# In "TOP" what number would you place Williams, Morricone, and Goldsmith?



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

When people rank their favourites or whomever they hold in highest esteem (I will avoid the "controversial" word _greatest_), they sometimes say: "Composer X wouldn't even make my top 50. Top 100 - maybe".

Such rough estimates are actuallly quite interesting to me, as they allow one to estimate the standing of composers that are infrequently included in any lists of the community by just asking simple questions. Users who doesn't know a composer well could listen to a provided example recording and then put that composer off-hand in a top 200.

Also, as a suggestion for the creators of future polls (I haven't seen this method used in recent memory, and I don't know if I have ever seen it used, maybe more veteran users could prove me wrong), one could ask people to rank their favourites / most esteemed ones in such a way:

Bach - 3 = "TOP 3"
Brahms - 3
Beethoven - 3
Wagner - 10 = "TOP 10"
Mahler - 10
Stravinsky - 10
Mozart - 10
Debussy - 10
Ligeti - 10
Haendel - 10
Haydn - 25
Mendelssohn - 25
and so on...

This avoids the headaches of deciding whether (for example) to put Puccini or Purcell on the spot 46.

It's a bit like with tiers, but potentially allows for greater flexibility if users are permitted to set their own tier numbers.

The standings of various figures could be aggregated anyway even when users would divide the composers / conductors / whomever into different tiers.
User 1: TOP4, TOP15, TOP30
User 2: TOP5, TOP10, TOP25

So, let's use it on 3 great 20th century composers who tend to be conspicuously absent from ranked lists around these parts, even though they have the reputations of titans elsewhere.

I am curious to know in what baskets would you place the following three:

John Williams
Ennio Morricone
Jerry Goldsmith

Please mark whether you mean the ranking of "favourites" or "esteemed ones", as these are often two different things.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Williams
..and a tie for the other two.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

mikeh375 said:


> Williams
> ..and a tie for the other two.


But what numbers?

I mean something like: 
Williams - 50
Morricone - 100
Goldsmith - 100


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

For film composers, Williams and Goldsmith top 5. I don't feel Morricone is as versatile as the other 2. But if you're talking in terms of under the Classical umbrella, none would be in the top 200. It's just not music I would sit and listen to. I'd much rather listen to their influences such as Tchaikovsky, Stravinsky, Holst, etc.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

No exaggeration, I'd rather listen to someone named Mike Hewer than any of the 3.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Since I don't consider film scores "Classical" music these three are not included on any of my composer lists. The only time I listen to film music is when I watch a movie.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Morricone is a genius and doesn't need to be shoved into the Classical Music genre to be one. I would say the same about e.g. trying to fit Stockhausen or Xenakis into an electronic music list featuring Richard D. James, Giorgio Moroder or Derrick May.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

SanAntone said:


> Since I don't consider film scores "Classical" music these three are not included on any of my composer lists. The only time I listen to film music is when I watch a movie.


Same here, so I'd give each of them nothing concerning classical music.

Film music is its own category, although Fabulin keeps shoving them into classical.


----------



## Subutai (Feb 28, 2021)

Phil loves classical said:


> For film composers, I don't feel Morricone is as versatile as the other 2


Seriously? Morricone is most possibly more versatile then the other 2 combined. Not every great thing resides on that side of the pond.
As for film composers;
Morricone top 3
Williams top 5
Goldsmith top 10


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Fabulin said:


> But what numbers?
> 
> I mean something like:
> Williams - 50
> ...


Oh yeah, sorry F. Having thoroughly read your OP now (my bad, I don't do these ranking things normally), I'd only put Williams in the top 200 mainly because of his concertos of which I'm a fan. So....

Williams - c. TOP 150

This was difficult though, I changed my mind several times on this. I'm still a fan of the other two, but not when we are comparing them to several hundred years of masters (and I am including right up to the present day). 
I still have the issue we've talked about before, that of the parameters and reasons for composing film music and it's emotive, dramatic discourse being totally different to composing for the concert hall, resulting in an artistic compromise when compared to unfettered imagination and writing. Apart from my own experience in this, one only has to listen to the Williams Concertos to hear for example, the emancipation of the long line from screen timings and dramatic utility to get a sense of what I mean. I know you think differently and fair enough. It's a true measure of JW's ability that he has straddled and mixed both worlds so effectively imv - another reason he makes it on a list like this for me. I hear less cross fertilisation in the music of JG and EM generally speaking, but I don't know as much of their work as I do Williams.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> No exaggeration, I'd rather listen to someone named Mike Hewer than any of the 3.


