of various renditions" on the exact same piece of music. There aren't several different artists performing Beatles' songs (based on their "personal interpretation" of the works) today, so Beatles isn't considered classical. The same logic should apply to film music. Jazz is mostly about individual artists' improvisations, so it's not classical either.


----------



## consuono

hammeredklavier said:


> I think in order for a piece of music to be considered "classical music", it has to be performed, recorded by various artists over time. There should be some sort of "practice of various renditions" on the exact same piece of music. There aren't several different artists performing Beatles' songs (based on their "personal interpretation" of the works) today, so Beatles isn't considered classical. The same logic should apply to film music. Jazz is mostly about individual artists' improvisations, so it's not classical either.


Improvisation was an important and cultivated skill for musicians especially in the 17th and 18th centuries, so was Handel, Scarlatti or Mozart improvising "classical music"? I think in retrospect MacLeod may have had a point after all in saying there's a difference between "classical" and "art music". I prefer the broader term "art music". "Classical" seems to denote the frozen, ritualistic tuxedo and concert hall aspect, "art music" being defined (to use one of the online definitions) as music "that appl[ies] advanced structural and theoretical considerations with a written musical tradition". A lot of film scores certainly fit that definition. Much of it is not so tightly welded to the films in which it's used that it can't be enjoyed on its own _as music_ by itself, exactly as we do incidental music by Schubert or Mendelssohn. The same probably goes for ballet music. You don't have to have dancers onstage or choreography charts to perform or analyze Stravinsky's ballet scores, although for the most part that's how it was originally presented. It's still and always will be "ballet music" which is sort of a sub-genre. It's still "art", regardless. In my opinion anyway. In fact I'd say that most film scores by Herrmann, Goldsmith, Williams et al are probably more "artistic" and skillfully done than much of the more "classical" music of the past 60 years or so.


----------



## Guest

caracalla said:


> it's more an agglomeration of musics through the ages that have been bundled together under that rubric. An artificial construct with very partial internal logic, though of course it has also developed some unifying traditions.


Yes, exactly this.



caracalla said:


> I agree that trying to nail down 'classical music' raises all kinds of difficulties, but for practical purposes some kind of working definition is highly desirable. For example, what might people reasonably expect to find on a music forum calling itself 'Talk Classical'? Why is it called that and not just 'Talk Music'?
> 
> Afaiac, CM doesn't really exist as a coherent entity, it's more an agglomeration of musics through the ages that have been bundled together under that rubric. An artificial construct with very partial internal logic, though of course it has also developed some unifying traditions. We know where we are, more or less, with historic music (it's there or not because the CM tradition says so), but boundaries need to be negotiated wrt other kinds of music in the present or CM dissolves altogether as a concept.


I'm not sure that it's too critical for the residents of TC to be sure of the definition of classical. I mean, if it was settled, that would render some conversations mute/moot. And I don't see that CM would 'dissolve' as a concept, but it has certainly evolved.

The concept that TCers have is plainly not a unified one. But there is a core of agreement that will endure, no matter much disagreement there is about what should and shouldn't be included. Anyone showing up here as a newbie has a reasonable expectation that they'll find WAM, LVB, JSB and the rest and the admission of film music to the category won't bring down the hallowed halls of musical academia (though it gives some members here apoplexy.)


----------



## Guest

hammeredklavier said:


> There aren't several different artists performing Beatles' songs (based on their "personal interpretation" of the works) today, so Beatles isn't considered classical.


I'm not going to argue that The Beatles is classical. But their work is performed, imitated and covered.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cover_versions_of_Beatles_songs


----------



## hammeredklavier

MacLeod said:


> I'm not going to argue that The Beatles is classical. But their work is performed, imitated and covered. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cover_versions_of_Beatles_songs


Whatabout countless other pop artists who are NOT performed/imitated/covered by today's artists? Would you agree that they're not classical? And the Beatles didn't even use proper musical notation. How can we consider them to be part of the tradition? They're something else. I don't think they spoke the language of classical music. There has to be some kind of notated "final product" of "sheet music" that is to be continually used and referenced by the contemporary and later generations. And the Beatles don't have that.


----------



## larold

_I'm not going to argue that The Beatles is classical. But their work is performed, imitated and covered._

In one issue of the *Penguin Guide to Classical Music* the authors listed one or two Beatles albums. They mentioned songs such as_ Eleanor Rigby_ had the best qualities of Schubert lied: memorable melodies and counterpoint tied to text that was spellbinding with meanings beyond the words.

However, the Beatles apparently in later years discarded notions that some of their songs, such as _Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds_, _Revolution No. 9_, _A Day In the Life _and _Blackbird_, did not possess the double meanings popular culturists allied to them.


----------



## Guest

hammeredklavier said:


> Whatabout countless other pop artists who are NOT performed/imitated/covered by today's artists? Would you agree that they're not classical? And the Beatles didn't even use proper musical notation. How can we consider them to be part of the tradition? They're something else. I don't think they spoke the language of classical music. There has to be some kind of notated "final product" of "sheet music" that is to be continually used and referenced by the contemporary and later generations. And the Beatles don't have that.


You seem to be taking issue with me...but I clearly stated that I'm NOT claiming that The Beatles belong to the classical tradition.


----------



## EdwardBast

Woodduck said:


> "Classical music" is a category, not a thing. Categories are subject to change, and in different contexts things get categorized differently. Sometimes how we categorize things is important, but nothing of consequence hangs on whether something wins inclusion in the category "classical music." *If enough symphony orchestras and classical musicians play an arrangement of music from "ET" and their audiences accept it and enjoy it (which I do), it inhabits two categories: film music and classical music.* We can still say that a score "sounds like movie music" when we hear in a concert work qualities we perceive as typical of music written for films.


There is also a subcategory of classical music, light classical (Pops), to accommodate movie suites and the like, with different venues, audiences, and specialist conductors. Pops orchestras, like Boston and Cincinnati in the U.S., play and record lots of film music. Many potboilers of the classical rep go here to die (or win a new lease on life?). I imagine Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture gets more performances in public parks on one day in July than it does the rest of the year by mainstream orchestras.


----------



## consuono

EdwardBast said:


> There is also a subcategory of classical music, light classical (Pops), to accommodate movie suites and the like, with different venues, audiences, and specialist conductors. Pops orchestras, like Boston and Cincinnati in the U.S., play and record lots of film music. Many potboilers of the classical rep go here to die (or win a new lease on life?). I imagine Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture gets more performances in public parks on one day in July than it does the rest of the year by mainstream orchestras.


"Light classical" implies a value judgement. Is Prokofiev's music for Alexander Nevsky "lighter" than Stravinsky's for Petrouchka?


----------



## EdwardBast

consuono said:


> "Light classical" implies a value judgement. Is Prokofiev's music for Alexander Nevsky "lighter" than Stravinsky's for Petrouchka?


