# The Question of "Classics"



## oompah (Mar 18, 2008)

Hello, I'm a new poster here. I started reading some of the more recent threads and thought I would join in. The one that made me register was the whole discussion about whether soundtracks are the new classics - I decided against continuing that particular discussion, as it was devolving into a two-person (child?) name-calling waste of hard drive space.

So I thought I'd throw it out there that yes, soundtracks are, indeed the "new classics" - as long as we're qualifying the terms "classics" as those musics that have stood the test of time, are innovative, and have popular appeal. You know, like Mozart and Beethoven. 

Let's face it - if Mozart were alive today, he's be writing movie music. Look at his life; he wasn't a teacher, did not perform regularly, and only really wanted to compose - in fact, his greatest passion was writing opera. But he wanted to get paid to write music, and these days, the only way to really do that is by writing soundtracks.

The "classical" music (using that term to represent any kind of symphonic music) being written today, that falls in the category of "art" music, is being done in the universities and conservatories. But go to a recital at your local university and look around. Other musicians. The new ideas that are being developed in universities exist in a vacuum, and they will not stand the test of time except in the libraries and of the universities at which they were written. These pieces do have a very particular and specific value, but they will not become "classics". 

"Classics" are the musics that have had an impact on society. Soundtracks do that - works for "bassoon with electronics" don't.


----------



## Frasier (Mar 10, 2007)

Yes, I avoided that thread too!

I presume you refer to scores backing standard cinema films rather than theatricals such as ballet, opera and musicals.

My own take is that while there've been and will be classical film scores, only a tiny few ever become classics in the wider musical sphere - then usually because the composer adapts the music or produces a suite. For example, the film music for Scott of the Antarctic is remembered only because Vaughan Williams adapted it as a Symphony. Likewise, Villa-Lobos' music for Green Mansions (only partially used because he and MGM 'fell out') turned up in his Symphonic Suite "Forest of the Amazon". 

Film music is usually commissioned to support / enhance the film, not shine out in its own right unless the film is about the music. Listening to a full soundtrack without the visual can be boring. Once in a while you find one that isn't.

There are some exceptions - Glass / Koyaanisqatsi (etc), if you like that kind of thing, is one where the music was given equal status with the film.


(Edit: spelling)


----------



## YsayeOp.27#6 (Dec 7, 2007)

oompah said:


> he wanted to get paid to write music, and these days, the only way to really do that is by writing soundtracks.


No, it is not. How accurate is your knowledge of contemporary composers?

Erkki-Sven Tüür, Sofia Gubaidulina, Giya Kancheli, Poul Ruders, Oded Zehavi, John Adams, Alicia Terzian, Arvo Pärt, Wolfgang Rihm, John Tavener, Valentin Silvestrov, Michel Camilo, Krzysztof Penderecki, Kaija Saariaho, Tan Dun, Brian Ferneyhough, Michael Finissy, Peteris Vasks, Frederic Rzewski.

You see? All of them make their living composing.


----------



## oompah (Mar 18, 2008)

In fact, I know quite a bit about contemporary composers. 

They make part of their living composing, sure. But not all of it - and a lot of the money they make from composing is from government grants and commissions from artists that perform their music within the confines of the university.

Look, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the "art" music being written today. But it serves a very specific purpose - the advancement of music as art - it is not intended to appeal to the popular masses. The "classics" (Mozart, Haydn, Liszt) were intended to do that. Music written today that does appeal to the masses will last, and will become the classics. 

Movie music is not written as an afterthought. Movie music that can be enjoyed without the visual is as much being written now as it was in the days of Bernard Hermann (quick, what did he write?) and Copland and Ennio Morricone. That's why many orchestras are playing concerts of Harry Potter music, Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, even video games. Soon enough, those won't be novelty "special" concerts, they'll be on main series subscriptions. And then what? 

They become classics, that's what. 

ps. If you think listening to movie music without the visual is not enjoyable, trying watching a movie without the music. It's excruciating.


----------



## YsayeOp.27#6 (Dec 7, 2007)

> In fact, I know quite a bit about contemporary composers.


I'm sure your knowledge is vast. Next time you log in please remember to bring it in.



oompah said:


> The "classics" (Mozart, Haydn, Liszt) were intended to do that. Music written today that does appeal to the masses will last, and will become the classics.


No, they did not. Public orchestras didn't exist at the time of Haydn and Mozart; masses did not access the aristocratic concert halls in which Haydn symphonies and quintets were played. Masses were not targeted by those composers.


