# Movie Themes/Soundtracks As a Category of Modern Classical Music



## DaveM

In classical music I am drawn to melody before anything else. I'm talking about pure, accessible, immediately-recognizable melody: Melody that strikes deep at the soul and the heartstrings.

In full disclosure, I don't like much in the way of 'modern classical music' as the term is generally applied these days. Mahler is about as 'modern' as I will get. Thus, outside of Richard Strauss, Rachmaninoff and a handful of others, there are very few composers of the 20th century whose music I will listen to. I feel a sense of loss that the appreciation for 'traditional melody' has been lost in the composition of most classical music these days. Listening to the music of Schoenberg, Shostakovich and the like is almost torture to me. I don't hear any melody that resonates or touches me. (Note: this my opinion only and not a value judgement of any particular composer.)

However, I have found a substitute in many movies soundtracks. In fact, it has been a hobby of mine to collect the soundtracks of movies from the last 15-20 years and, where possible, to create 'suites' out of them by means of digital editing whereby I can create as much as 9-10 minutes of music by 'digital splicing' right on certain notes since some very melodic segments of soundtracks can suddenly stop or segue into something entirely different as the movie requires.

Below are a few of the best examples of hauntingly beautiful melodies in movie soundtracks. I know that movies soundtracks have been the subjects of prior threads in this forum, but IMO, they have often missed the best examples of melodic music.

On a side note: From my experience, the golden age of highly melodic movie soundtracks was from about 1985 to 2005. It seems that during that time, movie studios were willing to pay for highly developed soundtracks with well-developed beautiful melodies/themes composed by names such as Alan Silvestri, Randy Edelman, Hans Zimmer, Jerry Goldsmith and Michael Kamen. But, that doesn't seem to be the case in the last 5-10 years. Take for example Hans Zimmer. He composed some of the most beautiful 'fleshed-out' music for the movies Nine Months, The Peacemaker and Pearl Harbor (all composed before the year 2000), but now the music he composes for movies is fairly limited in the way of melody and trying to create a suite out of it is nearly impossible.

Please listen with a good sound system or with good headphones (ie. not cheap computer/laptop speakers).

Band of Brothers Main Theme (Michael Kamen)





Cider House Rules (Rachel Portman):





The Man in the Iron Mask Main Theme (Nick Glennie-Smith)





Last of the Mohicans: Cora's Theme (Trevor Jones and Randy Edelman)





Gettysburg Main Theme (Randy Edelman)


----------



## DaveM

Dragon Heart (Randy Edelman):









Powder Main Theme (Jerry Goldsmith):





Pearl Harbor (Hans Zimmer):


----------



## DaveM

Anonymous (that's the name of the movie) (Harald Kloser & Thomas Wander):





Remember the Titans (start at 3:15) (Trevor Rabin):


----------



## Weston

I like these, but a lot of them I would categorize as closer to new age than to classical. Hair-splitting perhaps. 

You omitted Shore's various Lord of the Rings soundtracks?


----------



## dsphipps100

I have said for years that modern movie soundtracks should be viewed the same, artistically, as operas were before the invention of the "motion picture". Movies are the operas of today. 150 years ago, everybody in the taverns was gossiping about the hottest new singer at the opera and what their next role would be. Today, everybody in the bars is gossiping about (among other things, naturally), the hottest new movie star in Hollywood and what their next role will be. Almost no difference whatsoever. And consider all the parallels that have been drawn between Wagner's leitmotif system in the Ring of the Nibelungs vis a vis the vast collection of symbolic themes and motifs that John Williams has assembled for Star Wars. The comparison is very apt, and therefore, so is the parallel between today's movie scores and yesteryear's operas. Movies are the operas of today. (And keep in mind that there were plenty of truly awful operas that have not survived the test of time. That part is also precisely the same.)

The best composers in the world are naturally going to go where the biggest composer paychecks in the world can be found. And right now, that's in movie soundtracks. So if you want to find the greatest living composers' body of ongoing work, one of the places you better look is the movies.


----------



## DaveM

Weston said:


> I like these, but a lot of them I would categorize as closer to new age than to classical. Hair-splitting perhaps.
> 
> You omitted Shore's various Lord of the Rings soundtracks?


Only because I have burned at least 15 CDs worth of movie themes/suites that are particularly melodic and only a relatively few examples could be given here. Howard Shore's LOTR soundtrack is excellent and could have easily fit in with the above works. I actually made a beautiful 12 minute suite out of it.


----------



## DaveM

dsphipps100 said:


> The best composers in the world are naturally going to go where the biggest composer paychecks in the world can be found. And right now, that's in movie soundtracks. So if you want to find the greatest living composers' body of ongoing work, one of the places you better look is the movies.


Well put although I wish they were being given the latitude (and, of course, the money) to provide soundtracks on a par with those 5-10 years ago.


----------



## atsizat




----------



## atsizat




----------



## atsizat




----------



## Guest

dsphipps100 said:


> The best composers in the world are naturally going to go where the biggest composer paychecks in the world can be found. And right now, that's in movie soundtracks. So if you want to find the greatest living composers' body of ongoing work, one of the places you better look is the movies.


Well that's a pretty pessimistic view of art, but then again, we're used to it.


----------



## brotagonist

DaveM said:


> In full disclosure, I don't like much in the way of 'modern classical music' as the term is generally applied these days.


Get out!  There is so much great music out there  I think you just need to turn down the lights and take the time to listen. Not only that, but many of today's composers aren't writing what you think. A bit of exposure and you'll surely burst your horizons. I think you're selling yourself short by not allowing yourself to grow. Sure, this stuff is fine for doing homework to, but you need to challenge yourself a bit when you want to really listen. You'll be happy you did


----------



## Guest

brotagonist said:


> Get out!  There is so much great music out there  I think you just need to turn down the lights and take the time to listen. Not only that, but many of today's composers aren't writing what you think. A bit of exposure and you'll surely burst your horizons. I think you're selling yourself short by not allowing yourself to grow. Sure, this stuff is fine for doing homework to, but you need to challenge yourself a bit when you want to really listen. You'll be happy you did


Among the interesting things I'm seeing in my own polls is the fact that very few of the members that ARE open to contemporary music are fully aware of its breadth, let alone the ones that bash it.


----------



## Morimur

dsphipps100 said:


> The best composers in the world are naturally going to go where the biggest composer paychecks in the world can be found. And right now, that's in movie soundtracks. So if you want to find the greatest living composers' body of ongoing work, one of the places you better look is the movies.


This statement is so wrong it's not even funny. Movie soundtracks do not work as standalone music because they are meant to serve as accompaniment to images. Movie soundtracks are not a substitute for classical/art music.


----------



## DaveM

brotagonist said:


> Get out!  There is so much great music out there  I think you just need to turn down the lights and take the time to listen. Not only that, but many of today's composers aren't writing what you think. A bit of exposure and you'll surely burst your horizons. I think you're selling yourself short by not allowing yourself to grow. Sure, this stuff is fine for doing homework to, but you need to challenge yourself a bit when you want to really listen. You'll be happy you did


Don't think I haven't tried.


----------



## SimonNZ

dsphipps100 said:


> The best composers in the world are naturally going to go where the biggest composer paychecks in the world can be found. And right now, that's in movie soundtracks. So if you want to find the greatest living composers' body of ongoing work, one of the places you better look is the movies.


The best composers in the world are going to go where their art and creative vision can be fully realized without heavy compromise or at the mercy of the whims of others, hopefully with a livable paycheck. And right now that is in no way movie soundtracks.

(and I would imagine its only a tiny few soundtrack writers that get anything like "biggest composer paychecks" anyway)


----------



## brotagonist

nathanb said:


> Among the interesting things I'm seeing in my own polls is the fact that very few of the members that ARE open to contemporary music are fully aware of its breadth, let alone the ones that bash it.


That's hits too close to home. I decided to put some Matthias Pintscher on, one I haven't heard before:

Reflections on Narcissus

This is cool  It sounds kind of old school 20th Century, say sort of '70s. I really like it


----------



## KenOC

Morimur said:


> This statement is so wrong it's not even funny. Movie soundtracks do not work as standalone music because they are meant to serve as accompaniment to images. Movie soundtracks are not a substitute for classical/art music.


Quite amazing then that so many soundtrack albums are hits with so many people. Works for them, I guess. My CM station is playing a lot of John Williams's music this week to celebrate his 50th Academy Award nomination. I'm enjoying it, and it seems like others are as well.


----------



## brotagonist

Taken in that context, though, I'd say they're listening and reminiscing about the movies, which strengthens Morimur's point


----------



## Morimur

KenOC said:


> Quite amazing then that so many soundtrack albums are hits with so many people. Works for them, I guess. My CM station is playing a lot of John Williams's music this week to celebrate his 50th Academy Award nomination. I'm enjoying it, and it seems like others are as well.


Let's be real, Ken-most CM stations (the popular ones) are garbage. John Williams is a movie soundtrack guy who appeals to folks who don't want to be challenged by the music they listen to.


----------



## Weston

What I didn't mention before, because I didn't want to sound too negative or snarky (I actually do love movie soundtracks) is if you get past the sweeping strings of those opening themes and move on into the drama, what do you get? Bartok or Schoenberg pastiches. 

I once saw a video -- I think it was here somewhere when I first joined -- of the Andy Griffith Show, a section with no dialog. It was one of those segments showing lots of lonely time passing I think. The music was so seemingly non-melodic and Webern-ish, it was amazing. We'd been exposed all our lives and never gave it another thought in the context of a sitcom. 

At one point that was a barrier to my getting into more modern music. I wanted to get up and turn off the action movie and listen to real music. So there's a bit of irony in liking movie soundtracks but not liking modern music.


----------



## KenOC

Morimur said:


> Let's be real, Ken-most CM stations (the popular ones) are garbage. John Williams is a movie soundtrack guy and appeals mostly to folks who are into easy listening and adult contemporary.


Well, I'm with you: Anything I don't like is garbage. But what if we dislike different things? Now that's a problem! :lol:


----------



## Iean

Morimur said:


> This statement is so wrong it's not even funny. Movie soundtracks do not work as standalone music because they are meant to serve as accompaniment to images. Movie soundtracks are not a substitute for classical/art music.


If you try to disassociate a movie score from its film and pretend that the film does not exist, you will realize that there are a lot of GREAT music from these scores - Django, On the Waterfront, Out of Africa, the Lord of the Rings scores...:angel:


----------



## Morimur

Iean said:


> If you try to disassociate a movie score from its film and pretend that the film does not exist, you will realize that there are a lot of GREAT music from these scores - Django, On the Waterfront, Out of Africa, the Lord of the Rings scores...:angel:


Pure pastiche.
***********


----------



## Iean

^^^ pastiche or not, still GREAT music..:angel:


----------



## dsphipps100

nathanb said:


> Well that's a pretty pessimistic view of art, but then again, we're used to it.


It might be pessimistic, but it's also realistic.


Morimur said:


> This statement is so wrong it's not even funny. Movie soundtracks do not work as standalone music because they are meant to serve as accompaniment to images. Movie soundtracks are not a substitute for classical/art music.


The same can be said for Beethoven's Egmont, Schubert's Rosamunde, Mendelssohn's Midsummer Night's Dream, and Bizet's L'arlessienne, among others. Those are all scores written as "accompaniment to images" in a play. Just because the images in the plays were/are live on a stage merely because celluloid film hadn't been invented yet makes no difference whatsoever.

And what on earth do you think opera is??????


SimonNZ said:


> The best composers in the world are going to go where their art and creative vision can be fully realized without heavy compromise or at the mercy of the whims of others, hopefully with a livable paycheck. And right now that is in no way movie soundtracks.
> 
> (and I would imagine its only a tiny few soundtrack writers that get anything like "biggest composer paychecks" anyway)


This is incredibly naive. You should read Beethoven's biography, particularly the part where his publisher used to gripe about what a hard bargain Beethoven drove for his commission fees.

Or even better, how about Richard Strauss? His contemporaries used to joke about how, while the orchestra was on stage premiering his latest tone poem, he would be back stage counting ticket receipts to add up his profit.

And I supposed it's just pure coincidence that every one of Strauss' tone poems used a bigger orchestra than the previous? It surely couldn't have anything to do with him wanting to keep ticket sales up......

Or if you want to go further back in time, check out Vivaldi's biography. Speaking of a money-obsessed composer....


----------



## Guest

dsphipps100 said:


> The same can be said for Beethoven's Egmont, Schubert's Rosamunde, Mendelssohn's Midsummer Night's Dream, and Bizet's L'arlessienne, among others. Those are all scores written as "accompaniment to images" in a play. Just because the images in the plays were/are live on a stage merely because celluloid film hadn't been invented yet makes no difference whatsoever.


I think you misunderstood Morimur's point.


----------



## KenOC

nathanb said:


> I think you misunderstood Morimur's point.


What Morimur said: "Movie soundtracks do not work as standalone music because they are meant to serve as accompaniment to images. Movie soundtracks are not a substitute for classical/art music."

What's not to understand?


----------



## dsphipps100

nathanb said:


> I think you misunderstood Morimur's point.


I simply disagree with his point. I'm not saying that _all_ movie soundtracks are capable of standing on their own, that's clearly not the case. There's even more garbage in the repertoire of movie soundtracks than in the repertoire of failed, obscure, disappeared operas that haven't survived the test of time. But there are some movie soundtracks that can be enjoyed on their own, just like the incidental music I listed in Beethoven's Egmont, Schubert's Rosamunde, Mendelssohn's Midsummer Night's Dream, and Bizet's L'arlessienne. It is not necessary for us to know the precise plot points behind each selection of music to still enjoy the music (although it certainly does enhance one's enjoyment), and the same can be said of some of the better movie soundtracks written over the years.


----------



## Chronochromie

dsphipps100 said:


> I simply disagree with his point. I'm not saying that _all_ movie soundtracks are capable of standing on their own, that's clearly not the case. There's even more garbage in the repertoire of movie soundtracks than in the repertoire of failed, obscure, disappeared operas that haven't survived the test of time. But there are some movie soundtracks that can be enjoyed on their own, just like the incidental music I listed in Beethoven's Egmont, Schubert's Rosamunde, Mendelssohn's Midsummer Night's Dream, and Bizet's L'arlessienne. It is not necessary for us to know the precise plot points behind each selection of music to still enjoy the music (although it certainly does enhance one's enjoyment), and the same can be said of some of the better movie soundtracks written over the years.


Which are some of the better movie soundtracks in your opinion? The ones I like best were written by classical composers (Prokofiev, Takemitsu, Schnittke) who did better work writing concert pieces.


----------



## DaveM

Just for the record, I posted those soundtrack examples because they can stand as standalone pieces even if you didn't know they were from soundtracks. The Anonymous movie piece, Soul of Age, could almost have served as the adagio (albeit short) of a cello concerto.

I'm surprised that only one or two of those posting have noted how incredibly beautiful the melodies are of those examples. IMO, it takes great skill/talent to come up with a good original melody these days.


----------



## SimonNZ

dsphipps100 said:


> This is incredibly naive. You should read Beethoven's biography, particularly the part where his publisher used to gripe about what a hard bargain Beethoven drove for his commission fees.
> 
> Or even better, how about Richard Strauss? His contemporaries used to joke about how, while the orchestra was on stage premiering his latest tone poem, he would be back stage counting ticket receipts to add up his profit.
> 
> And I supposed it's just pure coincidence that every one of Strauss' tone poems used a bigger orchestra than the previous? It surely couldn't have anything to do with him wanting to keep ticket sales up......
> 
> Or if you want to go further back in time, check out Vivaldi's biography. Speaking of a money-obsessed composer....


lol. I wasn't saying the best composers had no interest in money. I was saying they wouldn't accept studio dictates, rewrites, banal mood-leading requirements and scare punctuations, vetoes and final cuts reworking what little is left of their intentions....all for just an extra buck. Not if they were what you call "the best".


----------



## dsphipps100

Chronochromie said:


> Which are some of the better movie soundtracks in your opinion? The ones I like best were written by classical composers (Prokofiev, Takemitsu, Schnittke) who did better work writing concert pieces.


Keeping in mind that this is purely personal preferences on my part and nothing more, I would begin by listing Max Steiner's Gone with the Wind, Erich Korngold's Robin Hood, Howard Shore's Lord of the Rings Trilogy (has anybody ever heard a more finely crafted melody than the Shire Theme?), John Williams' Superman, and Jerry Goldsmith's Alien (as he wrote it, NOT as it was used in the film). That should do for starters, at least.


----------



## isorhythm

dsphipps100 said:


> The best composers in the world are naturally going to go where the biggest composer paychecks in the world can be found.


No, the best composers are the ones who write the best music.


----------



## SimonNZ

dsphipps100 said:


> Keeping in mind that this is purely personal preferences on my part and nothing more, I would begin by listing Max Steiner's Gone with the Wind, Erich Korngold's Robin Hood, Howard Shore's Lord of the Rings Trilogy (has anybody ever heard a more finely crafted melody than the Shire Theme?), John Williams' Superman, and Jerry Goldsmith's Alien (as he wrote it, NOT as it was used in the film). That should do for starters, at least.


And what is wrong with just praising them for being excellent soundtracks in the service of the film? Why bring "classical" into it at all?

...because if we do that we're going to have to talk about all soundtracks - the average soundtrack - not just the few that you selectively cherry-pick (which are still, frankly, unconvincing as classical works).


----------



## Adair

The most haunting movie theme I know is the one in Preminger's_ Laura_.


----------



## dsphipps100

SimonNZ said:


> lol. I wasn't saying the best composers had no interest in money. I was saying they wouldn't accept studio dictates, rewrites, banal mood-leading requirements and scare punctuations, vetoes and final cuts reworking what little is left of their intentions....all for just an extra buck. Not if they were what you call "the best".


I apologize for misunderstanding you, but this is still unrealistic. What about all the cuts/alterations that Bruckner accepted to his symphonies? And those are stand-alone works, where collaboration with another artist wasn't even a factor. Or what about all the innumerable cuts/alterations that have been foisted on operas throughout all the centuries that opera has existed? And what about all the cuts that have been made to Rachmaninoff's music over the years? The problem in his case has been so bad that you have to be careful which recording(s) to get of his music, lest you unwittingly get one or more with significant sections of music missing. Being "the best" is no guaranteed protection whatsoever from artistic butchery.

There have been many examples from history of "the best" composers doing what they considered hack work in order to make ends meet. Tchaikovsky hated his own 1812 Overture, but he made more commission money off of it than anything else he wrote. Richard Strauss said the process of orchestrating Eine Alpensinfonie "amuses me even less than chasing cockroaches".

And then there's Dmitri Shostakovich. If there was ever a composer who spent his whole life being dictated to, it was Shostakovich. And yet, one of the things that is so amazing about him is that, even in the midst of doing the hack work that Stalin and other Communists demanded from him, he still found a way to make his music rise above it all and to make an artistic statement.