No, it doesn't imply a value judgment. It's just a category, like "Easy Listening" or "Bubble Gum" or "Hair Metal." My point is that it's possible for music to be accepted and widely heard in Pops concerts and concerts in the park without ever breaking into the repertoire of major orchestras in their regular concert series - that it's not either classical or not. There is an in-between category.

Nevsky isn't lighter. Nor is it performed at Pops concerts (to my knowledge).


----------



## pianozach

MacLeod said:


> I'm not going to argue that The Beatles is classical. But their work is performed, imitated and covered.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cover_versions_of_Beatles_songs


Not only does the Beatles catalog of music have influence over popular music from the 60s to the 20s, the specific catalog is, indeed, "performed, imitated and covered".

It is also performed by groups EXACTLY as recorded, sometimes to extraordinarily precise standards, even to the point of performing the music of an entire album EXACTLY as recorded. Just like an orchestra will.


----------



## isorhythm

There is some conflation in this thread between two questions, whether it's classical and whether it's "high art." As far as I'm concerned these questions are totally unrelated. Classical refers to music that comes out of a particular European written music tradition, including both high art and forgettable utilitarian pieces. The exact borders of that will necessarily be fuzzy, but at the end of the day the definition is just, as caracalla said, music that people generally consider classical. By that metric I would say that film scores as such are probably not classical, but suites or other concert pieces derived from film scores are on the fuzzy edge - occasionally showing up at classical concerts, more frequently at pops concerts, probably not shelved in the classical section in stores most of the time.

I also don't think "high art"/"utilitarian" is a sharp distinction or even a clear one-dimensional continuum, but other people have already addressed that issue in more detail.


----------



## hammeredklavier

consuono said:


> Improvisation was an important and cultivated skill for musicians especially in the 17th and 18th centuries, so was Handel, Scarlatti or Mozart improvising "classical music"? I think in retrospect MacLeod may have had a point after all in saying there's a difference between "classical" and "art music".


But how much of classical music performance today consists of improvisation? In jazz, people don't call jazz performances "jazz improvisation". When they attend a jazz concert, they automatically know in advance there will be improvisations. Classical music isn't like that. Yes, Handel, Scarlatti, Mozart improvised, but they didn't call anything they themselves wrote down on score "classical music" either. What they did is "classical music" from "our point of view", not theirs.
I should have worded more correctly: the general classical music philosophy puts greater importance and value in _"what the masters decided to do"_ than _"what the performers today decide to do with what the masters did"_. So yes, all the "improvisations" the masters had down on score also counts as "classical music". Mozart visited the Strahov Monastery in Prague in 1787, improvised on the organ there. The organist of the monastery, Norbert Lehmann wrote on score a fragment of what Mozart played. And in the 20th century, a Czech composer named Jiri Ropek completed the work.


----------



## consuono

hammeredklavier said:


> But how much of classical music performance today consists of improvisation?


Not much at all, but it's a skill that died out. It's irrelevant to the question.


> In jazz, people don't call jazz performances "jazz improvisation". When they attend a jazz concert, they automatically know in advance there will be improvisations. Classical music isn't like that. Yes, Handel, Scarlatti, Mozart improvised, but they didn't call anything they themselves wrote down on score "classical music" either. What they did is "classical music" from "our point of view", not theirs.
> I should have worded more correctly: the general classical music philosophy puts greater importance and value in _"what the masters decided to do"_ than _"what the performers today decide to do with what the masters did"_. So yes, all the "improvisations" the masters had down on score also counts as "classical music".


Hmmm. There's a circularity there. What defines a "master"?


----------



## millionrainbows

hammeredklavier said:


> But how much of classical music performance today consists of improvisation? In jazz, people don't call jazz performances "jazz improvisation". When they attend a jazz concert, they automatically know in advance there will be improvisations. Classical music isn't like that. Yes, Handel, Scarlatti, Mozart improvised, but they didn't call anything they themselves wrote down on score "classical music" either. What they did is "classical music" from "our point of view", not theirs.


I disagree with this, generally. I was listening to Evgeny Kissin playing Rachmaninoff and Scriabin, and although it's not improvised, there's a lot of translating and poetic interpretation that goes into a good performance.


----------



## millionrainbows

hammeredklavier said:


> ...the general classical music philosophy puts greater importance and value in _"what the masters decided to do"_ than _"what the performers today decide to do with what the masters did"_. So yes, all the "improvisations" the masters had down on score also counts as "classical music".


That may be true in some quarters, but not mine. I do not consider the score to be a "platonic ideal" or the "sacred gospel." That's why I like Glenn Gould and other distinctive performers who can breathe life into things.

_(and John Cage)_


----------



## millionrainbows

isorhythm said:


> There is some conflation in this thread between two questions, whether it's classical and whether it's "high art." As far as I'm concerned these questions are totally unrelated. Classical refers to music that comes out of a particular European written music tradition, including both high art and forgettable utilitarian pieces. The exact borders of that will necessarily be fuzzy, but at the end of the day the definition is just, as caracalla said, music that people generally consider classical. By that metric I would say that film scores as such are probably not classical, but suites or other concert pieces derived from film scores are on the fuzzy edge - occasionally showing up at classical concerts, more frequently at pops concerts, probably not shelved in the classical section in stores most of the time.
> 
> I also don't think "high art"/"utilitarian" is a sharp distinction or even a clear one-dimensional continuum, but other people have already addressed that issue in more detail.


When you listen to Beethoven's Ninth, don't you listen to it for what it can do for you? Don't you think it was created just for your sublime contemplation? Surely the distinction is clear in this case.


----------



## isorhythm

millionrainbows said:


> When you listen to Beethoven's Ninth, don't you listen to it for what it can do for you? Don't you think it was created just for your sublime contemplation? Surely the distinction is clear in this case.


Yes, I think Beethoven's 9th is about as pure an example of art for art's sake as you'll find, along with a lot of the 19th century and later Western classical repertoire. I just wouldn't want to make that a condition for music to be considered art. I think it excludes too much, particularly outside classical music.


----------



## pianozach

isorhythm said:


> Yes, I think Beethoven's 9th is about as pure an example of art for art's sake as you'll find, along with a lot of the 19th century and later Western classical repertoire. I just wouldn't want to make that a condition for music to be considered art. I think it excludes too much, particularly outside classical music.


Most of the "Old Masters" had their heyday long before film and film music became a "thing". Many 20th Century composers "jumped ship" and got onboard the film cruise liner.

Just a theoretical question (as it's really hypothetically unanswerable): If film had been invented in 1792 instead of 1892, do you think that 19th Century composer would have been creating film soundtracks?


----------



## Fabulin

pianozach said:


> Most of the "Old Masters" had their heyday long before film and film music became a "thing". Many 20th Century composers "jumped ship" and got onboard the film cruise liner.
> 
> Just a theoretical question (as it's really hypothetically unanswerable): If film had been invented in 1792 instead of 1892, do you think that 19th Century composer would have been creating film soundtracks?