----------



## Yagan Kiely (Feb 6, 2008)

> But not all of it - and a lot of the money they make from composing is from government grants and commissions from artists that perform their music within the confines of the university.


QFT, a lot get half the money from Grants, and the other half from lecturing. The reason they get grants is because the members of the grant panel are also contemporary composers and friends of the person requesting a grant. (In Australia anyway). In the composition classes I have been in over the years, the lecturers keep reiterating the need for composers to get grants.



> I'm sure your knowledge is vast. Next time you log in please remember to bring it in.


Do you make a point of being antagonistic and aggressive? If you think that statement is polite, go back to school.

The only reason I called you an idiot is because I'm sick of meeting so many people like you who in response to an argument, just say "No, your wrong", never bring up an argument themselves and then attack your intelligence and integrity. Your posts are pointless and bring the discussion down to name calling.



> Masses were not targeted by those composers.


Mozart's Magic Flute was.
Liszt however was a composer/performer who aimed for are more massed audience. Verdi was exceedingly popular. Beethoven also didn't specifically aim for the aristocrats specifically. many composers of the early 19th century (including Beethoven) arranged their orchestral works for Piano Four-hands, this is to get there music to the Wider [massed] Audience.

The thing about a lot contemporary (meaning now - not the 1920sish era) composition is that it isn't even aimed at learned Musicians. It is far to aesthetically unpleasing to 80% of the musical population - it has not musical connection. Most of what holds it in place is philosophical or social ideas rather than a musical framework.



> That's why many orchestras are playing concerts of Harry Potter music, Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, even video games. Soon enough, those won't be novelty "special" concerts, they'll be on main series subscriptions. And then what?


The fact that the only music that ever makes it is tonal music really puts contemporary compositions in the dark for almost everyone. Tonal music is scientifically more natural than atonal music (not to pejorate atonal music), and while the effects and emotions generated by atonal music work in movies exceedingly well, they are not memorable and any shape or form.



> If you think listening to movie music without the visual is not enjoyable, trying watching a movie without the music. It's excruciating.


I don't believe that proves anything mind you.



> "Classics" are the musics that have had an impact on society.


And the argument that "not all classics were well received" is often null and void. Rite of spring may have been disliked, but it was well known and different - a piece for bassoon and electronics sounds the same as a piece for bass clarinet and electronics by a different composer. And while a lot of pieces were not popular with critics, the population that were not critics, a lot of the time enjoyed the piece.


----------



## Nicola (Nov 25, 2007)

Yagan Kiely said:


> Do you make a point of being antagonistic, aggressive and a general ********? If you think that statement is polite, go back to school.


I can see you're an Australian. Such language is uncalled for in the polite company here. We're not in the "outback", you know.

I rather fear that your days may be numbered.

Where are you Mr Krummhorn? Time to get your hatchet out again. Keep the place clean, please.


----------



## Yagan Kiely (Feb 6, 2008)

Happy? For someone who is irritated, you seem to be deliberately following us and making it worse. You have already derailed the topic. I stayed on topic for my post.



> I can see you're an Australian. Such language is uncalled for in the polite company here. We're not in the "outback", you know.


You know, that _could_ be interpreted as racism. First suggesting that Australians have foul language (I'm sure you find more foul words than ******** where you are from), and second generalizing the geographical situation of Australia. Perth (which Fremantle is apart of), is in the top five wealthiest cities in the world (depending on how you read statistics). It is certainly the wealthiest in Australia, and has the highest average property prices in Australia, and is up there in the world market. It is not outback.



> . Such language is uncalled for in the polite company here.


Not everyone here is polite. It is a typical problem with humans that they notice the symptom and try to attack it, not realising that the cause is what their efforts should be directed at.

I feel unfairly treated, when because I use a two single words when defending myself and others I get punished (theoretically) and looked down upon. There there is someone who is constantly rude, sarcastic, aggressive, and antagonistic to people, some of whom are merely learning to enter the classical scene.


----------



## YsayeOp.27#6 (Dec 7, 2007)

Nicola said:


> I can see you're an Australian. Such language is uncalled for in the polite company here. We're not in the "outback", you know.


If in your next post you would write something like:

QUAVER,

that would actually be the first time you say something about music at this board. What are you looking for?



Nicola said:


> Where are you Mr Krummhorn? Time to get your hatchet out again. Keep the place clean, please.


Are you here actually to talk about music? I know my style is many things but appreciated here, but every now and then I at least have the decency of saying "Brahms...", "Beethoven..." a little.



> Soundtracks do that - works for "bassoon with electronics" don't.


Why do you say such works don't work for society?


----------