Being inflexible about one's art doesn't make one "the best". It only makes one stubborn and unyielding.


----------



## dsphipps100

isorhythm said:


> No, the best composers are the ones who write the best music.


So what's the problem? I didn't say they are the best because they get the biggest paychecks. That's putting the cart before the horse.

Because they are the best at writing the best music, they can go where the biggest paychecks can be had.

Composers are humans just like everybody else. They put their pants on one leg at a time just like everybody else - and just like everybody else, they like to make money.

By the way, are any of you naysayers familiar with John Williams' concert music? Did you know that he's written symphonies and concertoes (or concerti, to use correct Italian)? His Horn Concerto was written for and premiered by Dale Clevenger and the Chicago Symphony, just for one example.

I'm not saying these guys who write film music and get the biggest paychecks in the business are only doing it all for money. They have an artistic side also.

But you guys are who trying to make it all seem like black and white, where we have artistic/classical music that deserves the preservation of posterity on one side and then we have film music on the other side that deserves the doom of obscurity as soon as the film's DVD falls off the best-seller list, are completely missing the mark. Some film music is worthy of posterity and some "artistic" music is only worthy of obscurity. There's a lot of gray in the middle.


----------



## dsphipps100

SimonNZ said:


> And what is wrong with just praising them for being excellent soundtracks in the service of the film? Why bring "classical" into it at all?
> 
> ...because if we do that we're going to have to talk about all soundtracks - the average soundtrack - not just the few that you selectively cherry-pick (which are still, frankly, unconvincing as classical works).


I'm not seeing your point, since I don't recall using the word "classical" to describe any soundtrack. But even if I did, it wouldn't make any difference anyway. Music is music is music, regardless of the reason WHY it was composed. If it's worthy of standing on its own, then all well and good. And if it's not, then throw it away and bring on the next piece. This is true of ALL music, whether written for a film or a concert hall.

And as for the examples I listed being "unconvincing", I completely respect your right to your opinion, just as I also respect your right to prefer different performances than I do of the standard concert repertoire. But that doesn't make my opinion any less valid than yours.


----------



## SimonNZ

dsphipps100 said:


> But you guys are who trying to make it all seem like black and white, where we have artistic/classical music that deserves the preservation of posterity on one side and then we have film music on the other side that deserves the doom of obscurity as soon as the film's DVD falls off the best-seller list, are completely missing the mark. Some film music is worthy of posterity and some "artistic" music is only worthy of obscurity. There's a lot of gray in the middle.





dsphipps100 said:


> *I'm not seeing your point, since I don't recall using the word "classical" to describe any soundtrack. * But even if I did, it wouldn't make any difference anyway. Music is music is music, regardless of the reason WHY it was composed. If it's worthy of standing on its own, then all well and good. And if it's not, then throw it away and bring on the next piece. This is true of ALL music, whether written for a film or a concert hall.


Its in the title of the thread and in the OP - which I thought you were defending.

And as I said upthread I think there are many very well crafted soundtracks, and its enough to praise them as such.


----------



## dsphipps100

SimonNZ said:


> Its in the title of the thread and in the OP - which I thought you were defending.
> 
> And as I said upthread I think there are many very well crafted soundtracks, and its enough to praise them as such.


Got it, thanks for the clarification.


----------



## dsphipps100

Let's use an example to prove the point. Here's a piece of music from a movie soundtrack:

View attachment 81340


For those of you who care to do so, please listen to it and see if you enjoy it. I'm betting you will, even though you'll have no idea what movie it's from or what's going on. (It's just over 5 minutes long, to let you know, and the whole thing is relatively quiet, so you don't need to worry about waking up the neighbors.







)

Later on, after everybody has had a chance to listen to it and see what you think of it as stand-alone, independent music, I'll identify it and tell you what it is. (Of course, it's entirely possible that somebody here might also recognize it.)

Happy listening.


----------



## Pugg

SimonNZ said:


> Its in the title of the thread and in the OP - which I thought you were defending.
> 
> And as I said upthread I think there are many very well crafted soundtracks, and its enough to praise them as such.


Wise words, so nothing to add:tiphat:


----------



## violadude

Movie scores are great for movies. Not much interesting about them on their own. I don't see movie scores as being analogous to opera at all. The music in movies are designed to enhance the mood and emotions of a scene in a movie. That is all. In opera, music is at the forefront and the musical themes, motifs, and all that are integral to its structure in a way that it's just not in a movie. 

So no, I don't really see movie scores as being "classical music" necessarily. And I definitely don't see them as being a replacement for opera. If they were a replacement for opera, well, that would be a sad commentary on the state of opera...fortunately, there are still many great real operas being written.


----------



## violadude

dsphipps100 said:


> Let's use an example to prove the point. Here's a piece of music from a movie soundtrack:
> 
> View attachment 81340
> 
> 
> For those of you who care to do so, please listen to it and see if you enjoy it. I'm betting you will, even though you'll have no idea what movie it's from or what's going on. (It's just over 5 minutes long, to let you know, and the whole thing is relatively quiet, so you don't need to worry about waking up the neighbors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )
> 
> Later on, after everybody has had a chance to listen to it and see what you think of it as stand-alone, independent music, I'll identify it and tell you what it is. (Of course, it's entirely possible that somebody here might also recognize it.)
> 
> Happy listening.


Well, I listened to it...and as a stand alone piece, sorry but it's just super boring. They sound like someone playing first draft sketches of a late Prokofiev score, there's just not much going on at all. Even a relatively calm atmospheric piece like, say, The Lark Ascending, has multiple layers of depth in the writing that strengthen the overall sound of the piece. But this was just...iono. It was like listening to the skeleton of a piece. Can you not hear that? Do you really think this sounds complete as a stand alone piece?

I'm sure it was a lovely accompaniment to whatever movie it was in. But on it's own it just sounds like a group of lifeless chords that don't go anywhere, with some harp effects thrown in there.


----------



## violadude

dsphipps100 said:


> So what's the problem? I didn't say they are the best because they get the biggest paychecks. That's putting the cart before the horse.
> 
> Because they are the best at writing the best music, they can go where the biggest paychecks can be had.
> 
> Composers are humans just like everybody else. They put their pants on one leg at a time just like everybody else - and just like everybody else, they like to make money.
> 
> By the way, are any of you naysayers familiar with John Williams' concert music? Did you know that he's written symphonies and concertoes (or concerti, to use correct Italian)? His Horn Concerto was written for and premiered by Dale Clevenger and the Chicago Symphony, just for one example.
> 
> I'm not saying these guys who write film music and get the biggest paychecks in the business are only doing it all for money. They have an artistic side also.
> 
> But you guys are who trying to make it all seem like black and white, where we have artistic/classical music that deserves the preservation of posterity on one side and then we have film music on the other side that deserves the doom of obscurity as soon as the film's DVD falls off the best-seller list, are completely missing the mark. *Some film music is worthy of posterity and some "artistic" music is only worthy of obscurity. There's a lot of gray in the middle.*


I just listened to most of the scores in the OP and none of them even came close to being worth posterity or artistic praise. Incredibly banal stuff. Grating on the nerves. Sorry but I just don't see how you can equate that with classical music.

Some old movie scores I can see maybe being worthy of artistic praise as stand alone pieces...but not many newer scores that I've heard.

Of course a lot of movie scores deserve artistic praise for enhancing the movie they were in...but not just as pieces of music.


----------



## Truckload

dsphipps100 said:


> Let's use an example to prove the point. Here's a piece of music from a movie soundtrack:
> 
> View attachment 81340
> 
> 
> For those of you who care to do so, please listen to it and see if you enjoy it. I'm betting you will, even though you'll have no idea what movie it's from or what's going on. (It's just over 5 minutes long, to let you know, and the whole thing is relatively quiet, so you don't need to worry about waking up the neighbors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )
> 
> Later on, after everybody has had a chance to listen to it and see what you think of it as stand-alone, independent music, I'll identify it and tell you what it is. (Of course, it's entirely possible that somebody here might also recognize it.)
> 
> Happy listening.


I don't recognize your test mp3 but I did enjoy it. Thank you.

Music can function on many levels and all music does not need to function on every level to be worth admiration. The haiku is only 17 syllables yet is capable of communicating enormous meaning, emotion, and thought provoking content. Movie music is often very good at communicating meaning, emotion and thought provoking ideas to a wide audience.

I love the beautiful acoustic instruments in your test mp3, and I personally find more meaning in beauty than in the loud drums and "epic" brass blares in some recent movie music.

I like the fact that movie music can foster an interest in orchestral music for a new audience.


----------



## Guest

Philip Glass has of course written much for films.
I particularly enjoy the music he composed for Godfrey Reggio.


----------



## Truckload

dogen said:


> Philip Glass has of course written much for films.
> I particularly enjoy the music he composed for Godfrey Reggio.


Yes, Glass has had a very long and profitable career, much of it I think attributable to his visibility as a film composer. It is interesting to observe the changes in his music over the years. I read somewhere that he does not like being called a minimalist.

Copland, Bernstein and Prokofiev also come to mind as classical composers who wrote for films.


----------



## Guest

I am not interested in soundtracks of movies in general but there are a few exceptions.I very much like the tune of Lawrence of Arabia in the same way as I like Spartacus of Khachaturian.Psycho from Hitchcock has a vey good soundtrack but I shall not listen to it without the movie.Another soundtrack I like is "o brother where art thou".


----------



## Kivimees

I quite like the theme to The Magnificence Seven (



) but I've never seen the film. Any good?


----------



## manyene

DaveM said:


> In classical music I am drawn to melody before anything else. I'm talking about pure, accessible, immediately-recognizable melody: Melody that strikes deep at the soul and the heartstrings.
> 
> 'In full disclosure, I don't like much in the way of 'modern classical music' as the term is generally applied these days. Mahler is about as 'modern' as I will get. Thus, outside of Richard Strauss, Rachmaninoff and a handful of others, there are very few composers of the 20th century whose music I will listen to. I feel a sense of loss that the appreciation for 'traditional melody' has been lost in the composition of most classical music these days. Listening to the music of Schoenberg, Shostakovich and the like is almost torture to me. I don't hear any melody that resonates or touches me. (Note: this my opinion only and not a value judgement of any particular composer.)'


While I accept this is DaveM's opinion it is a pity that he has chosen Shostakovich as an example: try some of his film music, and indeed the slow movement of his Second piano concerto, which could be written by Rachmaninov.

There's no doubt that in recent years tonal music along 'traditional' lines - i.e. with an emphasis on melody - has made a comeback, as the later music of Rautavaara and Penderecki shows. And I can name plenty more composers active today and operating within this tradition


----------



## Fugue Meister

In response to the OP, I feel that you are cheating yourself of much better music to be found in the 20th century repertoire. You said in a later post "Don't think I haven't tried", well I don't think hard enough, especially if you label Shostakovich as one whose music seems like torture to you. Shostakovich wrote many pleasing melodies amidst the cacophony of horrors he also showed to the world through music, you really should dig deeper. It's dismissive to suggest there's only torturous music to be found in 20th century music.. I'd suggest starting with Shostakovich's jazz suites, the 5th or 9th symphony (try all the movements before you judge), or the bolt ballet suite. There are others as well, have you heard Walton's symphonies or anything by Prokofiev, Rubbra, or Vaughan Williams? All are fully capable of creating wonderful melodies within orchestral landscapes and all much better music than anything you'll find in film scores. 

As for the film score examples you posted I'm afraid I must agree with Violadude that they decent at best and shouldn't be lumped into the same category as absolute music. Even when composers like Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Copland, Glass, or Walton do compose for films it's not in the same class as their serious music, many serious composers who did compose film scores famously didn't care for the medium and only did it for the easy money. 

With respect to those of you who are championing film scores, I will admit that there are a few who do very good work especially John Williams but I would maintain that Williams is the exception in terms of which scores are good enough to stand alone. In fact I can't really think of anyone else listed so far who's music I put on without the film other than Williams. Yes Howard Shore wrote some wonderful themes for the "Lord of the Rings" films but they are surrounded by hours of banal montage/mood music that aren't really worth your time (I don't know if anyone knows but Shore uses computer programs to do most his scores since the mid 80's although to be fair not "Lord of the Rings" but still... cheating). We all only get so much time in life and I suppose if that's what you want to soak up for the fifteenth to twentieth time by all means but you could be exploring better music and find something that really touches you more profoundly. 

Now I turn my attention to a few others points that I take issue with or find good merits in. Firstly dsphipps100 saying: "The best composers in the world are naturally going to go where the biggest composer paychecks in the world can be found. And right now, that's in movie soundtracks. So if you want to find the greatest living composers' body of ongoing work, one of the places you better look is the movies.", I can see how you might think this is true but in reality only the smallest percentage of score composers make the kind of money you are suggesting namely Shore, Zimmer, Williams, Horner (now deceased), Morricone, Goldsmith, Edelman, Silvestri, & Giacchino (who got his foot in the door with JJ.Abrams and his "Lost" success). Those composers do make astronomical fees but all have been doing primarily film work for decades and for each one of them there are countless other film score composers trying to earn even a fraction of what those guys do (Notice you can count the guys I listed on both hands). So I feel to say "that's where the biggest paychecks are" is a bit short sighted. 

Truckload did make an excellent point that:
"movie music can foster an interest in orchestral music for a new audience", and I completely agree with this. I too must be counted in those that came to great music through first liking the music in films (although the main movie that did it for me was "Amadeus"  ) Anyway so by that reasoning I say film music is good because it can open up worlds of possibilities for the uninitiated. 

Finally I will say that there is another composer of film scores whose music I quite enjoy hearing alone without the films and who hasn't been mentioned here yet and that's Jonny Greenwood's music for Paul Thomas Anderson's films. I highly recommend to anyone who loves film music to check his work out on youtube. Honorable mention should go to Trent Reznor & Atticus Ross for their work on Fincher's films of late (although there is a decidedly alternative rock feel to them not necessarily a bad thing but not the typical orchestral fare offered by everyone else talked about).


----------



## Truckload

Kivimees said:


> I quite like the theme to The Magnificence Seven (
> 
> 
> 
> ) but I've never seen the film. Any good?


For its time The Magnificent Seven was highly regarded by critics and audience. It was a big box office hit for its time. It might seem a bit dated to a modern audience.


----------



## Fugue Meister

Here are some selections of Greenwood's music from films...


























I especially love the track titled "Time hole" form "The Master" soundtrack but for some reason it wouldn't post so check it out for yourself if you enjoy these selections...


----------



## gardibolt

Magnificent Seven is a good film, but the original version, Seven Samurai, is a great film.


----------



## isorhythm

dsphipps100 said:


> Composers are humans just like everybody else. They put their pants on one leg at a time just like everybody else - and just like everybody else, they like to make money.


Good artists are more interested in art than money - otherwise they couldn't be good artists. Of course they have to make a living, but there are a lot of ways to do that besides writing blockbuster scores.


----------



## Fugue Meister

Truckload said:


> For its time The Magnificent Seven was highly regarded by critics and audience. It was a big box office hit for its time. It might seem a bit dated to a modern audience.


It's pretty decent and the number one played (or rerun) movie on American television but "The Seven Samurai", which that film is based on is far superior.

By the way Truckload I forgot to add, love your new avatar picture...


----------



## Truckload

Thanks FugueMeister! I got tired of the old one. And I was feeling pretty much like a "Charlie Brown" kind of guy.


----------



## dsphipps100

isorhythm said:


> Good artists are more interested in art than money - otherwise they couldn't be good artists. Of course they have to make a living, but there are a lot of ways to do that besides writing blockbuster scores.


That's why John Williams has written things like symphonies and concerti, because he also wants to explore his more artistic side.


----------



## isorhythm

dsphipps100 said:


> That's why John Williams has written things like symphonies and concerti, because he also wants to explore his more artistic side.


No argument from me on this. But I would not say that John Williams' success in film scores tells us he's one of the best modern composers (he isn't). It tells us he's good at writing film scores.

I have a lot of respect for Williams, by the way, as I'm sure lots of kids who grew up with Star Wars do.


----------



## Chronochromie

dsphipps100 said:


> That's why John Williams has written things like symphonies and concerti, because he also wants to explore his more artistic side.


Would you say Williams' best work is in the film scores or in the concert pieces?


----------



## DaveM

manyene said:


> While I accept this is DaveM's opinion it is a pity that he has chosen Shostakovich as an example: try some of his film music, and indeed the slow movement of his Second piano concerto, which could be written by Rachmaninov.


I listened to the 2nd movement of the Piano Concerto #2 and it is very engaging. I think I'll remove Shostakovich from that statement of mine and replace him with John Cage.


----------



## brotagonist

Fugue Meister said:


> In response to the OP, I feel that you are cheating yourself of much better music to be found in the 20th century repertoire. You said in a later post "Don't think I haven't tried", well I don't think hard enough, especially if you label Shostakovich as one whose music seems like torture to you. Shostakovich wrote many pleasing melodies amidst the cacophony of horrors he also showed to the world through music, you really should dig deeper. It's dismissive to suggest there's only torturous music to be found in 20th century music.. I'd suggest starting with Shostakovich's jazz suites, the 5th or 9th symphony (try all the movements before you judge), or the bolt ballet suite. There are others as well, have you heard Walton's symphonies or anything by Prokofiev, Rubbra, or Vaughan Williams? All are fully capable of creating wonderful melodies within orchestral landscapes and all much better music than anything you'll find in film scores.
> 
> As for the film score examples you posted I'm afraid I must agree with Violadude that they decent at best and shouldn't be lumped into the same category as absolute music.


That's what I was driving at: I'm with you on this, but... ahem! About "absolute music": that's what most of us here on TC are championing 

Absolute music is serious instrumental music that exists for its own sake and does not need external meanings and programmes and the like to justify its existence. It's absolute, pure, the essence of what serious music is. Anything else walks a fine line between serious and popular, I think. This includes Lieder, operas, program pieces, etc. Out of ignorance of a better definition, this is the best explanation I can come up with.


----------



## DaveM

Fugue Meister said:


> In response to the OP, I feel that you are cheating yourself of much better music to be found in the 20th century repertoire. You said in a later post "Don't think I haven't tried", well I don't think hard enough, especially if you label Shostakovich as one whose music seems like torture to you. Shostakovich wrote many pleasing melodies amidst the cacophony of horrors he also showed to the world through music, you really should dig deeper. * It's dismissive to suggest there's only torturous music to be found in 20th century music.*. I'd suggest starting with Shostakovich's jazz suites, the 5th or 9th symphony (try all the movements before you judge), or the bolt ballet suite. There are others as well, have you heard Walton's symphonies or anything by Prokofiev, Rubbra, or Vaughan Williams? All are fully capable of creating wonderful melodies within orchestral landscapes and all much better music than anything you'll find in film scores.


I didn't say that there's only torturous music to be found in 20th century music. That's a rather unfair exaggeration of what I posted.