I recommend the entire video, it's a beautiful thing to watch. But in 1:48-2:20 you have a direct reply 






I think that Meyerbeer, Rossini, Wagner, and many other prominent opera composers would have worked in film. In fact, the first film scores would have likely been written by someone like Salieri.

Liszt likely also would - he was a spiritual pioneer who wanted his Dante Symphony to be performed to slideshows of pictures by Bonaventura Genelli

Tchaikovsky was interested in venturing into the realm of ballet specialists, and loved writing operas, so he too would have written for film at least a couple of times

Beethoven is a likely no, and so are Bruckner and Mahler (and Sibelius).

Saint-Saens (1908) and Richard Strauss (1926) did write for film, so no questions there.


----------



## Ethereality

There are no great categories for music, because two things on the edge of two different categories can either be (a) almost exactly the same (like a Prokofiev film score vs an evocative contemporary work) or (b) they can be very different (like Zimmer's _Inception_ score vs Tallis's Spem in alium.) What is true instead is there is 'all sound as a whole,' and then each work falls not in categories but on a spectrum of different features. One spectrum that's suggested for then loosely defining 'Classical' is "How often it is recorded by different musicians." There's plenty of Classical that isn't performed a whole lot, but at the same time people like to perform and record covers of pop songs. We find what we call 'Classical' is most likely to be much more recorded by different musicians than other types of music. Classical music also fits well on another spectrum. It is more likely to be performed on certain instruments. There we have some valid measure to then artificially create a loose category called 'Classical.' There's some film music like Williams's that fits both of these spectra; it's both recorded often, and performed on the same instruments as most pieces. Unfortunately the more spectra we add to a category, the more arbitrary it becomes, because we're not really interested in categories to define music. We're interested in the _real_ definers, the spectra of features it has. The reason we're interested is because it's much more accurate and honest to a composer.


----------



## millionrainbows

isorhythm said:


> Yes, I think Beethoven's 9th is about as pure an example of art for art's sake as you'll find, along with a lot of the 19th century and later Western classical repertoire. I just wouldn't want to make that a condition for music to be considered art. I think it excludes too much, particularly outside classical music.


So you don't think a distinction between 'high art' and all the rest of all the stuff out there needs to be made? In this digital era, when we are overwhelmed by data, I think it's more important than ever to at least have a set of personal criteria which does this.


----------



## millionrainbows

Fabulin said:


> I think that Meyerbeer, Rossini, Wagner, and many other prominent opera composers would have worked in film. In fact, the first film scores would have likely been written by someone like Salieri.
> 
> Liszt likely also would - he was a spiritual pioneer who wanted his Dante Symphony to be performed to slideshows of pictures by Bonaventura Genelli
> 
> Tchaikovsky was interested in venturing into the realm of ballet specialists, and loved writing operas, so he too would have written for film at least a couple of times
> 
> Beethoven is a likely no, and so are Bruckner and Mahler (and Sibelius).
> 
> Saint-Saens (1908) and Richard Strauss (1926) did write for film, so no questions there.


But if these composers had been part of the film industry as we now know it, they would have been subject to editing, budgets, corporate decisions, guys in suits who think they know about art...in short, you'd have no legacy like they left. It's a nice thought, but the reality would be quite different.


----------



## isorhythm

pianozach said:


> Just a theoretical question (as it's really hypothetically unanswerable): If film had been invented in 1792 instead of 1892, do you think that 19th Century composer would have been creating film soundtracks?


Yes, I'm sure they would have, but I doubt they would have written their best or most ambitious music for film. I think that's clear from the incidental music composers in the 19th century did in fact write.


----------



## isorhythm

millionrainbows said:


> So you don't think a distinction between 'high art' and all the rest of all the stuff out there needs to be made? In this digital era, when we are overwhelmed by data, I think it's more important than ever to at least have a set of personal criteria which does this.


Not a sharp distinction. You might be able to put Beethoven's 9th in the "high" basket and Katy Perry in the "low" basket, but what about Motown?


----------



## Fabulin

millionrainbows said:


> But if these composers had been part of the film industry as we now know it, they would have been subject to editing, budgets, corporate decisions, guys in suits who think they know about art...in short, you'd have no legacy like they left. It's a nice thought, but the reality would be quite different.


The films sponsored by pre-Great War aristocratic Europeans, not to mention kings and emperors, for the sake of national pride, would be (from the composers' perspectives) better than the capitalist American cinema :tiphat: though. The rich in those days really liked expensive aesthetics in anything from clothing to buildings and ships, trains, decorations, furniture, etc..


----------



## JAS

isorhythm said:


> Not a sharp distinction. You might be able to put Beethoven's 9th in the "high" basket and Katy Perry in the "low" basket, but what about Motown?


And what happens when Carl Davis adapts Beethoven's music as the score for Abel Gance's Napoleon?


----------



## coffeerain

I think it's helpful to consider genre as being a "family resemblance" and so everything is part of every other genre in some sense. Of course, the more useful result of this conclusion is that it just depends on what you want to communicate when you use terms like "Classical music"


----------



## Fabulin

millionrainbows said:


> So you don't think a distinction between 'high art' and all the rest of all the stuff out there needs to be made? In this digital era, when we are overwhelmed by data, I think it's more important than ever to at least have a set of personal criteria which does this.


Ave to that. Of course Williams, Herrmann, and Co. are in the 'high art' basket...


----------



## larold

_Just a theoretical question (as it's really hypothetically unanswerable): If film had been invented in 1792 instead of 1892, do you think that 19th Century composer would have been creating film soundtracks?_

I don't know about that; my question would be would we ever have known Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Bruckner, Dvorak, Wagner, Mahler and all the other composers born after 1792? I have postulated one reason classical music no longer creates great music the world wants to know is because artists in the postwar 20th century moved toward multimedia art such as film.


----------



## EdwardBast

larold said:


> _Just a theoretical question (as it's really hypothetically unanswerable): If film had been invented in 1792 instead of 1892, do you think that 19th Century composer would have been creating film soundtracks?_
> 
> I don't know about that; my question would be would we ever have known Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Bruckner, Dvorak, Wagner, Mahler and all the other composers born after 1792? *I have postulated one reason classical music no longer creates great music the world wants to know is because artists in the postwar 20th century moved toward multimedia art such as film.*


In the 18thc artists moved toward multimedia art such as opera, which is why some of the most popular composers of that day are unknown now.


----------



## Guest

Fabulin said:


> Ave to that. Of course Williams, Herrmann, and Co. are in the 'high art' basket...


Their concert works or their film scores?