However, I think I could have chosen a better example than Shostakovich. I have liked a few works of Prokofiev. I did like Katchachurian's Violin Concerto.


----------



## Fugue Meister

DaveM said:


> I listened to the 2nd movement of the Piano Concerto #2 and it is very engaging. I think I'll remove Shostakovich from that statement of mine and replace him with John Cage.


Well you may want to check out 13 harmonies, In a landscape, or 6 melodies before you hasten to judgement on Mr. Cage, those are very nice on the ear..


----------



## Mahlerian

Heck, why refer to Schoenberg? His music is filled with melodies.


----------



## DaveM

I appreciate the fact that the above posters took the trouble to give examples of John Cage and Schoenberg, but I have to be honest that that music does not resonate with me. Again, I have to repeat that I am not making a value judgement on these composers. I fully understand that they have their own following. 

I'm sure that differences in how our brains process these things have something to do with it, but beyond that I have no clue why these differences in the appreciation of music exist. The same dynamic, whatever it is, likely explains why I find the examples I posted as incredibly beautiful melodies while a few here apparently find them to be of limited interest/value.


----------



## dsphipps100

Chronochromie said:


> Would you say Williams' best work is in the film scores or in the concert pieces?


Yes. .


----------



## dsphipps100

isorhythm said:


> No argument from me on this. But I would not say that John Williams' success in film scores tells us he's one of the best modern composers (he isn't). It tells us he's good at writing film scores.


This sounds like saying that Wagner's success in opera doesn't tell us he's one of the best composers of his time. Opera is only a gimmicky, visual medium to entice the crowds while they listen to otherwise banal music, after all, for which the composers are grossly overpaid, right?









isorhythm said:


> I have a lot of respect for Williams, by the way, as I'm sure lots of kids who grew up with Star Wars do.


Like I said...







Such faint praise....

I bet those same "kids" would also enjoy Ravel's Ma mère l'Oye


----------



## bharbeke

It is the job of the film score composer to enhance the film and support what is on screen. That does not exclude parts of the score from holding up as purely musical compositions, whether by themselves or as part of a suite.

From John Williams, there are pieces I have only heard on his Greatest Hits album and not seen on film, and some of them are wonderful to my ears. Seven Years in Tibet and the March from 1941 are two examples.

I agree wholeheartedly with the poster who said that the Superman Main Title is great music on its own.

Whether it is Williams, Horner, Goldsmith, Kamen, Newman (pick your favorite), or Mancini, there is excellent music that has been composed for film and can be enjoyed as classical music. Everyone probably has their own line in the sand for what makes something classical, but if it can be played by an orchestra and be compared to Wagner or Gershwin, I am going to call it classical.


----------



## dsphipps100

bharbeke said:


> It is the job of the film score composer to enhance the film and support what is on screen. That does not exclude parts of the score from holding up as purely musical compositions, whether by themselves or as part of a suite.
> 
> From John Williams, there are pieces I have only heard on his Greatest Hits album and not seen on film, and some of them are wonderful to my ears. Seven Years in Tibet and the March from 1941 are two examples.
> 
> I agree wholeheartedly with the poster who said that the Superman Main Title is great music on its own.
> 
> Whether it is Williams, Horner, Goldsmith, Kamen, Newman (pick your favorite), or Mancini, there is excellent music that has been composed for film and can be enjoyed as classical music. Everyone probably has their own line in the sand for what makes something classical, but if it can be played by an orchestra and be compared to Wagner or Gershwin, I am going to call it classical.


THANK YOU. Two thumbs way up for this post.


----------



## violadude

dsphipps100 said:


> This sounds like saying that Wagner's success in opera doesn't tell us he's one of the best composers of his time. Opera is only a gimmicky, visual medium to entice the crowds while they listen to otherwise banal music, after all, for which the composers are grossly overpaid, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such faint praise....


Every time you try to compare opera scores to movie scores you make me cringe.

Maybe you have a case with incidental music, but not opera...


----------



## Bulldog

Mahlerian said:


> Heck, why refer to Schoenberg? His music is filled with melodies.


That was very rewarding - thanks.:tiphat:


----------



## dsphipps100

violadude said:


> Every time you try to compare opera scores to movie scores you make me cringe.
> 
> Maybe you have a case with incidental music, but not opera...


Sorry, but this makes no sense whatsoever. What is the difference between opera and a play with incidental music, which simply means it's an opera with no singing? What you are saying sounds like blanket categorization to me.


----------



## Fugue Meister

bharbeke said:


> It is the job of the film score composer to enhance the film and support what is on screen. That does not exclude parts of the score from holding up as purely musical compositions, whether by themselves or as part of a suite.
> 
> From John Williams, there are pieces I have only heard on his Greatest Hits album and not seen on film, and some of them are wonderful to my ears. Seven Years in Tibet and the March from 1941 are two examples.
> 
> I agree wholeheartedly with the poster who said that the Superman Main Title is great music on its own.
> 
> Whether it is Williams, Horner, Goldsmith, Kamen, Newman (pick your favorite), or Mancini, there is excellent music that has been composed for film and can be enjoyed as classical music. Everyone probably has their own line in the sand for what makes something classical, but if it can be played by an orchestra and be compared to Wagner or Gershwin, I am going to call it classical.


Not to be semantical (well who am I kidding) but I think the only music which could be classified as "classical" came from the time period between 1740 - 1825 or so. I really wish "absolute music" would stick as a term for music without words to be played by an orchestra, it's so much better and if I may say so vastly cooler the the moniker "classical" which sounds so dated and I think turns some people off (probably because it has been associated with elitism).

Oh and I'm not trying to pick on dsphipps100 but I don't see opera as being anywhere near the same thing as a film. Consider that in a film no one sings (unless it's a musical which hardly exist as films anymore except as novelties), in an opera the human voice is but another instrument in mass of sound coming out of the orchestra. A film can hardly be compared but if one does there is also the fact that lush and complex orchestration (that usually goes hand in hand with the opera tradition as the music is the main draw of an opera) hardly happens in film scores.

I still dig scores they're cool but the opera to film comparison is flimsy at best. Surely there are better analogies to be had. :tiphat:


----------



## violadude

dsphipps100 said:


> Sorry, but this makes no sense whatsoever. What is the difference between opera and a play with incidental music, which simply means it's an opera with no singing? What you are saying sounds like blanket categorization to me.


Because an opera is not simply background music to a story being told. The music is an integral part of everything that happens in the opera. This is usually not so with film music. Do you understand?


----------



## Chronochromie

dsphipps100 said:


> Yes. .


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


----------



## Fugue Meister

Chronochromie said:


> .............


I will offer my answer.. As someone who has listened to a great deal of Williams' work from both camps of music he writes in I can say in my opinion they are both equally good. Even though I'm sure he will be remembered primarily for his scores I enjoy most his concertos and he has a scherzo for piano and orchestra thats interesting. I feel safe saying if your a fan of his scores his concert music will be of equal or greater value to you. My favorite thing he's ever done is all the music for "Saving Private Ryan" (probably the thing I play the most of his work) and "Catch me if you can" which has a wonderful jazzy score.

Don't get me wrong "Star Wars", "E.T" & "Schindler's List" are all excellent scores as well.


----------



## Elizabeth de Brito

I'm exactly the same. I listen to a wide variety of music and I always start with melody. I know everyone likes John Williams for his epic Wagnerian and Korngold type scores for Star Wars and Superman with lots of brass fanfares but his music for Sabrina in 1995 is very Debussyesque and it's gorgeous check the first piece out here:






Howard Shore's music for Lord of the Rings/the Hobbit is completely classically based and it's not a movie but Murray Gold's music for Doctor Who is nothing short of genius. His choral piece Vale Decem is some of the most beautiful and heartwrenching music you will ever hear in my opinion.





 is the link to Vale Decem.


----------



## Elizabeth de Brito

Film music while not designed to be so integral to the plot is utterly crucial. Have you seen Star Wars? The Imperial March, as soon as you hear it, without even seeing Darth Vader, you know it's evil's turn. That's how important it is. Yes, they are different art forms - opera is a classical sung through musical whereas the music for films is a backdrop. Music determines the entire tone of every film, whether it's romantic, melancholy, angry, or any other emotion. Disney scores are incredible also, especially Alan Menken - they are completely synced with the action on screen. Music heightens emotion. Take away music and these films would be nothing. Say anything you like about the racism, sexism and other isms that saturate Disney movies but the music is exquisite and the scores are immensely underrated.


----------



## Mahlerian

DaveM said:


> I appreciate the fact that the above posters took the trouble to give examples of John Cage and Schoenberg, but I have to be honest that that music does not resonate with me. Again, I have to repeat that I am not making a value judgement on these composers. I fully understand that they have their own following.


Well, thanks for listening, anyway.


----------



## Chordalrock

violadude said:


> Because an opera is not simply background music to a story being told. The music is an integral part of everything that happens in the opera. This is usually not so with film music. Do you understand?


I wish movies did more with music. The best of them do have scenes where music is integral and where the audio-visual end-result is wonderful (Edge of Tomorrow, Dark Knight Rises, for recent examples), but these are just moments in a two-hour narrative.

I guess film suffers from being either a huge scam that is only about money or propaganda (everything and anything Hollywood), or a bunch of weirdos doing artsy-fartsy nonsense on a small budget. There are the few exceptions, but even they haven't pushed beyond the ruling paradigm of film where music is just a spice that is added on occasion.


----------



## dsphipps100

violadude said:


> Because an opera is not simply background music to a story being told. The music is an integral part of everything that happens in the opera. This is usually not so with film music. Do you understand?


Yes, I do understand. You're saying that the opera music is superior because it was written with the express purpose of being the center of one's attention, where the film music is (supposedly) inferior because it is "simply background music".

This completely ignores the fact, however, that just because one piece of music is not written as the primary component of its production does not affect the quality of its writing one iota. Take that "background music" out of its film, put it on a CD and listen to it in your living room without the film showing (or on a concert stage being performed by a live orchestra), and the "background music" just might prove itself to be also worthy of foreground status.

But you would apparently deny it that chance simply because of the original reason for its composition.


----------



## dsphipps100

dsphipps100 said:


> Let's use an example to prove the point. Here's a piece of music from a movie soundtrack:
> 
> View attachment 81340
> 
> 
> For those of you who care to do so, please listen to it and see if you enjoy it. I'm betting you will, even though you'll have no idea what movie it's from or what's going on. (It's just over 5 minutes long, to let you know, and the whole thing is relatively quiet, so you don't need to worry about waking up the neighbors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )
> 
> Later on, after everybody has had a chance to listen to it and see what you think of it as stand-alone, independent music, I'll identify it and tell you what it is. (Of course, it's entirely possible that somebody here might also recognize it.)
> 
> Happy listening.


(In case anybody was wondering, this is Jerry Goldsmith's "New Sight" from _Star Trek Insurrection_.)


----------



## Fugue Meister

Chordalrock said:


> I wish movies did more with music. The best of them do have scenes where music is integral and where the audio-visual end-result is wonderful (Edge of Tomorrow, Dark Knight Rises, for recent examples), but these are just moments in a two-hour narrative.
> 
> I guess film suffers from being either a huge scam that is only about money or propaganda (everything and anything Hollywood), or a bunch of weirdos doing artsy-fartsy nonsense on a small budget. There are the few exceptions, but even they haven't pushed beyond the ruling paradigm of film where music is just a spice that is added on occasion.


I would just like to point out to be fair, that there are a few films that are completely scored with music (mostly movies with you guessed it, John Williams) Star Wars being the obvious example that's one reason it was called by one reviewer a "space opera", but really there's maybe two to three minutes total screen time without music, same goes for "Raiders of the Lost Ark" (another fantastic score) and E.T (although the later has more non music scenes, like 10 minutes maybe but still pretty good ratio)

I don't know the "Lord of the Ring's" movies as well (saw them all only once) but I could have sworn there was a lot of music to no music ratio there as well. Personally I think Kubrick did it best by putting in pre-existing absolute music in his films (although I know to many of you here that's considered sacrilege, not for me).


----------



## atsizat

KenOC said:


> What Morimur said: "Movie soundtracks do not work as standalone music because they are meant to serve as accompaniment to images. Movie soundtracks are not a substitute for classical/art music."
> 
> What's not to understand?


I don't agree with him. The pieces I posted at the first page didn't have much connection with movies. I listen to them without watching the movies they are composed for.

Tell me what connection do these pieces have with the movies they are composed for? Many of Ennio Morricone's music don't even fit movies they are composed for. You can take those music pieces and use them in different movies.


----------



## dsphipps100

Fugue Meister said:


> I don't know the "Lord of the Ring's" movies as well (saw them all only once) but I could have sworn there was a lot of music to no music ratio there as well.


The extended versions of the three movies are a combined total of 727 minutes long. The "Complete Recordings" of the film scores are a combined total of 598 minutes long, which yields a grand total of 129 minutes of film without music in the whole extended trilogy.

As a side note, I would like to mention something about the Lord of the Rings. When I went to the theater and saw the first movie, The Fellowship of the Ring, I knew next to nothing about The Lord of the Rings besides that it was written by J.R.R. Tolkien and that it's considered "fantasy" genre. Sitting in the theater, I didn't even realize that the "Fellowship" film wasn't going to be the complete story.

Here's the important point: As the film progressed and the story developed, I distinctly remember that, as much as I was enjoying the story and the awesome visual presentation, the part that I was enjoying most was the music. I was absolutely floored by the amazing quality of musical composition that I was hearing.

Of course, about two hours into it, I started looking at my watch, not because I was getting anxious to leave by any means, but because I was starting to think, "They better get this story moving along if they're going to end it anytime soon." Oh boy, was I ever in for a shock!

As the picture faded when Frodo and Sam were heading off toward Mordor and the credits started rolling, I was absolutely _mortified_ to realize that it was obviously a multi-part story. In spite of this, however, I still remember thinking "That's a beautiful song" during the credits and wondering if it might be Enya singing. It was very gratifying to see her name roll up in the music part of the credits, since I had recognized her purely based on the sound of her voice.

When the movie finally ended, it was after 1 AM, but I went and immediately found a 24-hour bookstore (a Border Books, IIFC), bought the complete book trilogy and started devouring the whole thing. (I also purchased the music soundtrack at Border as well, and was totally disgusted to immediately realize that it only contained a small fraction of all the music in the movie.)

Since then, I have become a huge fan of all things Tolkien.







(Including all six of Howard Shore's complete scores, both for LOTR and for the Hobbit trilogy as well. Say what you will about what Peter Jackson did to The Hobbit, but that doesn't change the fact that Howard Shore still did an awesome job with his part of it.)


----------



## Chordalrock

Fugue Meister said:


> I would just like to point out to be fair, that there are a few films that are completely scored with music (mostly movies with you guessed it, John Williams) Star Wars being the obvious example that's one reason it was called by one reviewer a "space opera", but really there's maybe two to three minutes total screen time without music, same goes for "Raiders of the Lost Ark" (another fantastic score) and E.T (although the later has more non music scenes, like 10 minutes maybe but still pretty good ratio)
> 
> I don't know the "Lord of the Ring's" movies as well (saw them all only once) but I could have sworn there was a lot of music to no music ratio there as well. Personally I think Kubrick did it best by putting in pre-existing absolute music in his films (although I know to many of you here that's considered sacrilege, not for me).


Haven't seen Star Wars, so can't comment.

Re Kubrick, I think he succeeded excellently in The Shining in combining pre-existing music and visual and spoken elements. However, I didn't know the music before watching the movies, plus in that movie Kubrick is probably unusually interested in going for the Disney effect where the music seems to react to the visual narrative in a very meticulous moment-by-moment fashion.

Problems with using pre-existing music: (1) a lot of people who know that music beforehand and love it aren't going to like it, (2) it can easily start sounding divorsed from the visual and textual elements (e.g. the Schubert in "Crimes and Misdemeanors"). I guess the latter risk is biggest when the director simply wants to use some of his favorite classical music in his movie just-because (Godard and Lars von Trier, I'm looking at you). Really, it almost never strikes me as successful or worthwhile from the few examples that I recall. If you are serious about making a movie that is beautiful and artistic, you should also be serious enough to want new music for it that has been composed specifically to fit the movie and that people don't have preconceived notions about. This is actually what Kubrick had planned to do in The Shining - the music he received from his composer just turned out to be a disappointment, so he basically had to use pre-existing music at that point (which is just as well, because it did turn out so well).


----------



## Guest

Thinking this thread should be moved to the film music subforum. If a moderator could do this asap, that would be great. Thanks.


----------



## KenOC

I disagree with the proposed move. The subject is "Movie Themes/Soundtracks As a Category of Modern Classical Music," not film music per se. It addresses a controversy often found on this and similar forums which basically has to do with the definition of "classical music".


----------



## violadude

dsphipps100 said:


> Yes, I do understand. You're saying that the opera music is superior because it was written with the express purpose of being the center of one's attention, where the film music is (supposedly) inferior because it is "simply background music".
> 
> This completely ignores the fact, however, that just because one piece of music is not written as the primary component of its production does not affect the quality of its writing one iota. Take that "background music" out of its film, put it on a CD and listen to it in your living room without the film showing (or on a concert stage being performed by a live orchestra), and the "background music" just might prove itself to be also worthy of foreground status.
> 
> But you would apparently deny it that chance simply because of the original reason for its composition.


What you seem to be ignoring is that music written for movies is not supposed to stand on its own as great music...if you're a movie composer that writes music that is too interesting you are writing bad movie music because it would distract from the scene, not support it. With exception to opening and closing credits...movie music is supposed to be *background music*. This is not true of opera music.

That's fine if you enjoy background music, I have nothing against that. But to compare it to opera is just silly to me.


----------



## Bulldog

KenOC said:


> I disagree with the proposed move. The subject is "Movie Themes/Soundtracks As a Category of Modern Classical Music," not film music per se. It addresses a controversy often found on this and similar forums which basically has to do with the definition of "classical music".


I also disagree. Although I'm skeptical about movie themes being declared classical music, those who are in favor have every right to present their arguments in the classical music category.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> I disagree with the proposed move. The subject is "Movie Themes/Soundtracks As a Category of Modern Classical Music," not film music per se. It addresses a controversy often found on this and similar forums which basically has to do with the definition of "classical music".


And until it is decided that it is classical music, I see no problem with it being discussed elsewhere. Video game soundtracks, death metal, and dubstep will get the same treatment, don't worry. No unfairness here.


----------



## DaveM

KenOC said:


> I disagree with the proposed move. The subject is "Movie Themes/Soundtracks As a Category of Modern Classical Music," not film music per se. It addresses a controversy often found on this and similar forums which basically has to do with the definition of "classical music".


As the thread originator, for the reason you state, I would prefer that it stay here. Already, it has received the sort of interest that I don't believe it would have received in that sub forum. Also, I think that unless a thread is obviously totally in the wrong part of a forum, it is a courtesy to first ask the originator of the OP whether they would like to have it moved.