----------



## Guest

coffeerain said:


> I think it's helpful to consider genre as being a "family resemblance" and so everything is part of every other genre in some sense. Of course, the more useful result of this conclusion is that it just depends on what you want to communicate when you use terms like "Classical music"


I agree, though you still have to 'name that family'. If it's "Music", then it's just so much easier to separately identify the siblings and cousins that might be related.

Medieval
Baroque
Classical
Romantic
Opera
Film
Jazz
Popular
Pop
Rock 'n Roll
Rock
Metal
Ambient
Jazz
etc
etc
etc

Then we don't need to agonise about what belongs to the 'classical' family: film music takes its own place in the family.

(My only reservation with this analogy is that someone won't be able to resist the temptation to label some members as 'illegitimate'!)


----------



## Fabulin

MacLeod said:


> Their concert works or their film scores?


I do not distinguish. It's a non-issue to me, just like the concept of "race" in sociology.


----------



## Guest

Fabulin said:


> I do not distinguish.


So each and every piece by the three composers you name - and those implied by "etc" - belongs in the 'high art' category?


----------



## Fabulin

MacLeod said:


> So each and every piece by the three composers you name - and those implied by "etc" - belongs in the 'high art' category?


I am not in favour of the "high art" concept. I meant that if such a "racist" divide is enforced, a certain tree of composers must be deservedly included on the respected side, or else I withdraw my legitimization of the concept.


----------



## JAS

I suppose that I could be persuaded that there is a distinction between levels of art, but the term "high art" has so often been used for stuff that strikes me as utter garbage that the term actually carries a bad connotation. 

Is Wellington's Victory high art? How about Wagner's American Centennial March? Are all of the Strauss waltzes high art? How many concerts of pure high art have there been?


----------



## Guest

Fabulin said:


> I am not in favour of the "high art" concept. I meant that if such a "racist" divide is enforced, a certain tree of composers must be deservedly included on the respected side, or else I withdraw my legitimization of the concept.


It's that which I was checking. Your commitment to the idea is not based on the music but on the composer.


----------



## Fabulin

MacLeod said:


> It's that which I was checking. Your commitment to the idea is not based on the music but on the composer.


My idea of a composer is in turn based on the music he/she wrote.

I will restate my starting position:I would never have "known" that some of classical music "is not classical" because it has been written for a film, if I wasn't told otherwise by people on the internet. It's the same as "not knowing" that one is labeled this or that variety of -theist until one meets a preacher for the first time, or "not knowing" about racial differences in brain or whatever until one meets a physiognomist for the first time.

No arguments against film music in this thread, as far as I was able to tell, target what the music that we _hear _is like, or what is it like to read it. In a way, the music itself is not discussed, and it becomes, indeed a crypto succession dispute, as some have suggested earlier in the thread.


----------



## Guest

Fabulin said:


> My idea of a composer is in turn based on the music he/she wrote.


My idea of 'art' is based not on the composer who wrote it, but the product itself.


----------



## Fabulin

MacLeod said:


> My idea of 'art' is based not on the composer who wrote it, but the product itself.


Please refresh the page. You might have missed what I added.


----------



## SONNET CLV

Fabulin said:


> My idea of a composer is in turn based on the music he/she wrote.





MacLeod said:


> My idea of 'art' is based not on the composer who wrote it, but the product itself.


Is there any possibility that the idea of 'art' is based neither on the composer who wrote it _nor_ the product itself, but rather on the "eye of the beholder", or, perhaps more accurately in terms of musical art, on the "ear of the behearer"?

I wonder how far we may get holding this discussion about the artistic quality of musical works with one who was born deaf.

When the barbarians attacked with raping, pillaging, plundering, and other such barbarisms, they likely destroyed sculptures and paintings that many cherished as "art". They likely entered the sacristy of the soon-to-be-burned church and swilled some beer from the bejeweled chalice which sat on the fresco bedecked altar for hundreds of years. When the aliens arrive, they may not be the cheery musical spirits of Spielberg's _Close Encounters_..., but rather beings with less tolerance for the tones A4, B4, G4, G3, D4, and all the others, in whatever combinations they be arranged.

From where does the "idea of art" truly derive? That seems no simple issue, but somewhere in the complexity of the answer lies the concept of a "society" and its "judgments". And, both "societies" and "judgments" are susceptible to revision, alteration, modifications ... which, of course, changes everything once again.


----------



## DaveM

This was written circa 2003 for the movie, The Notebook. I haven't heard any contemporary/modern classical short piano work as beautiful since 2003. Just sayin'


----------



## Guest

SONNET CLV said:


> Is there any possibility that the idea of 'art' is based neither on the composer who wrote it _nor_ the product itself, but rather on the "eye of the beholder", or, perhaps more accurately in terms of musical art, on the "ear of the behearer"?
> 
> I wonder how far we may get holding this discussion about the artistic quality of musical works with one who was born deaf.
> 
> When the barbarians attacked with raping, pillaging, plundering, and other such barbarisms, they likely destroyed sculptures and paintings that many cherished as "art". They likely entered the sacristy of the soon-to-be-burned church and swilled some beer from the bejeweled chalice which sat on the fresco bedecked altar for hundreds of years. When the aliens arrive, they may not be the cheery musical spirits of Spielberg's _Close Encounters_..., but rather beings with less tolerance for the tones A4, B4, G4, G3, D4, and all the others, in whatever combinations they be arranged.
> 
> From where does the "idea of art" truly derive? That seems no simple issue, but somewhere in the complexity of the answer lies the concept of a "society" and its "judgments". And, both "societies" and "judgments" are susceptible to revision, alteration, modifications ... which, of course, changes everything once again.


Well, yes, I won't disagree, but that's a bigger question than needs to be posed here, I think.

I only raised my query because Fabulin seemed to be basing his judgement on what "high art" is on the composer, not on the composition. I recognise that people have a habit of using the name of the composer to stand for the work (As in "Do you like Beethoven?"), but in this particular case, I wasn't sure if that's what he was doing. Hence my questions.

But since he says he's not a fan of the 'high art' thing anyway - and nor am I - I don't think more needs to be said.


----------



## millionrainbows

"High art" is art that breaks through all the ********.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Fabulin said:


> I recommend the entire video, it's a beautiful thing to watch. But in 1:48-2:20 you have a direct reply
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that Meyerbeer, Rossini, Wagner, and many other prominent opera composers would have worked in film. In fact, the first film scores would have likely been written by someone like Salieri.