----------



## dsphipps100

violadude said:


> What you seem to be ignoring is that music written for movies is not supposed to stand on its own as great music...if you're a movie composer that writes music that is too interesting you are writing bad movie music because it would distract from the scene, not support it. With exception to opening and closing credits...movie music is supposed to be *background music*. This is not true of opera music.


This is so laughably ignorant of the nature of film music as to defy description. Think of all the iconic examples of film music that have become staples of our culture and our society that you would denigrate as "background music", _including_ music that appears during the story and not during the credits.

Just for one example, Elizabeth de Brito already mentioned John Williams' "Imperial March" (which makes its first appearance during the story), and I couldn't even begin to list all the climactic, key moments in films where the music is the primary audio being heard and there is no dialogue whatsoever.

What you seem to be ignoring is that there is a lot of music written for movies/film that DOES stand on its own just fine, irregardless of whether or not it's "supposed to".

And how on earth can film music be "too interesting"? That's about as intelligent as saying that an opera orchestra is "too good" because it distracts the audience from the onstage singers by doing too excellent a job.

Good grief.


----------



## dsphipps100

DaveM said:


> As the thread originator, for the reason you state, I would prefer that it stay here. Already, it has received the sort of interest that I don't believe it would have received in that sub forum. Also, I think that unless a thread is obviously totally in the wrong part of a forum, it is a courtesy to first ask the originator of the OP whether they would like to have it moved.


I know I would probably not have noticed it in the other forum. (Of course, some people here would probably be happier if that was the case.......







)


----------



## Guest

dsphipps100 said:


> This is so laughably ignorant of the nature of film music as to defy description. Think of all the iconic examples of film music that have become staples of our culture and our society that you would denigrate as "background music", _including_ music that appears during the story and not during the credits.
> 
> Just for one example, Elizabeth de Brito already mentioned John Williams' "Imperial March" (which makes its first appearance during the story), and I couldn't even begin to list all the climactic, key moments in films where the music is the primary audio being heard and there is no dialogue whatsoever.
> 
> What you seem to be ignoring is that there is a lot of music written for movies/film that DOES stand on its own just fine, irregardless of whether or not it's "supposed to".
> 
> And how on earth can film music be "too interesting"? That's about as intelligent as saying that an opera orchestra is "too good" because it distracts the audience from the onstage singers by doing too excellent a job.
> 
> Good grief.


I really don't think you understand what violadude and others are saying in this thread.


----------



## DaveM

nathanb said:


> And until it is decided that it is classical music, I see no problem with it being discussed elsewhere.


That's a Catch 22. The subject of this the thread is the premise that it is a category of classical music. Who would make that critical decision that it is or isn't classical music so it might or might not be here?


----------



## Chordalrock

dsphipps100 said:


> And how on earth can film music be "too interesting"? That's about as intelligent as saying that an opera orchestra is "too good" because it distracts the audience from the onstage singers by doing too excellent a job.


I don't listen to a lot of opera, but my impression is that the balance usually favors the singers, to the point that I can't hear some very cool musical detail in "Tristan und Isolde" for example. I think that if you aren't used to polyphony and dividing your attention between points of interest, then a better orchestral balance might be seen as intrusive by such listeners.

However, I don't think it takes much effort or skill to focus on music and image at the same time. Things get a bit more effortful when you're supposed to focus on music, image, and dialogue at once, but this can be also done - yet if the music is too complex here, then all the more difficult to focus on everything at once.


----------



## dsphipps100

nathanb said:


> I really don't think you understand what violadude and others are saying in this thread.


Here's what I'm understanding. (If I'm incorrect, then I will happily accept a straightening-out with apologies.)

Concert music, opera, ballet, and other forms of what it commonly referred to as "classical" music were written with the express purpose of being at the forefront of the listener's attention, and therefore are to be generally regarded as being of higher quality.

Film/soundtrack music, on the other hand, is (supposedly) not intended to be at the forefront of the viewer's/listener's attention (except during the credits according to violadude), and therefore is to be generally regarded as being of lesser quality.

So what am I not understanding?


----------



## KenOC

Odd that nobody objects to Norman Dello Joio's symphonic suite "Air Power," or his "Scenes from the Louvre," which won an Emmy. Or, for that matter, Bennet/Rodger's score to "Victory at Sea," most excellent music. We can regret only that a most excellent fugue, accompanying a battle with a Japanese destroyer, was omitted from the concert suites!

Ah, but this is television music! I guess TV music can be accounted "classical," but movie music can't. Wait, that doesn't make much sense... :lol:


----------



## Guest

dsphipps100 said:


> Here's what I'm understanding. (If I'm incorrect, then I will happily accept a straightening-out with apologies.)
> 
> Concert music, opera, ballet, and other forms of what it commonly referred to as "classical" music were written with the express purpose of being at the forefront of the listener's attention.
> 
> Film/soundtrack music, on the other hand, is (supposedly) not intended to be at the forefront of the viewer's/listener's attention (except during the credits according to violadude).
> 
> So what am I not understanding?


I don't believe violadude or anyone is saying anything about quality. Classical music and soundtrack music are quite simply different. Therefore, I have edited your post to focus on the truthful elements.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> Ah, but this is television music! I guess TV music can be accounted "classical," but movie music can't. Wait, that doesn't make much sense... :lol:


Can you point out where anyone said that?


----------



## KenOC

And I won't go into Copland's music for _The Red Pony_, or Bernstein's excellent suite from _On the Waterfront_... To lazy now to look for other examples of film music fully accepted into the "classical" canon. Maybe later!


----------



## KenOC

nathanb said:


> Can you point out where anyone said that?


Nobody...yet. But I'd think that people who reject the possibility of film music being "classical music" would reject TV music even more quickly. What do you think?


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> Nobody...yet. But I'd think that people who reject the possibility of film music being "classical music" would reject TV music even more quickly. What do you think?


We're already talking about both.

Fun fact: the music to _Twin Peaks_ moves me deeply, but I'm not about to call it classical music.


----------



## dsphipps100

nathanb said:


> Classical music and soundtrack music are quite simply different.


How so? Their origins are certainly different, I have no argument with that. But take them out of their origin, burn them to a CD and listen to it in your living room and then how are they any different? If I listen to Richard Rodgers' Guadalcanal March on a CD and enjoy it every bit as much (if not more so) as a recording of Johann Strauss' Radetzky March, then how are they to be viewed as "different"?


----------



## Guest

dsphipps100 said:


> How so? Their origins are certainly different, I have no argument with that. But take them out of their origin, burn them to a CD and listen to it in your living room and then how are they any different? If I listen to Richard Rodgers' Guadalcanal March on a CD and enjoy it every bit as much (if not more so) as a recording of Johann Strauss' Radetzky March, then how are they to be viewed as "different"?


What does your enjoyment have to do with it? Does my high enjoyment of Slayer make them some sort of classical collective? Your logic is very confusing.


----------



## Fugue Meister

Chordalrock said:


> Haven't seen Star Wars, so can't comment.
> 
> Re Kubrick, I think he succeeded excellently in The Shining in combining pre-existing music and visual and spoken elements. However, I didn't know the music before watching the movies, plus in that movie Kubrick is probably unusually interested in going for the Disney effect where the music seems to react to the visual narrative in a very meticulous moment-by-moment fashion.
> 
> Problems with using pre-existing music: (1) a lot of people who know that music beforehand and love it aren't going to like it, (2) it can easily start sounding divorsed from the visual and textual elements (e.g. the Schubert in "Crimes and Misdemeanors"). I guess the latter risk is biggest when the director simply wants to use some of his favorite classical music in his movie just-because (Godard and Lars von Trier, I'm looking at you). Really, it almost never strikes me as successful or worthwhile from the few examples that I recall. If you are serious about making a movie that is beautiful and artistic, you should also be serious enough to want new music for it that has been composed specifically to fit the movie and that people don't have preconceived notions about. This is actually what Kubrick had planned to do in The Shining - the music he received from his composer just turned out to be a disappointment, so he basically had to use pre-existing music at that point (which is just as well, because it did turn out so well).


Firstly I disagree with the notion that the schubert in "Crimes & Misdemeanors", started to sound divorced from the visual and textual elements as you put it. Earlier in the film it is part of the story that Judah loves Schubert and Delores gets him a Schubert recording right before the use of the music over him walking in to find her... well I don't want to spoil it for others but you know what scene I'm speaking about. Allen's selection of Schubert's 15th string quartet in G is to my way of thinking an excellent choice and a very good marriage of music and images.

Secondly, I can see how someone who likes a certain piece might be upset with it's use in a film but that just indicates to me that they aren't film lovers or they feel as though a particular piece is incorrectly used. Where I draw the line is when you suggest it never is pulled off successfully or worthwhile (even if it was from those few examples you recalled) and I especially take issue with the suggestion that:

"If you are serious about making a movie that is beautiful and artistic, you should also be serious enough to want new music for it that has been composed specifically to fit the movie and that people don't have preconceived notions about."

Personally I feel the same way as Kubrick in that there is already so much pre-existing music many people will never get around to hearing, on top of this much of it is far better than anything most composers today could come up with so why not use it. I've dabbled a bit in film making myself and will always go to pre-existing music precisely because it's better than film scores (sorry to those of you who disagree with that statement) and makes certain things feel more emotionally charged because the quality of the music is superior. Not only that but it's all about a director's discretion, a director wants to evoke distinct feelings from an audience and sometimes a director just wants to point out a great piece of music many people would be otherwise unfamiliar with if they hadn't seen it in a film. Like I said director's prerogative.

Lastly, (and I know this may seem like nitpicking but it's about Kubrick and it's incorrect so I feel compelled) Kubrick did not plan to use a completely original score for "The Shining", in fact he had several pieces he had in mind to use and turned them over to a music editor Gordon Stainforth to splice in the specific pieces he wanted used in the film. Then, after those pieces were put in he went to Wendy Carlos (who before she became a woman was Walter Carlos whom Kubrick used on "A Clockwork Orange") and Rachel Elkind to put in original bits, specifically a warped synth version of Berlioz's "Dream of the night's sabbath" from symphonie fantastique another piece he wanted used. Carlos & Elkind also mixed in odd sound effects into the music like heart beats and such. 
Kubrick stopped wanting to use original composed music on 2001 even though he had hired Alex North to write a full score he just decided to use pre-existing music instead and never told poor Mr. North who didn't find out till he saw the film.

Sorry to drone on if it's not your thing.


----------



## dsphipps100

nathanb said:


> I'm not about to call it classical music.


Well, if _that's_ what this whole thing is about, then no wonder I'm not getting anywhere. I totally agree, especially since "classical" music (as Fugue Meister very correctly said earlier) "came from the time period between 1740 - 1825 or so".

I'm not worried about the definition of "classical" and whether it should include film/soundtrack music, because I wouldn't include anything written after 1830 or so anyway.

Maybe now I can move my day on to something else....

I feel a Mahler symphony coming on.......

(BTW, Mahler is Post-Romantic, not "classical".)


----------



## Guest

dsphipps100 said:


> Well, if _that's_ what this whole thing is about, then no wonder I'm not getting anywhere. I totally agree, especially since "classical" music (as Fugue Meister very correctly said earlier) "came from the time period between 1740 - 1825 or so".
> 
> I'm not worried about the definition of "classical" and whether it should include film/soundtrack music, because I wouldn't include anything written after 1830 or so anyway.
> 
> Maybe now I can move my day on to something else....
> 
> I feel a Mahler symphony coming on.......
> 
> (BTW, Mahler is Post-Romantic, not "classical".)


Nice red herring, but I was using this common definition 

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


----------



## DaveM

I would never argue that all soundtrack music is the same as classical music, but in response to a statement made above that '_Classical music and soundtrack music are quite simply different.'_, below are two more examples of what I consider absolutely beautiful movie themes that I believe, by any measure, are classical music (particularly the first example):

Listen to the piano piece in the first 2min30sec (which opens the movie Pride & Prejudice). The music that immediately follows the latter piece is classical by any definition I know:






This piece is often missed when people search out the soundtrack of The Notebook, but it is one of the most mesmerizing pieces and opens the movie:


----------



## KenOC

I had the opportunity today to listen carefully to the March from Indiana Jones. Superbly done, with some really tricky (and original) rhythmic tricks to keep things just enough off-balance. I'd place it well above some of those 20th-century British orchestral marches, a few of which were written for movies and seem acceptable to classical music fans.

Well, not better than Crown Imperial. But you can't have everything.


----------



## dsphipps100

nathanb said:


> Nice red herring, but I was using this common definition
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_music


Yes, yes, I realize that.









The bottom line (for what I was saying, at least) is that it all comes down to definitions, which I did not realize until you said you're not about to call "Twin Peaks" classical music. I had gotten the (mis?)understanding that the subject-at-hand was whether or not film/soundtrack music is to be viewed as of equal quality with "classical" music, and I will insist to my dying day that it is indeed to be viewed as such (including the worst film music being equal with the worst "classical" music that has deservedly disappeared into the abyss of obscurity and is no longer performed), but as to whether or not film/soundtrack music is of the same _genre_ as "classical" music, that's just a matter of labeling, so no, they're not the same thing in that regard.


----------



## dsphipps100

KenOC said:


> I had the opportunity today to listen carefully to the March from Indiana Jones. Superbly done, with some really tricky (and original) rhythmic tricks to keep things just enough off-balance. I'd place it well above some of those 20th-century British orchestral marches, a few of which were written for movies and seem acceptable to classical music fans.
> 
> Well, not better than Crown Imperial. But you can't have everything.


If I'm understanding nathanb, violadude and other correctly now, they're simply talking about the genre label.

Now, as to whether or not a march like The Raiders' March (Indiana Jones) is worthy of a concert performance by a world-class orchestra (when said orchestra won't even blink an eye about performing Strauss' Radeztky March, which is cornier than the corn if you ask me), then maybe that's a whole 'nother discussion.

And I agree about Crown Imperial, that's my all-time favorite march. There's a truly awesome recording of the wind band version by Jerry Junkin and the Dallas Wind Symphony where they use the Meyerson Center's 4,535-pipe C.B. Fisk Opus 100 organ. That's one recording that'll test the structural integrity of your home!


----------



## violadude

dsphipps100 said:


> If I'm understanding nathanb, violadude and other correctly now, they're simply talking about the genre label.


Uh kinda. Just the idea that the best movie score could stand on its own, as a stand alone piece, against the best operas and be considered of similar quality, musically, is kind of baffling to me.


----------



## Fugue Meister

DaveM said:


> I would never argue that all soundtrack music is the same as classical music, but in response to a statement made above that '_Classical music and soundtrack music are quite simply different.'_, below are two more examples of what I consider absolutely beautiful movie themes that I believe, by any measure, are classical music (particularly the first example):
> 
> Listen to the piano piece in the first 2min30sec (which opens the movie Pride & Prejudice). The music that immediately follows the latter piece is classical by any definition I know:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This piece is often missed when people search out the soundtrack of The Notebook, but it is one of the most mesmerizing pieces and opens the movie:


Sorry to say it but the piece from "Pride & Prejudice" you say that begins after 2:30 sounds like a poor rip off of Beethoven's Larghetto from his 2cd symphony in D and the second piece as lovely as it is seems to be heavily influenced by Scriabin piano music but not anywhere near the caliber. Like I said before I'm not trying to be critical of all film music but most of the examples you are citing (and to be fair I'm listening to them all (not all the way through if they're longer than 5 minutes mind you) have exceedingly better counterparts represented in pre-existing absolute music. Yet another plug for the benefits of using pre-existing music in films... :devil:

Honestly DaveM, I'm not trying to discourage, like those pieces (and really it's not bad)if you want but I encourage you to seek out more music that is unknown to you because you might experience even more profound levels of beauty and ecstasy.


----------



## KenOC

In the old days, composers would often precede their operas with an orchestral piece, using the best tunes from the opera and sometimes reprising the action. These were called "overtures." Obviously they were and are popular as stand-alone works.

You seldom see that with movie music, unfortunately. The theaters these days would rather regale us with commercials before the curtain goes up. Composers have other and more profitable fish to fry.

There are exceptions. Overtures (or their equivalents) were sometime played in the intermissions of those lengthy biblical epics that Hollywood cranked out some years ago. None were memorable, at least to me. But I wish there was more call for decent overtures or suites from movie music rather than just regurgitating the scores. One very nice example is the suite drawn from Close Encounters of the Third Kind, available from Zubin Mehta and the LA Phil. Just the right length at 12-13 minutes.










Oh. You can hear it here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtwoVDG86XU


----------



## dsphipps100

violadude said:


> Uh kinda. Just the idea that the best movie score could stand on its own, as a stand alone piece, against the best operas and be considered of similar quality, musically, is kind of baffling to me.


Well, uh, sorry, but it's true.

Now, if you want to talk about the _historic_ impact of said opera vis a vis the historic impact of a film score, then that's a totally different subject.

For example, Wagner's Ring of the Nibelungs is obviously of FAR more historical importance than John Williams' Star Wars soundtracks. What Wagner did with the Ring Cycle was revolutionary and pioneering in ways that are far too numerous for me to even begin listing here. Williams' Star Wars, at least for the 1977 film, was somewhat revolutionary as a component of science fiction film-making, but "revolutionary" simply a independent, stand-alone music? Nope. It's unabashedly conservative as pure music.

Music has been and never will be the same again because of what Wagner did. I doubt the same thing could be said of Star Wars or anything else John Williams has ever written, and I think he would also be the first to agree with that.

But at the same time, that doesn't take anything away from the quality of writing involved in composing his film scores, regardless of whether or not they deserve a place in a music history textbook.


----------



## dsphipps100

KenOC said:


> I wish there was more call for decent overtures or suites from movie music rather than just regurgitating the scores.


Speaking as an avid collector of film scores, one of the reasons for this is because a mere overture or suite will, of necessity, leave out a large portion of the score, and it's just possible that the part you might have most-wanted to hear might be part of what was omitted. I would rather get the complete, uncut score with every single note included that was ever recorded for that movie, so that I'm guaranteed to have all the parts that I want to hear.

Just for one example, in John Barry's timeless score for "Dances With Wolves", there's one short track just over a minute long when John Dunbar (the film's main character) goes to visit a Sioux village for the first time. The music that Barry wrote for that short moment is absolutely gorgeous, some of the best writing he ever did. And yet, inexplicably, that part was left out of the soundtrack album! I have spent 25 years searching high and low through every edition that's ever been issued of music from Dances With Wolves, hoping to stumble across that one track. And just recently, a couple of months ago, in fact, they issued a "25th Anniversary Edition" of the Dances With Wolves score which FINALLY included that one little, short track. It took 25 friggin' years for me to find it! If they had only issued this same edition when the movie came out, it sure would've been nice.

View attachment 81365


That sort of thing is why film score collectors will usually prefer the full, uncut score as opposed to a short concert suite.


----------



## KenOC

If I understand the arguments of some in this thread, movie and TV music is unacceptable within the definition if classical music. Unless, of course, it's acceptable. I have given several examples without any objections.