Williams says "I'm certain that Beethoven would have shunned it". In fact, Beethoven also wrote a series of incidental and ballet music, so I don't think it's too unreasonable to say "if Beethoven lived today, he would have written for films".
(There are people like me who don't feel "nostalgia" from modern classical music as they do from common practice period music, but this is beside the point)


----------



## Fabulin

hammeredklavier said:


> Williams says "I'm certain that Beethoven would have shunned it". In fact, Beethoven also wrote a series of incidental and ballet music, so I don't think it's too unreasonable to say "if Beethoven lived today, he would have written for films".
> (There are people like me who don't feel "nostalgia" from modern classical music as they do from common practice period music, but this is beside the point)


Williams speaks from the perspective of his experience within the film industry. Beethoven had an uncompromising, somewhat volcanic character, liked to work at his own pace, and thought little of the music that paid the bills. After the experience of writing one opera, he never wrote another one. Beethoven would be like Bernard Herrmann, but even more likely to argue with directors, studios etc., and get fired or not receive commissions. An important aspect is having one's music cut to pieces, unused, or drowned by sound effects and dialogues. Beethoven would have none of it... so if he persisted to work in the genre despite that, and found a rare director backed by money who was a fan of music, internally he would have shunned the rest of the film industry. This happened to quite a few composers.

Of course Herrmann did write a lot of scores, and Korngold for example had special priviliges at Warner Brothers - but even Korngold sometimes had to write music in 3 weeks, which resulted in filling 10% of the Sea Hawk with music of Liszt, when he ran out of time.


----------



## Ethereality

hammeredklavier said:


> (There are people like me who don't feel "nostalgia" from modern classical music as they do from common practice period music, but this is beside the point)


For me I feel more of the potential for program music and adventure music to express new perceptions, worlds and colors, rather than actually liking the film genre itself, as most of it doesn't appeal to me. There are only those rare scores that may appeal, and I have to be somewhat critical of myself that others' ability to come up with something new in the first place is for granted. Uniqueness, finally, isn't something to look for, rather it's a given that we're always marveling at its manifestation in times unexpected. Special uniqueness doesn't apply to one piece or composer, it's the guiding element of all creative process, music as one long work, one prolonged expression of discovery and exploration. We just have to classify and prioritize what we decide to hear. I can easily seclude one minute of a good film track and say, for a minute of music, this is really trying to point to something new in our creative evolution. Classical may have been the most concentrated time for evolution, but I don't think it has stopped yet. One may want to also enthrall at this latest, most diverse time. In the 18th century, repertoire you could play was Haydn, Mozart, Handel, CPE, or anyone else. That is diversity.


----------



## JAS

I note that our local classical music station (WBJC) has clearly been adding quite a bit of film music to their regular offerings, and mostly, I think, quite successfully. In addition to the usual Korngold piece (usually from the Previn recording), they have, just this morning, played a suite by Carl Davis from Old Heidelberg (mostly adapting the same student drinking songs that Brahms did), and now the suite of music by Jerry Goldsmith from MacArthur and Patton (the General's March performed by the Erich Kunzel).


----------



## Durendal

How is it not classical? It meets all the criteria. It's just a sub-category of classical the same way symphonies, concertos, masses, operas, etc are.


----------



## larold

I recently saw a film called "Mob Town" that had an interesting score I would not call classical music even though some of it was played by either an orchestra or string band. I think others here would call it classical music, however. 

To me it was contemporary music meant to augment a scene but not necessarily stand alone. Though it seemed interesting watching the movie when I listened to it on its own (the whole score is available on YouTube) it wasn't interesting at all. It was influenced by minimalism and was quite repetitive. It was also the first film score I've investigated that was not available on CD -- only as download or stream.

I think film scores that can stand on their own, without the visual affect, may be considered classical music if there is development as great as any set of incidental music such as Sibelius's to Pelleas and Melisande or Richard Strauss's Incidental Music to Romeo and Juliet. That music does more than accompany a scene; so too can film scores.


----------



## Enthusiast

Durendal said:


> How is it not classical? It meets all the criteria. It's just a sub-category of classical the same way symphonies, concertos, masses, operas, etc are.


Which criteria are they?


----------



## poconoron

The short answer is...................Yes.


----------



## jegreenwood

No with rare exceptions.


----------



## Enthusiast

Popular films get popular music. Art films get art music. What else would you expect?


----------



## mbhaub

Back in the 30s, 40s and even into the 50s most Hollywood films for the masses were scored with large symphony orchestras in mind. The sound was what we typically call "classical". That's the influence of a largely European trained lot of composer: Steiner, Korngold, Waxman, Rozsa and others. Their orchestrators were fully capable writing in the late romantic style. Leonid Raab and Murray Cutter for example. It's closely related to incidental music from earlier eras. But slowly some movie directors started to explore using more hip and contemporary pop music as a soundtrack. In the 60s it seemed the orchestral soundtrack was dying as pop/rock soundtracks became the norm. That's why Star Wars was such a big deal - here was a sci-fi movie that used a score taken right from Mahler, Tchaikovsky, Elgar, Holst and others rather than the expected electronic, pop score. 

What I find really interesting is that even old films from the 30s through 50s still hold up very well - the score seems timeless. The music doesn't date the film at all. But old films that used non-classical styles are embarrassing and I find unwatchable. Try the sci-fi film The 4D Man from 1959. It could have been a good film and without the sound it is (I'll watch anything with Lee Meriwether). But the jazz soundtrack dates it badly - it's really tacky. Les Baxter scored a lot of B-movies that way. But Peyton Place from the same time, with Franz Waxman's beautiful score is still a completely enjoyable, entertaining movie.


----------



## millionrainbows

"During the 1980s, when Western critics were still struggling to interpret Shostakovich as a populist and part-time propagandist for Communism, his film music was seen as a sincere body of work earnestly created by a Soviet believer in the people's art of cinema. Not to be outdone in earnestness, such writers bent over backwards to take Shostakovich's film music seriously, despite the fact that he wrote most of it under various forms of duress and that consequently 90 per cent of it is rubbish."

-Ian MacDonald, _The New Shostakovich_


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> "[...] his film music was seen as a sincere body of work earnestly created by a Soviet believer in the people's art of cinema. [...]"
> 
> -Ian MacDonald, _The New Shostakovich_


How much film music did he actually compose? I see his listing in IMDb occasionally confuses that which he composed specifically for film, and that of his concert music that was used by the director (eg _Battleship Potemkin_).

I ask only because he keeps being brought forward as an example to support the justification for labelling film music as classical. Since his output for feature length movies seems to be quite small, I would argue that he's barely relevant to the discussion.


----------



## Flutter

flamencosketches said:


> Let's settle this once and for all.
> 
> Edit: Since it seems some are not exactly answering the question I was asking in my head, it seems some clarification is necessary:
> 
> When I say film music, I'm not talking about film soundtracks, collections of pop music that is used in films, nor am I talking about existing classical music being used in films (à la 2001 A Space Odyssey or Fantasia). I also would like to exclude synthesizer-driven ambient or electronic film scores like Vangelis's work for Blade Runner etc. What this leaves is music, scored for orchestra or ensemble, written to accompany the film: the likes of John Williams, Danny Elfman, etc. Do you consider this to be classical music?


A lot of it is but it depends on the score itself.