----------



## violadude

dsphipps100 said:


> Well, uh, sorry, but it's true.


It's only true as far as this: Star Wars might be the Ring Cycle of film music, as in, it's as good as the Ring Cycle as a piece of film music...as a piece that stands on its own though...er that's some pretty mighty claim you are making there.

When you say it's just as good...what exactly are you referring to?


----------



## DaveM

Fugue Meister said:


> Sorry to say it but the piece from "Pride & Prejudice" you say that begins after 2:30 sounds like a poor rip off of Beethoven's Larghetto from his 2cd symphony in D and the second piece as lovely as it is seems to be heavily influenced by Scriabin piano music but not anywhere near the caliber. Like I said before I'm not trying to be critical of all film music but most of the examples you are citing (and to be fair I'm listening to them all (not all the way through if they're longer than 5 minutes mind you) have exceedingly better counterparts represented in pre-existing absolute music. Yet another plug for the benefits of using pre-existing music in films... :devil:
> 
> Honestly DaveM, I'm not trying to discourage, like those pieces (and really it's not bad)if you want but I encourage you to seek out more music that is unknown to you because you might experience even more profound levels of beauty and ecstasy.


I appreciate the sentiment at the end of your post, but, that said, I think you are unfairly disparaging the above examples. I am familiar with Scriabin's music and I don't see the connection with The Notebook piece. And even if I were to agree (which I don't) that it is not the caliber of Scriabin, I don't see that whether it does or not influences the point I'm making.

Just for the record, I am categorically not a classical music newbie. I've been on the planet several decades and have listened to classical music since age 3 and I play classical piano so I pretty much know what I like and what I don't. Besides, the point of this thread was to present examples of movie themes that are not only classical-like (if not totally classical), but which, to use your words, can rise to levels of beauty and ecstasy.

I'm a little dismayed at how dismissive _some_ posters are of the examples I've presented. A number of the composers of this music have classical music backgrounds and they put a lot of work and effort in to come up with melodies that would not only resonate with the emotions of viewers, but which would be so attractive that people would buy the soundtrack CDs which would in turn support the movie. Which is to say, that the sort of music that accomplishes this is more likely to have substance.

Digressing a bit: If one were to take the time to read some of the reviews of these various pieces on Amazon, you would find that the 'common (wo)man' is often very effusive in praise of them. That doesn't prove the point of this thread, but it does go to the quality of the music.


----------



## dsphipps100

violadude said:


> It's only true as far as this: Star Wars might be the Ring Cycle of film music, as in, it's as good as the Ring Cycle as a piece of film music...as a piece that stands on its own though...er that's some pretty mighty claim you are making there.


I never made that claim. I would not even nominate Star Wars as the best film score ever written. For that matter, I don't even think it's the best score that John Willliams has written. It's simply the one that gets referenced the most, probably because of its iconic status among film scores.


violadude said:


> When you say it's just as good...what exactly are you referring to?


The same things I refer to when I decide that an opera is well-written. Everyone has their own list of criteria which are just as valid as the next person's.


----------



## dsphipps100

KenOC said:


> If I understand the arguments of some in this thread, movie and TV music is unacceptable within the definition if classical music. Unless, of course, it's acceptable.










Exactly, such as Prokofiev's Alexander Nevsky, for one example. It's been recorded by no less than Lorin Maazel and the Cleveland Orchestra (among others), and is generally accepted as part of any good orchestra's repertoire, but....

(Wow, this Surround Sound version that I'm listening to of the Chailly/Amsterdam recording of Mahler's 9th Symphony is pretty outstanding.......







)


----------



## Chordalrock

Fugue Meister said:


> Secondly, I can see how someone who likes a certain piece might be upset with it's use in a film but that just indicates to me that they aren't film lovers or...


Interesting comment. Personally I would more easily understand the point of view that if people are OK with classical music being used in movies, then they don't really care all that much about the music. Fortunately for people who do care, absolute music and film music are usually kept separate, as they generally should.

I mean, apparently you wouldn't mind seeing every director using classical music in their movies, but have you actually thought this through and what a nightmare dystopia it would become in a decade or two? I bet that after you would hear Bach's "Ich ruf zu dir Herr" used in a dozen different movies you would be ready to tear your hair out, literally. In this filmmaking paradise of yours, everyone would be using all the best known or most effective classical pieces in their movies, until those pieces had been well and truly raped to death.

Kubrick knew he was special and that he'd get away with it. If everyone started doing the same, you'd get pretty tired of it pretty soon.


----------



## JosefinaHW

dsphipps100 said:


> What is the difference between opera and a play with incidental music, which simply means it's an opera with no singing?


With fear and trepidation of Pugg... it is my understanding that this is how opera did develop.... first was the play, then the incidental music, ......


----------



## violadude

dsphipps100 said:


> The same things I refer to when I decide that an opera is well-written. Everyone has their own list of criteria which are just as valid as the next person's.


And what are some of those?


----------



## dsphipps100

violadude said:


> And what are some of those?


I prefer not to have my personal set of criteria dissected, just as I will not do to you, either.


----------



## violadude

dsphipps100 said:


> I prefer not to have my personal set of criteria dissected, just as I will not do to you, either.


I don't care about "dissection" as you put it, I'm trying to understand how you can rate any film score as being on par with, say, a Wagner opera. I don't understand it, and I'm trying to.


----------



## KenOC

violadude said:


> I don't care about "dissection" as you put it, I'm trying to understand how you can rate any film score as being on par with, say, a Wagner opera. I don't understand it, and I'm trying to.


I'm a little unclear why movie music needs to be on the level of a "Wagner opera" to be considered within the classical canon.


----------



## DaveM

dsphipps100 said:


> Speaking as an avid collector of film scores, one of the reasons for this is because a mere overture or suite will, of necessity, leave out a large portion of the score, and it's just possible that the part you might have most-wanted to hear might be part of what was omitted. I would rather get the complete, uncut score with every single note included that was ever recorded for that movie, so that I'm guaranteed to have all the parts that I want to hear.
> 
> Just for one example, in John Barry's timeless score for "Dances With Wolves", there's one short track just over a minute long when John Dunbar (the film's main character) goes to visit a Sioux village for the first time. The music that Barry wrote for that short moment is absolutely gorgeous, some of the best writing he ever did. And yet, inexplicably, that part was left out of the soundtrack album! I have spent 25 years searching high and low through every edition that's ever been issued of music from Dances With Wolves, hoping to stumble across that one track. And just recently, a couple of months ago, in fact, they issued a "25th Anniversary Edition" of the Dances With Wolves score which FINALLY included that one little, short track. It took 25 friggin' years for me to find it! If they had only issued this same edition when the movie came out, it sure would've been nice.
> 
> View attachment 81365


Very interesting! I've had that experience before. A beautiful music segment will be present on the movie DVD, but is nowhere to be found on the soundtrack CD. I have often wondered who is put in charge of deciding what will be on the CD. The limiting factor is certainly not available space because most soundtrack CDs do not fill the full capacity of a CD.


----------



## violadude

KenOC said:


> I'm a little unclear why movie music needs to be on the level of a "Wagner opera" to be considered within the classical canon.


I thought we were talking about the best film scores being on par, as stand alone pieces, with the best operas...


----------



## JosefinaHW

I just have to say this.... I love that little "smiley".


----------



## dsphipps100

violadude said:


> I'm trying to understand how you can rate any film score as being on par with, say, a Wagner opera. I don't understand it, and I'm trying to.


So far in this thread, the only difference that you've been able to list between opera and a film score is that one was originally written to be the center of the listener's attention and the other was (according to you) written as "background music", which is simply false, but I'll put that aside for the moment.

This has nothing to do with the compositional techniques used by the opera composer or the film score composer, such as the quality of their melodic invention, the variety and clarity of their scoring, their creativity at harmonization, their skill at smoothly making transitions, their ability to give their music the elusive quality of forward momentum, and so forth and so on.

If the film score composer does just as good a job (if not better) of those things than the opera composer, then how can anybody possibly justify the prejudice of considering the film score as inferior merely because of its intended role?


----------



## KenOC

violadude said:


> I thought we were talking about the best film scores being on par, as stand alone pieces, with the best operas...


Thread subject: Movie Themes/Soundtracks As a Category of Modern Classical Music


----------



## JosefinaHW

nathanb said:


> And until it is decided that it is classical music, I see no problem with it being discussed elsewhere. Video game soundtracks, death metal, and dubstep will get the same treatment, don't worry. No unfairness here.


: nathanb: Do you hate soundtracks so much that you make a statement that intends to be threatening and is certainly nasty given that we know DaveM was talking about music that he thinks is beautiful in a traditional sense of "beautiful melodies as in Bach, Vivaldi, Mozart..." and you mention death metal whose composers and admirers I don't think would ever say they aim for beautiful melodies. Maybe I'm wrong but I see venom in your post.


----------



## JosefinaHW

I would like to read a discussion of what defines classical music. In its original meaning did it not refer to pieces that followed certain forms: fugue, orchestral suite, concerto, symphony, pasacalia (spelling), da capo, etc., etc., yes and also used certain combination of instruments: solo, concerto grosso, quartet, quintet, symphony, oratorio [voice is an instrument, too], orchestral works....


----------



## dsphipps100

JosefinaHW said:


> I would like to read a discussion of what defines classical music. In its original meaning did it not refer to pieces that followed certain forms: fugue, orchestral suite, concerto, symphony, pasacalia (spelling), da capo, etc., etc., yes and also used certain combination of instruments: solo, concerto grosso, quartet, quintet, symphony, oratorio [voice is an instrument, too], orchestral works....


For this thread, at least, it appears that the definition of "classical" music, per se, is the one that nathanb referenced in this Wikipedia article:

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

Since that point, the discussion seems to have focused more on whether or not film music is to be considered as being of the same quality as "classical" music.


----------



## pjang23

dsphipps100 said:


> So far in this thread, the only difference that you've been able to list between opera and a film score is that one was *originally written to be the center of the listener's attention* and the other was (according to you) written as "background music", which is simply false, but I'll put that aside for the moment.


Music doesn't begin and end with the listener you know. 

I think a better way to put it is that classical music is originally written to be performed by musicians (e.g. pianists, violinists, or opera singers) whereas a film score is written to be a (perhaps vital) component of an extramusical medium.

The tradition of musical performance is one of the key dividing lines of classical music from other genres in my view (though obviously not the only one). I see film scores as a separate genre from classical music not because I see film scores as inferior in any way (they aren't), but simply because I think the categorization is incorrect.


----------



## dsphipps100

pjang23 said:


> Music doesn't begin and end with the listener you know.  I think a better way to put it is that classical music is originally written to be performed by musicians (e.g. pianists, violinists, or opera singers) whereas a film score is written to be a (perhaps vital) component of an extramusical medium.
> 
> The tradition of musical performance is one of the key dividing lines of classical music from other genres in my view (though obviously not the only one). I see film scores as a separate genre from classical music because I think the categorization is incorrect, and not because I see film scores as inferior in any way.


I have no problem with anything you've said here.









However, it still has nothing to do with the quality of writing between a film composer's work being "on par" with a classical or opera composer's work.


----------



## JosefinaHW

dsphipps100 said:


> For this thread, at least, it appears that the definition of "classical" music, per se, is the one that nathanb referenced in this Wikipedia article:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_music
> 
> Since that point, the discussion seems to have focused more on whether or not film music is to be considered as being of the same quality as "classical" music.


First of all, that article seems to have been written by individuals who don't exactly agree with one another about what classical music was originally considered to be.... it had nothing to do with dates. Leaving the Baroque out for a moment (which in reality I don't think you can because it does have numerous forms and conventions.... orchestral suite all dance movements in same key, etc..., fugue, beginning of the concerto, etc.) What would Haydn have called his music and the music of his contemporaries? (Edward Bast would be very helpful here) I am writing a concerto, a symphony, an oratorio [one that I adore}, etc... and these have certain forms, that involve certain tempos, etc...


----------



## dsphipps100

Yeah, but there comes a point where current standard usage has to be taken into consideration.


----------



## JosefinaHW

Wasn't the term "Romantic" (please don't quote wikipedia for obvious reasons.) in music or rather said wasn't Beethoven considered to be on that line between classical and something else (which came to be called romantic) because his symphonies, in particular, broke with the agreed upon forms and formal elements.... It was his changes in those generally agreed upon (Bast please help) forms that people called him/his music revolutionary. not as simple as that, but...


----------



## pjang23

dsphipps100 said:


> I have no problem with anything you've said here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *However, it still has nothing to do with the quality of writing between a film composer's work being "on par" with a classical or opera composer's work.*


Agreed, and I think that's what people are trying to say. It's not that "film music isn't good enough to be classical" but that the categorization is incorrect. Film scores certainly can be amazing and many movies wouldn't be the same without them.


----------



## KenOC

Beethoven's music was called, by some at least, "Romantic" in its own day. As was Mozart's and Haydn's. See this famous essay by ETA Hoffman, reporting on Beethoven's 5th Symphony:

https://sites.google.com/site/kenocstuff/eta-hoffman-on-beethoven


----------



## dsphipps100

pjang23 said:


> the categorization is incorrect


Right, I agreed with that earlier in this thread and I'm happy to re-state my agreement here: Film music is not part of the "classical" genre.


----------



## JosefinaHW

Let's not try to confuse/or intentionally cover a statement that you made previously that you can no longer contend.... by determining whether certain soundtrack music should in someway be classified under the original meaning of classical music... what Haydn, and yes, Bach understood their music to be. Folks, also re/ sacred music... the theology (at least in case of Bach and Haydn) came first, the music was written to convey that theological belief in another way... just like stained glass windows were to teach the illiterate (in part). Protestant composers (and I would argue many Catholic) composers were writing to glorify God and describe for people what belief in that God means. That's a soundtrack--that's what the cantata is basically.


----------



## KenOC

dsphipps100 said:


> Right, I agreed with that earlier in this thread and I'm happy to re-state my agreement here: Film music is not part of the "classical" genre.


Copland's music for "The Red Pony" is not part of the classical genre? Bernstein's suite from "On the Waterfront"? I'm feeling kind of amazed.

I'm betting that if we didn't know where the music came from, or "Victory at Sea" for that matter, we'd have no problem at all with categorization.


----------



## JosefinaHW

:KenOC You are just too intelligent and know a great deal more about music to just say that a few folks already called Beethoven's music "romantic". Yes we could search out its beginnings in describing a style of literature, actually the whole idea of emotions being brought back in or given greater priority..... Why don't we just stick to defining what Haydn, Bach, Poulenc, etc., etc., called their music or what elements they had to use in composing their work: I know what a fugue is so I have to do x,y, and z. Vivaldi: I know what a concerto is (I sort of if not majorly standardized the form!!) and I need to do x, y, and z. Do some soundtracks fit any of this... because some of them use a full orchestra can they be called a classical orchestral piece----not time period definitions please. pjang23 I'm not quite sure I understand what you are saying: that classical music is performed by certain people who are trained performers and who are performing in a certain venue: orchestral hall? vs. ...


----------



## DaveM

pjang23 said:


> Agreed, and I think that's what people are trying to say. It's not that "film music isn't good enough to be classical" but that the categorization is incorrect...


Well, that may be what _some_ people are saying, but IMO, to say that is a gross oversimplification. I have presented a number of examples, some of which might arguably be on the fringe of a classical music definition, while others (again, IMO) are very much in the definition (please see the last 2 examples I posted from Pride & Prejudice and The Notebook).

While I'm at it, I'll re-emphasize the fact that a lot of soundtrack music stands on its own. I know because I've been listening to it for many years separate from the movies they came from. Also, I would point out that it is not unusual for symphony orchestras to have concerts consisting only of the music of composers such as Hans Zimmer, Enio Morricone, John Williams and so on. Often the composers have composed suites of their film works specifically for that purpose.


----------



## dsphipps100

KenOC said:


> Copland's music for "The Red Pony" is not part of the classical genre? Bernstein's suite from "On the Waterfront"? I'm feeling kind of amazed.
> 
> I'm betting that if we didn't know where the music came from, or "Victory at Sea" for that matter, we'd have no problem at all with categorization.


I can't win no matter what I try.....


----------



## KenOC

My point is that what we (and others) call any sort of music is basically meaningless. We can call certain music "classical" and we can exclude (for instance) movie music from that definition. Well, good luck with that. Ultimately, nobody cares, nor should they.

A lot of people spend too much time building walls around classical music, and then gnash their teeth over its loss of acceptance.


----------



## dsphipps100

OK, OK, so one thing that some of us can (maybe) agree on is that the definition of "classical" music, per se, is somewhat ambiguous, and so is whether or not orchestral film music should be viewed as being within the bounds of that genre. It all comes down to what does "classical" mean?

I have hated using that term for most of my life for these very reasons. I much prefer to use a more specific term like "orchestral music". When people ask me what do I listen to, I tell them "I listen to orchestral music." And then when they say, "Huh?", I clarify for them that it includes _some_ parts of what they would normally refer to as "classical" music, but it also includes film music such as Star Wars and Lord of the Rings. At that point, the lightbulb goes on and they understand.

It's all semantics, and we here today are struggling with that very issue.

Regardless of definitions, the next question is, should the world's greatest orchestras be including film music as a part of their repertoire? I would strenuously argue that the answer to this question absolutely must be an unequivocal "YES".


----------



## JosefinaHW

I don't think it is meaningless to discard a discussion of what categorizes certain music. (I assume this is not what you meant KenOC, but I think a standard way of teaching about music is that we study forms so we can recognize what type of music we are listening to and what we should expect from a piece of music when it is first performed (or any time we listen to it) and how the composer works within those "constraints" or excepted standards so that the audience has a clue about what is going on... besides enjoying a gorgeous melody. A great deal of the discussion on TC (since my start here) mentions exactly this kind of thing... composer x or symphony x is so interesting because he transitions from x chord to y chord instead of.... the fugue was written well... People went to concert halls or the court dance room expecting certain patterns.... you can't do a minuet unless you know what makes up a minuet.... or a sarabande...


----------



## KenOC

Actually yes, it is pretty meaningless. There are endless wrangles over definition here and on other similar forums. None EVER result in agreement. And most people who listen to music couldn't care less. Good for them!


----------



## JosefinaHW

dsphi...., I agree exactly what you said re/ our "problem": in your post at 1:17

And yes, I have found it a pain in the a** to say I like some Renaissance, Baroque, Classical, Romantic and some soundtracks.... and that is what I usually say... but until we can agree on another term that's the way I am going to continue to say it... one because with some people it is a major learning moment (and I really love people--including myself--to be life-long learners) and to others it really does tell them w a little more clarity what I like to listen to.. And I do think a person with a broad history of music would be able to help us in this discussion...

As to sound track music being performed by symphony orchestras... I know they do it, I am not a big fan of John Williams (although I love the "Escape from the Asteroid Field in the Empire"--I'm a John Barry fan, amongst many others). I watched a wonderful concert on Halloweee this year performed by the Berlin Philharmonic it included the Symphonie Fantastique and the music from "Psycho"!!!!! Fabulous Stuff!


----------



## JosefinaHW

I am very interested in this discussion because I want to learn more about all those forms so I can more deeply understand what is going on in the music I am listening to and because I do love some soundtrack music. (As an aside I do think that soundtrack music is a wonderful introduction to other orchestral and vocal music--I believe in that saying that "music soothes the savage beast [or can make the beast savage), so I could read what people have to say all about this stuff for hours, but I certainly do not want to alienate any of you/or leave this discussion on bad terms... I love that you love classical/absolute/art music.


----------



## dsphipps100

JosefinaHW said:


> A great deal of the discussion on TC (since my start here) mentions exactly this kind of thing... composer x or symphony x is so interesting because he transitions from x chord to y chord instead of.... the fugue was written well... People went to concert halls or the court dance room expecting certain patterns.... you can't do a minuet unless you know what makes up a minute.... or a sarabande...


Notice that the examples you are giving here are rather specific, such as "sarabande" or "minuet". There won't be much disagreement about what qualifies a piece to fit within those categories. When we start getting out more generalized words, however, such as "romantic" or the ultimate ambiguity, "classical", then that's when the arguing begins, because of the ambiguity caused by a multitude of legitimate definitions.

I say "classical" only refers to music generally between 1740 and 1825, but the man on the street says "classical" refers to that long hair stuff on the government-subsidized radio station that nobody ever listens to, and so forth and so on.

So just speaking for myself, I'm going to quit worrying about what qualifies as "classical" music and start using more specific terms, like "orchestral" or "chamber music".


----------



## dsphipps100

JosefinaHW said:


> I watched a wonderful concert on Halloweee this year performed by the Berlin Philharmonic it included the Symphonie Fantastique and the music from "Psycho"!!!!! Fabulous Stuff!


Wow, way to go Berliner Philharmoniker.


----------



## DaveM

JosefinaHW said:


> As to sound track music being performed by symphony orchestras... I know they do it, I am not a big fan of John Williams


As a matter of fact, neither am I.


----------



## dsphipps100

JosefinaHW said:


> I am not a big fan of John Williams





DaveM said:


> As a matter of fact, neither am I.


Heretics!


----------



## JosefinaHW

dsphipps100 said:


> Heretics!


How can I load those great "smileys" you use???


----------



## JosefinaHW

dsphipps100 said:


> So just speaking for myself, I'm going to quit worrying about what qualifies as "classical" music and start using more specific terms, like "orchestral" or "chamber music".


I will *try* that one out next time somebody asks what kind of music I like....


----------



## dsphipps100

JosefinaHW said:


> How can I load those great "smileys" you use???


Click over at the lower right where it says, "Reply With Quote", and then the formatting will show up in the resultant window.

You might also enjoy looking at this post:

http://www.talkclassical.com/42007-have-you-ever-regretted.html#post1015097


----------



## KenOC

JosefinaHW said:


> ...Why don't we just stick to defining what Haydn, Bach, Poulenc, etc., etc., called their music or what elements they had to use in composing their work...


Haydn: "My music transitions from the Galante style and develops into the full Classical style. I'm quite proud of my accomplishment."

Mozart: "While I can't claim to move beyond Classical, I'm happy to say that my music prefigures the Romantic style in many ways."

Beethoven: "People often say my music is a transitional stage between Viennese Classical style and the Romantic era, but frankly I think they're all idiots and probably Rossini junkies."

Can we really, seriously, suggest this?


----------



## JosefinaHW

^ KenOC, Behind those adjectives they are using they have a clear understanding of what constitutes "classical", "Romantic" and "Viennese Classical" means, else they wouldn't be able to compare the one thing to the other thing. For general discussion we don't have to distinguish between classical and Viennese classical, but it is important to know--at least to me because it conveys information that will help me understand how the music is constructed so I can appreciate it more (or less). Please explain the Rossini joke, I have read that before so many times and I don't understand it...


----------



## dsphipps100

JosefinaHW said:


> ^ KenOC, Behind those adjectives they are using they have a clear understanding of what constitutes "classical", "Romantic" and "Viennese Classical" means, else they wouldn't be able to compare the one thing to the other thing. For general discussion we don't have to distinguish between classical and Viennese classical, but it is important to know--at least to me because it conveys information that will help me understand how the music is constructed so I can appreciate it more (or less). Please explain the Rossini joke, I have read that before so many times and I don't understand it...


Are you relatively new to this kind of music? (I'm only asking so we can possibly refer you to some good resources for information that might help.)


----------



## JosefinaHW

Tonight I watched the Detroit Symphony perform Brahms Fourth. The commentators at the intermission talked about how Brahms used the scherzo form instead of his usual intermezzo.... well I have to know what constitutes to scherzo from intermezzo if I want to understand them, more importantly, that symphony.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> Haydn: "My music transitions from the Galante style and develops into the full Classical style. I'm quite proud of my accomplishment."
> 
> Mozart: "While I can't claim to move beyond Classical, I'm happy to say that my music prefigures the Romantic style in many ways."
> 
> Beethoven: "People often say my music is a transitional stage between Viennese Classical style and the Romantic era, but frankly I think they're all idiots and probably Rossini junkies."
> 
> Can we really, seriously, suggest this?


Spiffy quotes Ken! But you missed out the great Bach:

"I just keep churning this keyboard stuff out so I can look after my growing family, but what I really want to write is a symphony."


----------



## dsphipps100

JosefinaHW said:


> Tonight I watched the Detroit Symphony perform Brahms Fourth. The commentators at the intermission talked about how Brahms used the scherzo form instead of his usual intermezzo.... well I have to know what constitutes to scherzo from intermezzo if I want to understand them, more importantly, that symphony.


What they're referring to is that, in his first three symphonies, Brahms used a relatively quiet, peaceful selection for his third movements. Those are "intermezzos". (Or in correct Italian, they're "intermezzi".) An intermezzo, as commonly used in 19th century music, is a lyrical, melodic piece, usually not very fast.

A scherzo, however, is a much faster-paced piece (usually in triple meter, but the Brahms 4th is an exception to this) that often has a sort of dance feel to it (although it might sometimes be a rather heavy-footed dance...I'm looking at YOU, Bruckner.....)

The main difference in the case of the Brahms 4th's 3rd movement from the 3rd mvts in his first three symphonies are that it is a much faster and louder piece of music. There are other things that could be discussed as well, such as formal structure and motivic relationships with the symphony's other movements, but that should get the main point(s) across.


----------



## dsphipps100

Something else about "commentators". You know how most sports fans feel about TV commentators, right? "Turn the volume down so we can enjoy the game without having to listen to those clowns!"


----------



## JosefinaHW

^dshi..., this is difficult for me to answer because I studied piano for several years and have listened to classical/absolute/concert/art/orchestral/chamber/vocal music  for many years but apart from the piano I am self-taught, so there are gaps in my knowledge, especially in a great deal if not most of 20th century art music--I don't understand what makes it "good" music.

Before I can understand "atonal" I need to *really* understand the workings of "tonal" music. So based on my reading/other's suggestions in posts here, I bought the Riemenschneider Bach Chorales and I am working through that. I listen to various lectures and read "word scores" to help me understand the construction of various baroque and classical forms via various particular pieces. I am reading a biography of Sibelius which covers both the construction of his music and his historical/philosophical context. I read posts in all kinds of topics on here, if I don't understand something I either look into or write a note to look into it. I'm a little overwhelmed with all this, hence my long-winded answer to your question. Stop. Absolutely, if you would like to recommend reading materials, lectures, audio books, etc., I will gratefully receive them.


----------



## JosefinaHW

dsphipps100 said:


> What they're referring to is that, in his first three symphonies, Brahms used a relatively quiet, peaceful selection for his third movements. Those are "intermezzos". (Or in correct Italian, they're "intermezzi".) An intermezzo, as commonly used in 19th century music, is a lyrical, melodic piece, usually not very fast.
> 
> A scherzo, however, is a much faster-paced piece (usually in triple meter, but the Brahms 4th is an exception to this) that often has a sort of dance feel to it (although it might sometimes be a rather heavy-footed dance...I'm looking at YOU, Bruckner.....)
> 
> The main difference in the case of the Brahms 4th's 3rd movement from the 3rd mvts in his first three symphonies are that it is a much faster and louder piece of music. There are other things that could be discussed as well, such as formal structure and motivic relationships with the symphony's other movements, but that should get the main point(s) across.


Thank you; yes I knew what he meant in this case, I was using it as an example of how the term "classical" includes all these types of definitions. Read below to see what I think I need to understand.


----------



## JosefinaHW

Grrrrrrr, you are not telling me where I can find those "smileys"!!!!!!!


----------



## JosefinaHW

MacLeod said:


> Spiffy quotes Ken! But you missed out the great Bach:
> 
> "I just keep churning this keyboard stuff out so I can look after my growing family, but what I really want to write is a symphony."


MacLeod, put me out of my misery and explain the Rossini joke.


----------



## dsphipps100

But more seriously, regarding the Brahms 4th, the best thing you could do for yourself is to get a good set of the Brahms Symphonies, and listen to them enough times that you get familiar with them. Then, _you'll_ be the one educating others. There's one or two threads that I've seen in this forum that talk about which set(s) of the Brahms Symphonies would be the best to get. I would personally recommend the Solti-Chicago set as an excellent (and inexpensive) starting place, but there's other good ones as well.

OK, DaveM, my apologies, I certainly don't want to "hijack" your thread, so....


----------



## JosefinaHW

dsphipps100 said:


> looking at YOU, Bruckner.....)
> 
> motivic relationships with the symphony's other movements, but that should get the main point(s) across.


This would be VERY helpful. I think yesterday we were discussing Also Sprach Zarathustra on here, so I watched a performance by the Berlin Philharmonic on you know where but I can't mention it here. In the program notes it talked about how Strauss uses a "confrontation" between Bflat Minor and C (I think... if I don't understand it it is very hard for me to remember it.) Now an explanation of this in detail or I suppose I should say I aspire to an understanding of this in detail.


----------



## dsphipps100

JosefinaHW said:


> Grrrrrrr, you are not telling me where I can find those "smileys"!!!!!!!


They're .gif files that I'm embedding in my posts with the


----------



## Guest

JosefinaHW said:


> MacLeod, put me out of my misery and explain the Rossini joke.


Beethoven was known for his scornful opinion of Rossini...

http://www.classicfm.com/discover/music/composer-insults/beethoven-rossini/


----------



## JosefinaHW

dsphipps100 said:


> But more seriously, regarding the Brahms 4th, the best thing you could do for yourself is to get a good set of the Brahms Symphonies, and listen to them enough times that you get familiar with them. Then, _you'll_ be the one educating others. There's one or two threads that I've seen in this forum that talk about which set(s) of the Brahms Symphonies would be the best to get. I would personally recommend the Solti-Chicago set as an excellent (and inexpensive) starting place, but there's other good ones as well.
> 
> OK, DaveM, my apologies, I certainly don't want to "hijack" your thread, so....


TY, yes I do own the Solti (at least one of them; I don't know how many versions he recorded). Read above/below what I said about "confrontation"/dialogue between the two keys... this is what I want to understand.


----------



## JosefinaHW

DaveM, agree w Dsph.... so sorry for going off topic.


----------



## dsphipps100

JosefinaHW said:


> This would be VERY helpful. I think yesterday we were discussing Also Sprach Zarathustra on here, so I watched a performance by the Berlin Philharmonic on you know where but I can't mention it here. In the program notes it talked about how Strauss uses a "confrontation" between Bflat Minor and C (I think... if I don't understand it it is very hard for me to remember it.) Now an explanation of this in detail or I suppose I should say I aspire to an understanding of this in detail.


You could actually find Wikipedia a very helpful starting place about things like this. Here is the Wikipedia article on the Brahms 4th...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony_No._4_(Brahms)

...which mentions the 3rd mvt being the only scherzo among Brahms' symphonies, and here is the Wikipedia article on Strauss' Also Sprach Zarathustra...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Also_sprach_Zarathustra_(Strauss)

...which discusses the C-B-C "world riddle" that you mentioned, among other things.


----------



## JosefinaHW

dsphipps100 said:


> They're .gif files that I'm embedding in my posts with the bbcode feature.[/QUOTE]
> 
> Okay, I am too humbled now to ask how you find .gif files and ..... I leave it for another day. TYVM (I did enjoy them tonight)


----------



## dsphipps100

JosefinaHW said:


> TY, yes I do own the Solti (at least one of them; I don't know how many versions he recorded).


He only recorded them once with the Chicago Symphony. That is, in my own personal opinion, the best work he ever did in Chicago. (And I've always been a fan of Solti, so that's sayin' sumpin'.)


----------



## KenOC

"The Bohemians are born musicians. The Italians ought to take them as models. What have they to show for their famous conservatories? Behold! their idol, Rossini! If Dame Fortune had not given him a pretty talent and amiable melodies by the bushel, what he learned at school would have brought him nothing but potatoes for his big belly."


----------



## JosefinaHW

dsphipps100 said:


> You could actually find Wikipedia a very helpful starting place about things like this. Here is the Wikipedia article on the Brahms 4th...
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony_No._4_(Brahms)
> 
> ...which mentions the 3rd mvt being the only scherzo among Brahms' symphonies, and here is the Wikipedia article on Strauss' Also Sprach Zarathustra...
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Also_sprach_Zarathustra_(Strauss)
> 
> ...which discusses the C-B-C "world riddle" that you mentioned, among other things.


Many thanks, I will read them. By the way, I think Wikipedia is a wonderful thing, but ..., you know.


----------



## JosefinaHW

Oh my.... so there are really colorful examples of the German vs. Italian, Italian vs. German thing. :lol: TYVM


----------



## JosefinaHW

MacLeod said:


> Beethoven was known for his scornful opinion of Rossini...
> 
> http://www.classicfm.com/discover/music/composer-insults/beethoven-rossini/


Well the endless tonal/atonal, Modernist vs. Anti-Modernist threads on here are tame by comparison! No Political Correctness back then.


----------



## Pugg

JosefinaHW said:


> Oh my.... so there are really colorful examples of the German vs. Italian, Italian vs. German thing. :lol: TYVM


Not as fanatic as the Dutch versus Germans.
"I want my bike back."Still used nowadays "
(they stole all the bikes in WW.II)


----------



## dsphipps100

KenOC said:


> "The Bohemians are born musicians. The Italians ought to take them as models. What have they to show for their famous conservatories? Behold! their idol, Rossini! If Dame Fortune had not given him a pretty talent and amiable melodies by the bushel, what he learned at school would have brought him nothing but potatoes for his big belly."


I've always enjoyed 19th Century sarcasm. A pity that nobody talks like that anymore.


----------



## dsphipps100

JosefinaHW said:


> I think Wikipedia is a wonderful thing, but ..., you know.


No, I guess I don't - what?


----------



## JosefinaHW

*MOVIE THEMES/SOUNDTRACKS* as a Category of Modern Classical Music

I think the following sums up what several of us agreed upon thus far......



dsphipps100 said:


> OK, OK, so one thing that some of us can (maybe) agree on is that the definition of "classical" music, per se, is somewhat ambiguous, and so is whether or not orchestral film music should be viewed as being within the bounds of that genre. It all comes down to what does "classical" mean?
> 
> I have hated using that term for most of my life for these very reasons. I much prefer to use a more specific term like "orchestral music". When people ask me what do I listen to, I tell them "I listen to orchestral music." And then when they say, "Huh?", I clarify for them that it includes _some_ parts of what they would normally refer to as "classical" music, but it also includes film music such as Star Wars and Lord of the Rings. At that point, the lightbulb goes on and they understand.
> 
> It's all semantics, and we here today are struggling with that very issue.
> 
> Regardless of definitions, the next question is, should the world's greatest orchestras be including film music as a part of their repertoire? I would strenuously argue that the answer to this question absolutely must be an unequivocal "YES".


----------



## poconoron

Elizabeth de Brito said:


> I'm exactly the same. I listen to a wide variety of music and I always start with melody. I know everyone likes John Williams for his epic Wagnerian and Korngold type scores for Star Wars and Superman with lots of brass fanfares but his music for Sabrina in 1995 is very Debussyesque and it's gorgeous check the first piece out here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [


I checked it out and it is very ordinary IMHO..........nothing special at all about it.


----------



## pjang23

JosefinaHW said:


> *MOVIE THEMES/SOUNDTRACKS* as a Category of Modern Classical Music
> 
> I think the following sums up what several of us agreed upon thus far......


Once again, I brought up that one of the main unifying strings between genres of classical music (like chamber music and opera) is that they are *written specifically to be performed by musicians* (particularly musicians other than the original composer).

In the case of film scores or video games they are written to be a component of something non-musical. In the case of pop music, only the original performance by the original artist counts as the real thing, whereas classical music is written to be performed by musicians other than the original composer.



pjang23 said:


> Music doesn't begin and end with the listener you know.
> 
> I think a better way to put it is that classical music is originally written to be performed by musicians (e.g. pianists, violinists, or opera singers) whereas a film score is written to be a (perhaps vital) component of an extramusical medium.
> 
> The tradition of musical performance is one of the key dividing lines of classical music from other genres in my view (though obviously not the only one). I see film scores as a separate genre from classical music not because I see film scores as inferior in any way (they aren't), but simply because I think the categorization is incorrect.


----------



## DaveM

Here are yet two more pieces of evidence supporting the case of Movie Themes/Soundtracks as Classical Music. 

I submit that this beautiful theme from Sense and Sensibility (Patrick Doyle)_ is_ a piece of classical music. And it is also a fully developed standalone piece. Note particularly the piano entry at 55 sec:






I believe that this mesmerizing theme from Nine Months is perhaps one of Hans Zimmer's greatest works (another would be Pearl Harbor). IMO, unfortunately Zimmer doesn't write music like this anymore. Listen particularly to the part that starts at 2min 45sec: If you are listening with headphones, you will hear the melody/music alternating between the 1st (left ear) and 2nd violins (right ear); this would have not been appreciated in a movie theatre. The piece also is a fully developed standalone work and IMO very much in a classical music category:


----------



## Fugue Meister

Chordalrock said:


> Interesting comment. Personally I would more easily understand the point of view that if people are OK with classical music being used in movies, then they don't really care all that much about the music. Fortunately for people who do care, absolute music and film music are usually kept separate, as they generally should.
> 
> I mean, apparently you wouldn't mind seeing every director using classical music in their movies, but have you actually thought this through and what a nightmare dystopia it would become in a decade or two? I bet that after you would hear Bach's "Ich ruf zu dir Herr" used in a dozen different movies you would be ready to tear your hair out, literally. In this filmmaking paradise of yours, everyone would be using all the best known or most effective classical pieces in their movies, until those pieces had been well and truly raped to death.
> 
> Kubrick knew he was special and that he'd get away with it. If everyone started doing the same, you'd get pretty tired of it pretty soon.