Stuff from John Williams up to favs like Elfman are all definitely classical, not in form inasmuch as style.

Some film scores are closer to just ambient music than others.

When it comes to industry level guys like Hans Zimmer though, mostly definitely not (except for in some of his smaller and earlier films), Zimmer is usually a strange mix between pop music forms and techno-orchestral ensemble, which is a bizarre trend that caught on in the 2000s. Take "Time" from Inception as a prime example. It can't even pass as minimalist classical, despite having a climaxing motif.


----------



## Guest

Flutter said:


> When it comes to industry level guys like Hans Zimmer though, mostly definitely not (except for in some of his smaller and earlier films), Zimmer is usually a strange mix between pop music forms and techno-orchestral ensemble, which is a bizarre trend that caught on in the 2000s. Take "Time" from Inception as a prime example. It can't even pass as minimalist classical, despite having a climaxing motif.


Successful composers write what is suitable for the movie. Listening to snippets of Elfman's score for Terminator Salvation, it seems typical of compositions by a number of current composers for this kind of movie - including Zimmer. So, if there's been a 'bizarre trend', it might have something to do with the kind of movies that are being made; or the preferences of the leading directors; or, as has been mentioned earlier in this thread, the rise of electronic technology enabling Zimmer or Elfman or Desplat to compose in their own front rooms, without an orchestra (if they so wish).


----------



## Flutter

MacLeod said:


> or, as has been mentioned earlier in this thread, the rise of electronic technology enabling Zimmer or Elfman or Desplat to compose in their own front rooms, without an orchestra (if they so wish).


This too, good mention.

It's particularly a thing with a lot of late 90s and 00s film 'composers'. They certainly don't utilize technology in a manner like masterminds like Stockhausen et al though, they use expensive instrument sample packs to save their budget - that's how it starts out anyway. They mainly play around with some chord progressions and motifs, and give it to the electronic orchestra which completely lacks dynamic and articulation. For big blockbuster composers like Zimmer, the medium itself as well as the kind of boxoffice demands imposes the creation or evolution, of a kind of synthetic genre of pseudo-orchestral (not classical) music wholly symbiotic with the technology it is created with. It is very strange.

When you break down the forms and progressions within these modern blockbuster film composers, it often seems to have more compositionally in common with electronic music and video game music, than classical music prior (such as in many of the great scores pre-90s).


----------



## millionrainbows

"During the 1980s, when Western critics were still struggling to interpret Shostakovich as a populist and part-time propagandist for Communism, his film music was seen as a sincere body of work earnestly created by a Soviet believer in the people's art of cinema. Not to be outdone in earnestness, such writers bent over backwards to take Shostakovich's film music seriously, despite the fact that he wrote most of it under various forms of duress and that consequently 90 per cent of it is rubbish." 

-Ian MacDonald, _The New Shostakovich_



MacLeod said:


> How much film music did he actually compose? I see his listing in IMDb occasionally confuses that which he composed specifically for film, and that of his concert music that was used by the director (eg _Battleship Potemkin_).
> 
> I ask only because he keeps being brought forward as an example to support the justification for labelling film music as classical. Since his output for feature length movies seems to be quite small, I would argue that he's barely relevant to the discussion.


The quote fit the thread really well, and is food for thought. I suppose you'd prefer a quote about Danny Elfman?


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> "During the 1980s, when Western critics were still struggling to interpret Shostakovich as a populist and part-time propagandist for Communism, his film music was seen as a sincere body of work earnestly created by a Soviet believer in the people's art of cinema. Not to be outdone in earnestness, such writers bent over backwards to take Shostakovich's film music seriously, despite the fact that he wrote most of it under various forms of duress and that consequently 90 per cent of it is rubbish."
> 
> -Ian MacDonald, _The New Shostakovich_
> 
> The quote fit the thread really well, and is food for thought. I suppose you'd prefer a quote about Danny Elfman?


Er...no. Why would I want a quote about Elfman? My question about Shostakovich was a genuine one.


----------



## millionrainbows

MacLeod said:


> Er...no. Why would I want a quote about Elfman? My question about Shostakovich was a genuine one.


OK, pardon my flip reply.

I don't think the film industry is very capable or willing to produce much in the way of soundtrack music which could reliably or credibly be considered of 'classical' or 'high-art' music quality.

Case in point, among many others, if one bothers to survey the entire gamut of the film industry: The Cannon Group, Inc., who produced low-budget Chuck Norris action/adventure films, and many others in the 1980s with cheap, synthesizer/electronic soundtracks, Vangelis being the most notable exponent of such dreck. 
Danny Elfman simply upped the ante of such artificially created computer music with his use of orchestral software (Vienna Strings, etc.). Not much difference. It's fast, low-budget, and is best used as a blueprint-demo for real orchestras.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cannon_Group,_Inc.

Classical? Note the increasing connection of film music with video game 'music,' which I have even heard lauded on this very forum. Give me a break. Let's call it "industrial classical" instead.



flamencosketches said:


> Let's settle this once and for all...Edit: Since it seems some are not exactly answering the question I was asking in my head, it seems some clarification is necessary:
> 
> When I say film music, I'm not talking about film soundtracks, collections of pop music that is used in films, nor am I talking about existing classical music being used in films (à la 2001 A Space Odyssey or Fantasia). I also would like to exclude synthesizer-driven ambient or electronic film scores like Vangelis's work for Blade Runner etc. What this leaves is music, scored for orchestra or ensemble, written to accompany the film: the likes of John Williams, Danny Elfman, etc. Do you consider this to be classical music?


You're excluding quite a bit. If you are saying that film music is "evolving" into a new classical paradigm, I have great doubts. Considering that films will always have budgets, and that film music will always be at the service of film, I can't see how this paradigm can ever be expected to produce much music of any quality. If there are a few exceptions of music which seems to transcend its genre, let's call it "the best music" that the genre has produced; but reserve the larger, more historical term "classical" art music for art music which is produced away from commercial pressures.

I'd much rather ask, "Is this particular film music substantial enough to be considered "good art," in whatever micro or sub-genre, which is a more general term which really transcends larger genres, but is just as, if not more, flattering to the music you like.

I like some of Philip Glass' film music, such as Koyannisqatsi, but it was produced as "art" for an "art film" which had no dialogue or much commercial intent.

If we want to consider John Williams and Danny Elfman to be on this same level as Philip Glass, they don't have enough "art cred" for my criteria of "art."


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> OK, pardon my flip reply.
> 
> I don't think the film industry is very capable or willing to produce much in the way of soundtrack music which could reliably or credibly be considered of 'classical' or 'high-art' music quality.
> 
> Case in point, among many others, if one bothers to survey the entire gamut of the film industry: The Cannon Group, Inc., who produced low-budget Chuck Norris action/adventure films, and many others in the 1980s with cheap, synthesizer/electronic soundtracks, Vangelis being the most notable exponent of such dreck.
> Danny Elfman simply upped the ante of such artificially created computer music with his use of orchestral software (Vienna Strings, etc.). Not much difference. It's fast, low-budget, and is best used as a blueprint-demo for real orchestras.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cannon_Group,_Inc.
> 
> Classical? Note the increasing connection of film music with video game 'music,' which I have even heard lauded on this very forum. Give me a break. Let's call it "industrial classical" instead.