Luckily there are so few film makers with taste and even if more people started using pre-existing music there is so much music my friend. You'll never be able to even listen to all the music you would want to in a lifetime. So I think there is plenty of room for more film makers to start. I must say if I ever took up directing I would consciously avoid using pre-existing music that had already been used in other films (this is why I have a grudge against Von Trier as well for his use of Wagner in "Melancholia").

Anyway like I said plenty of music, not many film makers with the taste to use pre-existing music, I don't think hearing pieces over and over in movies will be an issue anytime soon.


----------



## Fugue Meister

dsphipps100 said:


> Notice that the examples you are giving here are rather specific, such as "sarabande" or "minuet". There won't be much disagreement about what qualifies a piece to fit within those categories. When we start getting out more generalized words, however, such as "romantic" or the ultimate ambiguity, "classical", then that's when the arguing begins, because of the ambiguity caused by a multitude of legitimate definitions.
> 
> I say "classical" only refers to music generally between 1740 and 1825, but the man on the street says "classical" refers to that long hair stuff on the government-subsidized radio station that nobody ever listens to, and so forth and so on.
> 
> So just speaking for myself, I'm going to quit worrying about what qualifies as "classical" music and start using more specific terms, like "orchestral" or "chamber music".


Come on is "absolute music" so hard? I'm trying to start a trend here.. :lol:


----------



## Fugue Meister

DaveM said:


> As a matter of fact, neither am I.


Why not, if you like film music he is the pinnacle at least of living score composers, IMO he can write in any style very well and his quality consistency is amazing. Maybe you just don't know a lot of his lesser known scores.


----------



## pjang23

dsphipps100 said:


> Notice that the examples you are giving here are rather specific, such as "sarabande" or "minuet". There won't be much disagreement about what qualifies a piece to fit within those categories. When we start getting out more generalized words, however, such as "romantic" or the ultimate ambiguity, "classical", then that's when the arguing begins, because of the ambiguity caused by a multitude of legitimate definitions.
> 
> *I say "classical" only refers to music generally between 1740 and 1825, but the man on the street says "classical" refers to that long hair stuff on the government-subsidized radio station that nobody ever listens to, and so forth and so on.*
> 
> So just speaking for myself, I'm going to quit worrying about what qualifies as "classical" music and start using more specific terms, like "orchestral" or "chamber music".


Big C Classical refers to 1740-1825 but little c classical refers to the whole body of music this forum is about. Same difference between big R Romantic and little r romantic.

Once again, I would say a key defining feature of classical music (with a little c) is that it is written to be performed by musicians. I don't see what's so hard to understand.


----------



## Fugue Meister

pjang23 said:


> Big C Classical refers to 1740-1825 but little c classical refers to the whole body of music this forum is about. Once again, I would say a key defining feature of classical music (with a little c) is that it is written to be performed by musicians. I don't see what's so hard to understand.


All music was written to be preformed by musicians, what are you on about?... And no it's not hard to understand but some don't find the need to label everything.


----------



## pjang23

Fugue Meister said:


> All music was written to be preformed by musicians, what are you on about?... And no it's not hard to understand but some don't find the need to label everything.


Well, for the primary purpose of being performed by musicians and particularly by musicians other than the original composer.


----------



## KenOC

pjang23 said:


> In the case of film scores or video games they are written to be a component of something non-musical.


Bye-bye Egmont. Bye-bye Peer Gynt. Bye-bye etc etc etc. Oh, and bye-bye ballet.


----------



## DaveM

Fugue Meister said:


> Why not, if you like film music he is the pinnacle at least of living score composers, IMO he can write in any style very well and his quality consistency is amazing. Maybe you just don't know a lot of his lesser known scores.


I can't argue with the fact that he is a pinnacle of living score composers. His film score output and the number of block-buster movies he wrote music for is remarkable. But while I think he had tremendous skill in composing dramatic themes (Superman, Star Wars, and on and on), there is little in the way of his film music that I like to listen to outside of the movies themselves.

He did write some very moving melodies in both Saving Private Ryan and Lincoln, but they weren't particularly fleshed out. Still, Williams was writing for the movie not to provide me with a nice suite to listen to in the way Michael Kamen, Hans Zimmer, Alan Silvestri and Randy Edelman did.

In any event, the particular subject of liking John Williams music or not is one of personal preference, not the skill and talent of the composer. And just to clarify further, when I say I'm not a fan of his music, I'm talking about listening to it repeatedly separate from the movie. I do like his music when I'm watching any of the countless movies his music is in.


----------



## Chromatose

DaveM said:


> I can't argue with the fact that he is a pinnacle of living score composers. His film score output and the number of block-buster movies he wrote music for is remarkable. But while I think he had tremendous skill in composing dramatic themes (Superman, Star Wars, and on and on), there is little in the way of his film music that I like to listen to outside of the movies themselves.
> 
> He did write some very moving melodies in both Saving Private Ryan and Lincoln, but they weren't particularly fleshed out. Still, Williams was writing for the movie not to provide me with a nice suite to listen to in the way Michael Kamen, Hans Zimmer, Alan Silvestri and Randy Edelman did.
> 
> In any event, the particular subject of liking John Williams music or not is one of personal preference, not the skill and talent of the composer. And just to clarify further, when I say I'm not a fan of his music, I'm talking about listening to it repeatedly separate from the movie. I do like his music when I'm watching any of the countless movies his music is in.


Look man I'm not trying to rowel you up but how can you say any of those examples you listed are better stand alone listening than anything Williams ever wrote? That just blows my mind.


----------



## DaveM

Chromatose said:


> Look man I'm not trying to rowel you up but how can you say any of those examples you listed are better stand alone listening than anything Williams ever wrote? That just blows my mind.


There is a difference between a 'statement of fact' and a 'statement of personal opinion'. Re-read my post. I make it very clear that I'm talking about my personal preference in response to a query as to why I'm not a particular fan of John Williams music in the way I am for other composers I've given examples of.

You can blow your mind all you want over my taste, but don't blow it because I am proclaiming that those examples are better standalone works for everyone than his other works, because I'm not and I wasn't.


----------



## dsphipps100

Fugue Meister said:


> Come on is "absolute music" so hard? I'm trying to start a trend here.. :lol:


So for you, using the term "absolute music" is an absolute must?


----------



## Guest

pjang23 said:


> In the case of pop music, only the original performance by the original artist counts as the real thing,


Whilst I see what you're driving at in comparing with classical and movie soundtracks, there is a long tradition of songwriters who produced work for others to perform. For example,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holland–Dozier–Holland


----------



## atsizat

DaveM said:


> There is a difference between a 'statement of fact' and a 'statement of personal opinion'. Re-read my post. I make it very clear that I'm talking about my personal preference in response to a query as to why I'm not a particular fan of John Williams music in the way I am for other composers I've given examples of.
> 
> You can blow your mind all you want over my taste, but don't blow it because I am proclaiming that those examples are better standalone works for everyone than his other works, because I'm not and I wasn't.


I prefer Ennio Morricone.


----------



## dsphipps100

One thing that I'm surprised never got mentioned (and I'm pointing my finger straight back at myself in saying so) is Vaughan Williams' Symphony # 7, the "Sinfonia Antartica".

Vaughan Williams wrote the film score to "Scott of the Antarctic"...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_of_the_Antarctic_(film)

...and was so "inspired" (Wikipedia's wording) by the subject that he took much of his film score music and used it as the basis for his 7th Symphony.

So here, in his 7th Symphony, we have a true fusion between concert music and film music, in an example from a composer whose music no reputable musicologist would deny has a rightful place in the standard repertoire.


----------



## DeepR

I was catching up on this topic but I gave up when that Notebook piano piece was somehow mentioned in the same sentence as Alexander Scriabin.


----------



## DeepR

p.s. Predator theme is bad-***


----------



## JosefinaHW

Greetings, DaveM. I have been listening to the music you posted in your thread; I cannot find those orchestral suites or serenades that you arranged. Would you please upload them or post a link to them in YouTube.

By the way, I especially like the opening piece to "The Notebook". I have not read the book or seen the movie but I think that piece is lovely. I also like music from "La Piovra"--again I have not seen that series. 'still listening to the posts, but I'd really like to hear one of your suites or serenades. All the Best!


----------



## JosefinaHW

DeepR said:


> p.s. Predator theme is bad-***


I would love to hear this performed by the Berlin Philharmonic! 'would be really fun driving music... I never saw the film.


----------



## JosefinaHW

dsphipps100 said:


> Let's use an example to prove the point. Here's a piece of music from a movie soundtrack:
> 
> View attachment 81340
> 
> 
> For those of you who care to do so, please listen to it and see if you enjoy it. I'm betting you will, even though you'll have no idea what movie it's from or what's going on. (It's just over 5 minutes long, to let you know, and the whole thing is relatively quiet, so you don't need to worry about waking up the neighbors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )
> 
> Later on, after everybody has had a chance to listen to it and see what you think of it as stand-alone, independent music, I'll identify it and tell you what it is. (Of course, it's entirely possible that somebody here might also recognize it.)
> 
> Happy listening.


For me it absolutely works as a stand-alone piece of music; I think it is beautiful. I'll step out on the limb... John Barry or James Horner? I see your post re/ this: Goldsmith, "Star Trek: Insurrection". Thank you


----------



## Fugue Meister

dsphipps100 said:


> (In case anybody was wondering, this is Jerry Goldsmith's "New Sight" from _Star Trek Insurrection_.)


^^^ Maybe you didn't see the answer dsphipps100 put out, so I reposted...


----------



## Antiquarian

Well... are film soundtracks classical or not? Good question. It depends on the circumstances. A common example of this issue is Sergei Prokoviev's _Alexander Nevsky_. His Cantata for mezzo-soprano, mixed chorus & orchestra (op.78) that he produced in 1934 as a distillation of his 1933 film score, I would consider classical, and have put in the Classical section of my music library. The original film score (that I prefer) goes into the soundtrack section. Likewise, John Williams' _Star Wars_ suite that was released in 1977 was not really a film score (even though PolyGram marketed it as such), since John rearranged the pieces to make a more coherent listening experience outside of the film. The actual film score released in 1997, sounds different and much more disjointed to my ears because it is a series of musical cues. In the end, I think it is just hair splitting. Every opinion in this matter is by definition subjective. The only problem I can see is where do you shelve them, or do you buy two copies?:lol:


----------



## JosefinaHW

Fugue Meister said:


> ^^^ Maybe you didn't see the answer dsphipps100 put out, so I reposted...


Thank you, Fugue Meister. This is embarrassing... I reply as I read and then further below is the answer.... if I waited until I read everything I wouldn't be able to find my way back to the original post.


----------



## poconoron

This is one of the best:


----------



## DaveM

dsphipps100 said:


> Let's use an example to prove the point. Here's a piece of music from a movie soundtrack:
> 
> Attachment 81340
> 
> (In case anybody was wondering, this is Jerry Goldsmith's "New Sight" from _Star Trek Insurrection_.)


I had missed this post and the attachment. Very nice!

A favorite theme of mine from the Star Trek series is the Main Title from Star Trek VIII: First Contact:


----------



## DaveM

JosefinaHW said:


> Greetings, DaveM. I have been listening to the music you posted in your thread; I cannot find those orchestral suites or serenades that you arranged. Would you please upload them or post a link to them in YouTube.
> 
> By the way, I especially like the opening piece to "The Notebook". I have not read the book or seen the movie but I think that piece is lovely. I also like music from "La Piovra"--again I have not seen that series. 'still listening to the posts, but I'd really like to hear one of your suites or serenades. All the Best!


The 'suites' or 'medleys' might be a better term for some of them are something I created on my own by editing together into standalone pieces what were parts of soundtracks that would sometimes not ordinarily work as standalone pieces. Often, in soundtracks beautiful segments suddenly stop or turn into something that is not very practical to listen to. (I never uploaded these to YouTube- they were for my own use.)

For instance, there is the famous oboe theme (by Ennio Morricone) from The Mission and it is a nice standalone piece, but there is also On Heaven and on Earth from the movie which starts off with a beautiful choral variation on the theme, but changes into something less attractive (at least to me) so I edited it to move into the oboe theme and end with The Brothers part of the soundtrack to make an overall very nice medley:

View attachment TheMissionMedley.mp3


You had mentioned The Notebook Theme above. Here's what I did with it (the piano theme is followed directly by the orchestral themes almost as if they were a single piece):

View attachment The NotebookMedley.mp3


----------



## Arsakes

I wonder if video games music can also be included.






And this one






Very march like.


----------



## poconoron

Another good one, Last of the Mohicans:


----------



## Alfacharger

Dont forget Korngold and Steiner


----------



## Sloe

JosefinaHW said:


> Greetings, DaveM. I have been listening to the music you posted in your thread; I cannot find those orchestral suites or serenades that you arranged. Would you please upload them or post a link to them in YouTube.
> 
> By the way, I especially like the opening piece to "The Notebook". I have not read the book or seen the movie but I think that piece is lovely. I also like music from "La Piovra"--again I have not seen that series. 'still listening to the posts, but I'd really like to hear one of your suites or serenades. All the Best!


It is a good series you should watch it. The theme is very suitable. You are taken directly to a world full of danger.


----------



## JosefinaHW

DaveM said:


> The 'suites' or 'medleys' might be a better term for some of them are something I created on my own by editing together into standalone pieces what were parts of soundtracks that would sometimes not ordinarily work as standalone pieces. Often, in soundtracks beautiful segments suddenly stop or turn into something that is not very practical to listen to. (I never uploaded these to YouTube- they were for my own use.)
> 
> For instance, there is the famous oboe theme (by Ennio Morricone) from The Mission and it is a nice standalone piece, but there is also On Heaven and on Earth from the movie which starts off with a beautiful choral variation on the theme, but changes into something less attractive (at least to me) so I edited it to move into the oboe theme and end with The Brothers part of the soundtrack to make an overall very nice medley:
> 
> View attachment 81777
> 
> 
> You had mentioned The Notebook Theme above. Here's what I did with it (the piano theme is followed directly by the orchestral themes almost as if they were a single piece):
> 
> View attachment 81778


Thank you very much for sharing, Dave; they are lovely! There is so much good music out there you could probably spend the rest of your life creating interesting suites/medley's. The theme to _The Mission_ is wonderful; it was my introduction to Morricone. By any chance do you have the soundtrack to _The Name of the Rose_ by James Horner? I love that soundtrack and for some reason I only ever had a tape cassette (long lost, alas) and the CD isn't for sale anymore. I don't understand why it isn't for sale; it had some really haunting music. The film was terrible but that shouldn't have anything to do with it.


----------



## JosefinaHW

Thanks for sharing, Arsakes. My first intro to game music. I sampled all of "Dragon Age"; 'especially like "Elves at the Mercy of Man".


----------



## DaveM

JosefinaHW said:


> Thank you very much for sharing, Dave; they are lovely! There is so much good music out there you could probably spend the rest of your life creating interesting suites/medley's. The theme to _The Mission_ is wonderful; it was my introduction to Morricone. By any chance do you have the soundtrack to _The Name of the Rose_ by James Horner? I love that soundtrack and for some reason I only ever had a tape cassette (long lost, alas) and the CD isn't for sale anymore. I don't understand why it isn't for sale; it had some really haunting music. The film was terrible but that shouldn't have anything to do with it.


I don't have it, but the full soundtrack is on YouTube. Here are 2 examples:


----------



## JosefinaHW

DaveM said:


> I don't have it, but the full soundtrack is on YouTube. Here are 2 examples:


Dave, you are TRULY WONDERFUL!!!! I haven't heard this soundtrack in probably 20 years! I think this years is it's 20th Anniversary. I'm still not used to turning to YouTube for this kind of thing: I feel like I'm listening to stolen music and watching stolen film. P.S. My God, I didn't think anything or anybody could make Sean Connery look bad....


----------



## DaveM

Since there have been two recent threads on film music, I thought I'd bump this thread back up just for interest sake.


----------



## JosefinaHW

DaveM said:


> Since there have been two recent threads on film music, I thought I'd bump this thread back up just for interest sake.


Warm Greetings, Dave! I was reminded of this thread when Fugue Meister returned to TC a few days ??? weeks ago. One person that I have seriously missed here on TC is Dave Phipps (can't remember the correct spelling of his name). I'm sure you remember him: he was a serious fan of some soundtracks, he has a fabulous sense of humor, is an excellent teacher, and just a super-nice person.

I joined that rival forum just to ask him to explain a music theory problem for me. Let's see if we can convince him to rejoin TC; we might just need to remind him that there is an "Ignore" function on here and that there is no shame in using it. I'm getting ready to use it myself.

Thanks for reopening this thread. Don't have time to post much else right now... I'm exploring Verdi's _Simon Bocanegro_ right now, but I will say that I think the VERY BEST driving music is Bond music: John Barry, some of David Arnold and some of Thomas Newmann. Talk to you soon.


----------



## DaveM

JosefinaHW said:


> Warm Greetings, Dave! I was reminded of this thread when Fugue Meister returned to TC a few days ??? weeks ago. One person that I have seriously missed here on TC is Dave Phipps (can't remember the correct spelling of his name). I'm sure you remember him: he was a serious fan of some soundtracks, he has a fabulous sense of humor, is an excellent teacher, and just a super-nice person.
> 
> I joined that rival forum just to ask him to explain a music theory problem for me. Let's see if we can convince him to rejoin TC; we might just need to remind him that there is an "Ignore" function on here and that there is no shame in using it. I'm getting ready to use it myself.
> 
> Thanks for reopening this thread. Don't have time to post much else right now... I'm exploring Verdi's _Simon Bocanegro_ right now, but I will say that I think the VERY BEST driving music is Bond music: John Barry, some of David Arnold and some of Thomas Newmann. Talk to you soon.


Good to hear from you too. You helped make this thread interesting.


----------



## KenOC

The closest thing to movie music in earlier days was incidental music to plays. Here is a list, with a lot of music by well-known composers, and a lot of it in the active repertoire. Is there any reason film music should be different?

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


----------



## Jacck

DaveM said:


> In classical music I am drawn to melody before anything else. I'm talking about pure, accessible, immediately-recognizable melody: Melody that strikes deep at the soul and the heartstrings. In full disclosure, I don't like much in the way of 'modern classical music' as the term is generally applied these days. Mahler is about as 'modern' as I will get. Thus, outside of Richard Strauss, Rachmaninoff and a handful of others, there are very few composers of the 20th century whose music I will listen to. I feel a sense of loss that the appreciation for 'traditional melody' has been lost in the composition of most classical music these days. Listening to the music of Schoenberg, Shostakovich and the like is almost torture to me. I don't hear any melody that resonates or touches me. (Note: this my opinion only and not a value judgement of any particular composer.) Below are a few of the best examples of hauntingly beautiful melodies in movie soundtracks. I know that movies soundtracks have been the subjects of prior threads in this forum, but IMO, they have often missed the best examples of melodic music. On a side note: From my experience, the golden age of highly melodic movie soundtracks was from about 1985 to 2005. It seems that during that time, movie studios were willing to pay for highly developed soundtracks with well-developed beautiful melodies/themes composed by names such as Alan Silvestri, Randy Edelman, Hans Zimmer, Jerry Goldsmith and Michael Kamen. But, that doesn't seem to be the case in the last 5-10 years. Take for example Hans Zimmer. He composed some of the most beautiful 'fleshed-out' music for the movies Nine Months, The Peacemaker and Pearl Harbor (all composed before the year 2000), but now the music he composes for movies is fairly limited in the way of melody and trying to create a suite out of it is nearly impossible.