Well thanks for your apology...but you still don't answer my question, so perhaps your response to the OP can be made without reference to my query about DSCH?

As for the Cannon Group, I don't think it fair to tarnish the entire industry with the output of one production company now defunct.


----------



## JAS

I enjoy the Shostakovich score for The Gadfly. I have never seen the film itself.


----------



## Guest

JAS said:


> I enjoy the Shostakovich score for The Gadfly. I have never seen the film itself.


I've not seen the film, or heard the score. I note that The Gadfly Suite became well known - better known than DSCH's original, I wonder?


----------



## JAS

MacLeod said:


> I've not seen the film, or heard the score. I note that The Gadfly Suite became well known - better known than DSCH's original, I wonder?


The Romance is the one part that is, I think, the most popular. (And it is certainly quite charming.)

I think the suite from Stravinsky's Firebird is also more popular than the full ballet. Perhaps a similar reason is at play.


----------



## Fabulin

Shostakovich's score to the "First Echelon" (1956) is basically a quick reworking of Khachaturian's "Russian Fantasy for Orchestra" (1944). The only thing Shostakovich seemed interested in writing was the waltz (in turn likely based on the 1906 "On the Hills of Manchuria"), which ironically would become his single most well-known tune. In fact, the overall pattern is that the best music that came out of his scores are dances. (Spanish Dance from "Gadfly", the waltz from "The Golden Mountains", waltzes from "Sofiya Perovskaya" and "Pirogov") There are some other cool pieces in his scores, such as "Assault on Krasnaja Gorka" from "The Unforgettable Year 1919" (one of the children of Addinsell's _Warsaw Concerto_?) , or "Fire" from "The First Echelon", or the music he wrote for "Hamlet", but it's not the same greatness as the one to be found among his contemporaries on the other side of the iron curtain. Still very high level, but possibly his heart was not exactly there.

I've watched some of the Shostakovich's films, and often the music known from the suites... is very far removed from what can be heard in the film (if at all).

No matter the film, I think that the time the quick-pencilled Shostakovich bothered to grace most of these Soviet drecks with (save for _October_ and select others) was far shorter than Bernard Herrmann or Miklós Rózsa would (if they, in the market reality of America, were to accept such films in the first place!). Or maybe he was informed very late... anything goes with those Soviets...

The Khachaturian inspirations are nothing unusual. Some of Shosty's government-ordered jobs such as "The Festive Overture", and lighter music, such as the operetta Cheryomushki and The Suite for a Variety Orchestra, have many strands of Khachaturian's influence. As always, it remains unknown whether he took the inspirations for a "cynical" reason, such as "to write accessible music that reaches to the people" so that the higher-ups would not denounce him again, or whether this was, with some sincerity, the other, light side of Shostakovich, the same one that wanted to write jazz when he was young.

And as for a cinema experience... the 1966 re-score of "October" was a very effective job. I had the pleasure of seeing this film in a theater with Shosty's music some years ago, and it was a great experience. I was at the edge of my seat to learn who wrote it.

Sorry for incoherence, but maybe this will give some context. I would say that Shostakovich certainly should have won an Oscar once or twice.


----------



## millionrainbows

JAS said:


> The Romance is the one part that is, I think, the most popular. (And it is certainly quite charming.)
> 
> I think the suite from Stravinsky's Firebird is also more popular than the full ballet. Perhaps a similar reason is at play.


And probably the use of _Rite_ in _Fantasia_ was more popular, even though Stravinsky detested Stokowski's handling of it.

Shostakovich did film music to stay working. We can't neglect this aspect of his career, but musically it is negligible. Admittedly, it did increase his profile.

Charming? Perhaps, but let's keep our perspective.


----------



## JAS

millionrainbows said:


> And probably the use of _Rite_ in _Fantasia_ was more popular, even though Stravinsky detested Stokowski's handling of it.


It is still the only way I can get all the way through Rite.



millionrainbows said:


> Shostakovich did film music to stay working. We can't neglect this aspect of his career, but musically it is negligible. Admittedly, it did increase his profile.


The status of film music does not rely on Shostakovich as a practitioner. In the community of film music fans, I suspect that he is thought of more as a potential influence than an especially prominent composer of scores. (A lot of people also seem to praise his symphonies, even those who might not cite a lot of other work that might be considered more properly as "classical." I have never warmed to his symphonies.) Hindemith and Copland also wrote some scores, as well as others. Saint Saens, certainly a major composer in a general sense, wrote one of the first real scores (The Assassination of the Duke of Guise, 1908), but it is mostly thought of as a curiosity.



millionrainbows said:


> Charming? Perhaps, but let's keep our perspective.


My perspective allows good music to be charming.


----------



## millionrainbows

JAS said:


> The status of film music does not rely on Shostakovich as a practitioner. In the community of film music fans, I suspect that he is thought of more as a potential influence than an especially prominent composer of scores. (A lot of people also seem to praise his symphonies, even those who might not cite a lot of other work that might be considered more properly as "classical." I have never warmed to his symphonies.) Hindemith and Copland also wrote some scores, as well as others. Saint Saens, certainly a major composer in a general sense, wrote one of the first real scores (The Assassination of the Duke of Guise, 1908), but it is mostly thought of as a curiosity...My perspective allows good music to be charming.


So you are taking down Shostakovich a notch by dissing his symphonies, and dragging other classical composers down to the level of Danny Elfman. So _this _is what it takes to elevate soundtrack music to the status of "classical."

Now everything is equal, democratic. Soundtrack music matters. Everybody will be represented for their own unique genius, even John Williams and Vangelis.


----------



## JAS

millionrainbows said:


> So you are taking down Shostakovich a notch by dissing his symphonies, and dragging other classical composers down to the level of Danny Elfman. So _this _is what it takes to elevate soundtrack music to the status of "classical."
> 
> Now everything is equal, democratic. Soundtrack music matters. Everybody will be represented for their own unique genius, even John Williams and Vangelis.


I am not taking him down any notches. I simply do not care for them. My personal opinion has no meaningful impact on his overall reputation. (Similarly, your opinion of John Williams as a composer has no meaningful impact on _his_ overall reputation.) No composer is debased by writing a film score any more than he or she might by writing a ballet, an opera or incidental music for a stage play. It can all be good, or not, on its own merits.