I quickly browsed through this thread and the soundtracks you seem to enjoy most are too sweet for me. I have no problem with Shostakovich (in fact, I cherish him) or Schoenberg (he can write incredible melodies) and some of my favorite film scores are the avantgarde ones - Planet of the Apes, Alien, Total Recall, Freud by Goldsmith. I also disagree with you about the time. Why 1985? There were many very melodic and beautiful scores composed before this period. Check for example Miklos Rozsa

Miklos Rozsa

















or Alfred Newman, Bernard Hermann, Erich Wolfgang Korngold, Nino Rota, Shostakovich (Gadfly and other soundtracks of his), Prokofiev (Alexander Nevsky) etc


----------



## DaveM

Jacck said:


> I quickly browsed through this thread and the soundtracks you seem to enjoy most are too sweet for me. I have no problem with Shostakovich (in fact, I cherish him) or Schoenberg (he can write incredible melodies) and some of my favorite film scores are the avantgarde ones - Planet of the Apes, Alien, Total Recall, Freud by Goldsmith. I also disagree with you about the time. Why 1985? There were many very melodic and beautiful scores composed before this period. Check for example Miklos Rozsa
> 
> Miklos Rozsa
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or Alfred Newman, Bernard Hermann, Erich Wolfgang Korngold, Nino Rota, Shostakovich (Gadfly and other soundtracks of his), Prokofiev (Alexander Nevsky) etc


I don't know what 'too sweet' means. These were soundtracks for major, successful movies where the soundtrack played a significant part. The soundtracks I mention in the opening of this thread are, by any measure, good tunes, which is what the producers of the movie were apparently looking for.

Also, I didn't say there were no impressive soundtracks before 1985. What did amaze me was how when the subject of soundtracks came up on this forum, the same old soundtracks prior to circa 1985 were mentioned.


----------



## Jacck

DaveM said:


> I don't know what 'too sweet' means. These were soundtracks for major, successful movies where the soundtrack played a significant part. The soundtracks I mention in the opening of this thread are, by any measure, good tunes, which is what the producers of the movie were apparently looking for. Also, I didn't say there were no impressive soundtracks before 1985. What did amaze me was how when the subject of soundtracks came up on this forum, the same old soundtracks prior to circa 1985 were mentioned.


by too sweet I mean oversentimental. Something like this









while I enjoy more something like this








 (this gets good in the second half)





actually my favorite soundtrack from the last 5 years or so is this one


----------



## DaveM

Jacck said:


> by too sweet I mean oversentimental. Something like this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> while I enjoy more something like this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (this gets good in the second half)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> actually my favorite soundtrack from the last 5 years or so is this one


Well, now you've got me, Prometheus is one of my top favorite movies of the last 5 years and I've seen it several times. I also really like the original Alien music. Anyway, I guess I like 'sweet' which, in my mind, I guess, tends to mean 'good tunes'. However, I did like your other examples.


----------



## Jacck

I have been listening to soundtracks for two decades, so I could probably fill here several pages with good sountracks  Many which I own are not even on youtube. But lately I switched mostly to classical
just some random that come to my mind












































etc
etc


----------



## eugeneonagain

A good, but quite rare, soundtrack is Elmer Bernstein's for _The Liberation of L.B. Jones_.


----------



## DaveM

Jacck said:


> I have been listening to soundtracks for two decades, so I could probably fill here several pages with good sountracks  Many which I own are not even on youtube. But lately I switched mostly to classical
> just some random that come to my mind
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> etc
> etc


Oh, oh, I detected some 'sweet' stuff in the third, fifth, seventh and final above! I particularly liked James Newton Howard's The Village. Was unfamiliar with it. IMO, some of the stuff we're talking about here is closer to classical music than some of the stuff passing for classical music theses days.


----------



## DaveM

eugeneonagain said:


> A good, but quite rare, soundtrack is Elmer Bernstein's for _The Liberation of L.B. Jones_.


Wasn't a big fan of the music, but had the hots back then for Barbara Hershey (Bar).


----------



## eugeneonagain

Except for the alleged 'score' to _The Painted Veil_. The best bit is Satie's Gnossienne and the rest of the entire score is built on repeats of the same dull tune by Desplat (which he probably nicked like the one in Girl With the Pearl Earring).


----------



## Jacck

DaveM said:


> Oh, oh, I detected some 'sweet' stuff in the third, fifth, seventh and final above! I particularly liked James Newton Howard's The Village. Was unfamiliar with it. IMO, some of the stuff we're talking about here is closer to classical music than some of the stuff passing for classical music theses days.


yes, there is some "sweet" stuff. Especially John Barry wrote a lot of higly sentimental stuff - _Out of Africa_, _Somewhere in Time_,_ Dances With Wolves_, _The Scarlet Letter_, _High Road to China_.... that is too sentimental for me, but you might enjoy. Howard wrote several memorable scores too - _Devils Advocate_, _The Atlantis_, _Lady in the Water_, _Dinosaur_, _The Last Airbender_....

out of all the soundtracks I listed, the highest musical quality has IMO the _The Dark Crystal by Trevor Jones_. It is better than most symphonies, even from the 19th century. 





other soundtracks I really like a lot are the Star Trek soundtracks. Out of the 10 older movies (not counting the modern ones), Jerry Golsmith composed 4 and all are excellent. Not just one track, but all the tracks, ie you can listen to the whole score












James Horner did an amazing job too








really, all the 10 soundtracks are worth listening to.

Overall, Goldsmith is for me No1 among the film composers. He was incredibly original (far more than John Williams, not even mentioning the overrated Hans Zimmer)


----------



## Jacck

eugeneonagain said:


> A good, but quite rare, soundtrack is Elmer Bernstein's for _The Liberation of L.B. Jones_.


wasn't familiar with this one, neither the movie nor the score, but sounds good, a little rock/funk


----------



## eugeneonagain

Around the 1930s, and especially into the 40s and 50s, a good deal of the composers working in Hollywood were regular immigrants or refugees from Nazism and they brought both regular classical traditions and modernist music with them.

I like to think that this had a beneficial effect upon music as it fed into a popular culture medium with large audiences. The great American film composer Bernard Herrmann was well-versed in both European and American trends in modern music and used it to great effect.

Here's a bit of fun. This is the 2nd movement of Mieczyslaw Weinberg'a 4th string quartet (1945). What does it remind you of?


----------



## DaveM

Jacck said:


> yes, there is some "sweet" stuff. Especially John Barry wrote a lot of higly sentimental stuff - _Out of Africa_, _Somewhere in Time_,_ Dances With Wolves_, _The Scarlet Letter_, _High Road to China_.... that is too sentimental for me, but you might enjoy. Howard wrote several memorable scores too - _Devils Advocate_, _The Atlantis_, _Lady in the Water_, _Dinosaur_, _The Last Airbender_....
> 
> out of all the soundtracks I listed, the highest musical quality has IMO the _The Dark Crystal by Trevor Jones_. It is better than most symphonies, even from the 19th century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> other soundtracks I really like a lot are the Star Trek soundtracks. Out of the 10 older movies (not counting the modern ones), Jerry Golsmith composed 4 and all are excellent. Not just one track, but all the tracks, ie you can listen to the whole score
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Horner did an amazing job too
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> really, all the 10 soundtracks are worth listening to.
> 
> Overall, Goldsmith is for me No1 among the film composers. He was incredibly original (far more than John Williams, not even mentioning the overrated Hans Zimmer)


The Goodsmith Star Trek VIII First Contact is one of my favorites: totally new, fully fleshed out thematic work. Goldsmith and Horner are top notch. I'm not a big fan of Williams. Zimmer used to create wonderful soundtracks on his own (Nine Months, Pearl Harbor), but has created a big machine that turns out clever short thematic snippets, but not much else.


----------



## DaveM

eugeneonagain said:


> Around the 1930s, and especially into the 40s and 50s, a good deal of the composers working in Hollywood were regular immigrants or refugees from Nazism and they brought both regular classical traditions and modernist music with them.
> 
> I like to think that this had a beneficial effect upon music as it fed into a popular culture medium with large audiences. The great American film composer Bernard Herrmann was well-versed in both European and American trends in modern music and used it to great effect.
> 
> Here's a bit of fun. This is the 2nd movement of Mieczyslaw Weinberg'a 4th string quartet (1945). What does it remind you of?


Actually, reminds me of Khatchaturian, but you were probably expecting Shostakovich.


----------



## eugeneonagain

DaveM said:


> Actually, reminds me of Khatchaturian, but you were probably expecting Shostakovich.


No, the score for _Psycho_!


----------



## Jacck

eugeneonagain said:


> No, the score for _Psycho_!


Definitely, shamless rip off which I wasn't aware of until now. It wasn't until I started listening to classical that I realized how many of the movie scores are copies of classical works. Like Tchaikovski 1st symphony and Strauss 1st symphony and Star Wars etc. There are countless examples. It kind of diminished my respect towards the Star Wars soundtrack, but it is still tremendous and will no doubt survive into the future.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Despite John Williams's borrowings I still have a regard for him and his music. In one sense he is allowing some of the best music to seep into people's minds through his soundtracks. All composers have influences, so it's fair enough I suppose. I think he at least makes an effort to think about the music he writes and its place in the film. I like his music for _The Terminal_ and love his Superman theme. He writes well for brasses.

It's a pity Wagner didn't live to see the rise of the movie business, he would have made a fine film composer (and perhaps also demanded control over the script, the set design and the direction!).


----------



## KenOC

Jacck said:


> Definitely, shamless rip off which I wasn't aware of until now. It wasn't until I started listening to classical that I realized how many of the movie scores are copies of classical works. Like Tchaikovski 1st symphony and Strauss 1st symphony and Star Wars etc. There are countless examples. It kind of diminished my respect towards the Star Wars soundtrack, but it is still tremendous and will no doubt survive into the future.


Maybe Williams' inspiration for _Star Wars_ was a bit closer in time, and from another Hollywood composer. Take a listen.


----------



## Jacck

KenOC said:


> Maybe Williams' inspiration for _Star Wars_ was a bit closer in time, and from another Hollywood composer. Take a listen.


the Star Wars sountrack is composed of many memorable pieces such as The Imperial March, the Leia theme, the Yoda theme, the Cloud City theme etc. and each of these tracks was probably inspired somewhere else. In fact, the whole soundtrack is probably an ingenous compilation of themes borrowed elsewhere
https://www.classicalmpr.org/story/2015/10/20/star-wars-john-williams-influences


----------



## bharbeke

For those interested in the Star Wars: A New Hope soundtrack and how the music plays a role in the storytelling, I highly recommend this podcast:

https://www.soundtrackpodcast.com/podcasts/star-wars-the-music-part-i.htm

The other episodes of the series are also highly informative and enjoyable, and the last ANH episode releases tomorrow.


----------



## Alfacharger

Jacck said:


> Definitely, shamless rip off which I wasn't aware of until now. It wasn't until I started listening to classical that I realized how many of the movie scores are copies of classical works. Like Tchaikovski 1st symphony and Strauss 1st symphony and Star Wars etc. There are countless examples. It kind of diminished my respect towards the Star Wars soundtrack, but it is still tremendous and will no doubt survive into the future.


Much of the Psycho score is based on Herrmann's 1935 composition "Sinfonietta for Strings".






I also wonder if Herrmann knew about Saint Saens second symphony when composing the Vertigo score.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Alfacharger said:


> Much of the Psycho score is based on Herrmann's 1935 composition "Sinfonietta for Strings".
> 
> I also wonder if Herrmann knew about Saint Saens second symphony when composing the Vertigo score.


Very interesting. I didn't know about the sinfonietta.

Concerning the Vertigo score.. there is a section in Malcolm Arnold's sinfonietta (1 or 2) which is almost like a direct quote of the undulating quavers in that score. They were friends (Arnold getting Herrmann into exclusive London clubs) and shared ideas so who knows that it's about?


----------



## Kajmanen

This topic might be something for me


----------



## Guest

Alfacharger said:


> Much of the Psycho score is based on Herrmann's 1935 composition "Sinfonietta for Strings".


Thanks for the link - I've not heard much of Herrmann beyond his scores. The trouble with the idea of "borrowing from himself" is that it's hardly surprising to find similarities from one piece to the next, and most composers did the same, cutting and pasting from here and there to elsewhere.


----------



## Jacck

Kajmanen said:


> This topic might be something for me


I told you that right at the beginning when you started the "nice melodies" thread. Classical music is more complex, more rich and more difficult to get into. Soundtracks are easier and have nicer melodies. I know that. I have been there and found classical difficult too at the beginning. It is just a matter of getting used to the different style. But do not force yourself. Enjoy soundtracks, there are plenty of great ones, and do not worry if you cannot enjoy classical. Maybe later you find your way into it. The greatest score ever composed for a movie is in my opinion Conan The Barbarbarian by Basil Poledouris. It is just epic, original, adventurous, magical music.


----------



## JayBee

I have always been a fan of James Horner's music, and would recommend Cocoon as one of his sweeter, more sentimental scores. Star Trek II and Field of Dreams remain my favourites, though.


----------



## DeepR

Game music can be good as well.
My favorite video game soundtrack is Super Castlevania IV (1991). I wouldn't call any of it classical, but some parts are worthy of orchestration at least. In fact the music of Castlevania has been orchestrated, but every attempt at orchestration I've heard, whether amateurish or semi-professional, is just awful.
So I'll stick to the original soundtrack in all its Super Nintendo soundchip glory. I still enjoy this music after all these years, probably because I've played the game as a kid and the whole atmosphere and music of that game really stuck with me.

Here's the ending theme:


----------



## Phil loves classical

I was captivated before by film music by John Williams, and Basil Palidouris, even John Barry. It was just honest, sweeping music, and tugged at my heartstrings, the way a lot of Classical couldn't except for Mozart. Classical sounded too technical to me. Then I went into a phase when movie music sounded dumb compared to the classical repertoire. Now I just accept it for what it is, mainly music that goes with the visuals. I still consider the original Lord of the Rings score by Leonard Rosenman is as good as just about any classical as stand alone music.


----------



## BiscuityBoyle

James Bernard's soundtracks for Hammer Horror are absolutely incredible. Harsh and full of dissonance, they often sound not unlike Bartok's Miraculous Mandarin.


----------



## EdwardBast

Being a good film composer, like being a good composer of opera, indicates nothing about whether a composer will be any good at abstract instrumental music. Film composers need to master the superficial elements of composition but not the daunting problems of structure, continuity and long term unity and process.


----------



## DaveM

EdwardBast said:


> Being a good film composer, like being a good composer of opera, indicates nothing about whether a composer will be any good at abstract instrumental music. Film composers need to master the superficial elements of composition but not the daunting problems of structure, continuity and long term unity and process.


Probably overall true if the comparison is with concertos and symphonies, but some of the more fully fleshed out soundtracks (e.g. Kamen's Band of Brothers, Zimmer's Pearl Harbor) come close to the demands of shorter, overture-like, works. Also, some film composers have written abstract instrumental music on the side so we know some can do it.

One thing I particularly admire about many film composers is their melodic gift. Some movies require a fully fleshed out melody that becomes an important component of the movie. It's hard to compose a totally original catchy melody. I sometimes believe it's a skill many modern composers of abstract instrumental music have lost.


----------



## EdwardBast

DaveM said:


> Probably overall true if the comparison is with concertos and symphonies, but some of the more fully fleshed out soundtracks (e.g. Kamen's Band of Brothers, Zimmer's Pearl Harbor) come close to the demands of shorter, overture-like, works. *Also, some film composers have written abstract instrumental music on the side so we know some can do it.
> *
> One thing I particularly admire about many film composers is their melodic gift. Some movies require a fully fleshed out melody that becomes an important component of the movie. It's hard to compose a totally original catchy melody. I sometimes believe it's a skill many modern composers of abstract instrumental music have lost.


I mostly agree with the above, although I wasn't arguing that they can't do it, just that they don't do it well. 

Where I see film music being most viable in the classical world would be as suites or sets of variations, both of which would require some rewriting and adaptation. I've always thought Kamen's score for Terry Gilliam's _Brazil_ could yield an intense and interesting _Brazil Variations_.


----------



## Alfacharger

EdwardBast said:


> I mostly agree with the above, although I wasn't arguing that they can't do it, just that they don't do it well.
> 
> Where I see film music being most viable in the classical world would be as suites or sets of variations, both of which would require some rewriting and adaptation. I've always thought Kamen's score for Terry Gilliam's _Brazil_ could yield an intense and interesting _Brazil Variations_.


Kamen did write a "Theme and Variations" concert work.






And I'm waiting for a recording of Elfman's new Violin Concerto.


----------



## Guest

DaveM said:


> Probably overall true if the comparison is with concertos and symphonies, but some of the more *fully fleshed out soundtracks* (e.g. Kamen's Band of Brothers, Zimmer's Pearl Harbor) come close to the demands of shorter, overture-like, works.


I'm not sure what this means.

Assessing the value of a soundtrack is a bit tricky really, since the OST released on disc is not the same as the actual soundtrack as it is delivered in the cinema. This is hardly surprising, given that _Pearl Harbour _is 3h 3m long and includes 12 pieces not by Zimmer...and the CD has a bare 50 minutes.

In other words, the suite of pieces released on CD is a highly edited version with many of the cues from the movie removed - though often with enough remaining for the repetition to remind you that it's an OST and not a free-standing composition.


----------



## DaveM

MacLeod said:


> I'm not sure what this means.
> 
> In other words, the suite of pieces released on CD is a highly edited version with many of the cues from the movie removed - though often with enough remaining for the repetition to remind you that it's an OST and not a free-standing composition.
> 
> Assessing the value of a soundtrack is a bit tricky really, since the OST released on disc is not the same as the actual soundtrack as it is delivered in the cinema. This is hardly surprising, given that the movie is 3h 3m long and includes 12 pieces not by Zimmer...and the CD has a bare 50 minutes.


I was able to make a very nice 12 minute suite out of what's available on the CD. You should have highlighted the 'more' because by 'more fully fleshed out soundtracks', I am referring to those that actually can be made into a suite as opposed to many soundtracks, especially these days, where there is very little to work with.


----------