----------



## 1996D

millionrainbows said:


> So you are taking down Shostakovich a notch by dissing his symphonies, and dragging other classical composers down to the level of Danny Elfman. So _this _is what it takes to elevate soundtrack music to the status of "classical."
> 
> Now everything is equal, democratic. Soundtrack music matters. Everybody will be represented for their own unique genius, even John Williams and Vangelis.


Soundtrack music matters lol what black comedy, no pun intended.


----------



## 1996D

JAS said:


> I am not taking him down any notches. I simply do not care for them. My personal opinion has no meaningful impact on his overall reputation. No composer is debased by writing a film score any more than he or she might by writing a ballet, an opera or incidental music for a stage play. It can all be good, or not, on its own merits.


He has to be trolling, soundtrack music will never be classical music. Although if you waste your time writing for stage or film as a serious composer, how can it not tarnish reputation?

I think it does, or can you see Per Norgard writing film music?


----------



## JAS

1996D said:


> He has to be trolling, soundtrack music will never be classical music. Although if you waste your time writing for stage or film as a serious composer, how can it not tarnish reputation?


Because reputation is determined by the music, not the venue.


----------



## 1996D

JAS said:


> Because reputation is determined by the music, not the venue.


Of course but then if you succeed you become a slave to the genre, typecast.


----------



## JAS

1996D said:


> Of course but then if you succeed you become a slave to the genre, typecast.


Only to very narrow-minded individuals. Who cares what they think? I don't.


----------



## flamencosketches

millionrainbows said:


> OK, pardon my flip reply.
> 
> I don't think the film industry is very capable or willing to produce much in the way of soundtrack music which could reliably or credibly be considered of 'classical' or 'high-art' music quality.
> 
> Case in point, among many others, if one bothers to survey the entire gamut of the film industry: The Cannon Group, Inc., who produced low-budget Chuck Norris action/adventure films, and many others in the 1980s with cheap, synthesizer/electronic soundtracks, Vangelis being the most notable exponent of such dreck.
> Danny Elfman simply upped the ante of such artificially created computer music with his use of orchestral software (Vienna Strings, etc.). Not much difference. It's fast, low-budget, and is best used as a blueprint-demo for real orchestras.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cannon_Group,_Inc.
> 
> Classical? Note the increasing connection of film music with video game 'music,' which I have even heard lauded on this very forum. Give me a break. Let's call it "industrial classical" instead.
> 
> You're excluding quite a bit. If you are saying that film music is "evolving" into a new classical paradigm, I have great doubts. Considering that films will always have budgets, and that film music will always be at the service of film, I can't see how this paradigm can ever be expected to produce much music of any quality. If there are a few exceptions of music which seems to transcend its genre, let's call it "the best music" that the genre has produced; but reserve the larger, more historical term "classical" art music for art music which is produced away from commercial pressures.
> 
> I'd much rather ask, "Is this particular film music substantial enough to be considered "good art," in whatever micro or sub-genre, which is a more general term which really transcends larger genres, but is just as, if not more, flattering to the music you like.
> 
> I like some of Philip Glass' film music, such as Koyannisqatsi, but it was produced as "art" for an "art film" which had no dialogue or much commercial intent.
> 
> If we want to consider John Williams and Danny Elfman to be on this same level as Philip Glass, they don't have enough "art cred" for my criteria of "art."


That is not what I was saying; I voted "no".


----------



## 1996D

JAS said:


> Only to very narrow-minded individuals. Who cares what they think? I don't.


All the prizes and recognition for composers are already going almost solely to minorities, do you think they'd give recognition to a composer who's done film music?

I don't know what value in terms of impact and recognition by a broader audience these prizes have, what do you think?


----------



## JAS

1996D said:


> All the prizes and recognition for composers are already going almost solely to minorities, do you think they'd give recognition to a composer who's done film music?
> 
> I don't know what value in terms of impact and recognition by a broader audience these prizes have, what do you think?


What prizes and recognition are you referring to? Who are "they" in this context?


----------



## 1996D

JAS said:


> What prizes and recognition are you referring to? Who are "they" in this context?


The Wihuri Sibelius Prize and the Ernst von Siemens.


----------



## JAS

1996D said:


> The Wihuri Sibelius Prize and the Ernst von Siemens.


And exactly what importance are either of these? Do they have some official say on what is or is not good, or what is or is not classical music?


----------



## 1996D

JAS said:


> And exactly what importance are either of these? Do they have some official say on what is or is not good, or what is or is not classical music?


I have no idea what kind of importance they have, that's why I was asking you. Lately they've awarded unknown composers with an obvious political motivation, which is fine, but that's the classical music establishment of today.

Shouldn't it be a given that the establishment has authority? Certainly on what gets performed since orchestras are given grants by the government and by these sorts of establishments.


----------



## JAS

1996D said:


> I have no idea what kind of importance they have, that's why I was asking you. Lately they've awarded unknown composers with an obvious political motivation, which is fine, but that's the classical music establishment of today.


I don't see that they have any importance at all. Until your post, I have never even heard of them. (I suppose Williams will just have to console himself with his Grammy's, his honorary doctorates and his National Medal for the Arts . . . and his bank account.)



1996D said:


> Shouldn't it be a given that the establishment has authority? Certainly on what gets performed since orchestras are given grants by the government and by these sorts of establishments.


The establishment is a nebulous concept. If it means the academies, they have hardly mattered for at least 50 years, except to themselves, of course.


----------



## 1996D

JAS said:


> The establishment is a nebulous concept. If it means the academies, they have hardly mattered for at least 50 years, except to themselves, of course.


They give prize money so they probably aren't academics :lol:. Who knows what or who they are but they are the only people recognizing contemporary music.

They hold the keys to what music gets performed.


----------



## JAS

1996D said:


> They give prize money so they probably aren't academics :lol:. Who knows what or who they are but they are the only people recognizing contemporary music.


Perhaps one reason that they matter so little, except to those who get the money.


----------



## 1996D

JAS said:


> Perhaps one reason that they matter so little, except to those who get the money.


If that's true then classical music is truly dead.


----------



## JAS

1996D said:


> If that's true then classical music is truly dead.


The older forms are still alive. I don't give a fig for most of the new stuff.


----------



## 1996D

JAS said:


> The older forms are still alive. I don't give a fig for the new stuff.


There has to be new stuff worth buying eventually, orchestras are dying. You think government support is forever? There are less and less orchestras and the quality is going down fast.


----------



## millionrainbows

flamencosketches said:


> That is not what I was saying; I voted "no".


I never explicitly said that you said that; I said "if," and proceeded.


----------



## Enthusiast

1996D said:


> There has to be new stuff worth buying eventually, orchestras are dying. You think government support is forever? There are less and less orchestras *and the quality is going down fast*.


Really. The impression I have of orchestras in Britain is that they get better and better and not just the top 2 or 3 but many of those based outside of London as well. Are American orchestras really going downhill? Could you give some examples of once good but now not so good American orchestras, please.


----------