That bad huh? At least you have the option of _not_ listening to him....

(A cheques in the post btw)


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

I have no problem putting film scores and especially suites from them under classical music - I file the CD's of these composers in my classical music cabinets. In addition, like mikeh375 said, Williams has a decent output of 'regular' classical music in his concertos.

That said, the competition is fierce. I recently tried to make a list of 100 composers I like best after 35 years of listening, and I was left with many I like a lot who would not make it. Williams is not near that list, might end up around the 200 spot or still lower. Goldsmith and Morricone (both of whom I appreciate as well) clearly lower than that.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Thank you for your answers, gentlemen. It is all very interesting to read, even if quite a bit beyond my imagination.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Williams - 250 (but probably not 100)

Goldsmith & Morricone - 500 (but not 250)


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I think all three would make my top 1000.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

mikeh375 said:


> That bad huh? At least you have the option of _not_ listening to him....
> 
> (A cheques in the post btw)


Oh sorry, I had meant the other Mike Hewer. Gee that's awkward.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

............. deleted.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_Morricone is a genius and doesn't need to be shoved into the Classical Music genre to be one._

You might be surprised to know Morricone wrote classical music. Here is a piece I like a lot:






I don't know where Morricone ranks among film or classical composers but I have two of his scores in my collection -- the one above and the score to _Once Upon A Time In the West_ -- and that is two more than either of the other two composers mentioned. That doubtless makes him top 100 among my favorites.

I wouldn't say Morricone, Williams and/or Goldsmith are bad composers but, for me, the only film composers that would rank with classical composers are Bernard Herrmann and Miklos Rosza, both of whom also wrote classical music.

Aside from those two I would list many other film composers I like better than Williams and Goldsmith: William Alwyn, William Walton, Giorgio Moroder, Ron Goodwin, Dmitri Shostakovich, Philip Sainton and Ralph Burns are all represented in my collection.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Williams is probably in my top 100, maybe even my top 75, although unlike other composers I might rank similarly he does so on the basis of my really liking some specific pieces, rather than on my overall perception of his work.

Morricone is probably not quite in the top 250, and I know very little of Goldsmith's work.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

larold said:


> _Morricone is a genius and doesn't need to be shoved into the Classical Music genre to be one._
> 
> You might be surprised to know Morricone wrote classical music. Here is a piece I like a lot:
> 
> ...


I'm not that surprised- I imagine a lot of professional writers of instrumental music have probably done this kind of thing.

Like I said- I think he was a genius, and certainly one of the best film composers in history. I just don't see the use in rating him in a prospective list of classical composers when I never listen to his work in the mindset of listening to classical music - in fact I rarely listen to film soundtracks by themselves.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

Fabulin said:


> I am curious to know in what baskets would you place the following three:
> 
> John Williams
> Ennio Morricone
> ...


I do consider film music to belong with "classical orchestral music" broadly construed. I agree with the criticism that such music may not be as satisfying as cohesive pieces in the way that a symphony or concerto might be. But the same can often be said of opera.

So anyway, I would put John Williams in my top 30. Jerry Goldsmith might make the top 50. I haven't heard enough Morricone to form an opinion. Bernard Herrmann would almost certainly be in the top 50 as well.


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

I also think that film and classical music should be kept separate in evaluation. These are two very different genres that, in general, have two very different goals. Film music is subordinate to story and scene length, forcing composers to rely more on immediate gestures to make an impact; surface effects, rapid orchestration changes, and brief melodic motives are common. Large-scale structure - key to classical composition for the concert hall - is rarely a priority in film music when expressive points need to be made as succinctly as possible. 

All of this makes it extremely difficult (if not downright impossible) to evaluate film and classical music side-by-side. Things that are usually hallmarks of a successful classical work can be detrimental to a film score's effectiveness. Of course, none of this means that one genre is "better" than the other, or that the best film music cannot stand comparison with the best classical music.

Concert suites extracted from films muddy the water a bit, and in that case I think comparisons are more appropriate.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Film music played in a classical music context is clearly a classical music performance. However, the music was not composed with this performance in mind, and it would be doing the composer a disservice to evaluate it _as_ classical music.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Portamento said:


> I also think that film and classical music should be kept separate in evaluation. These are two very different genres that, in general, have two very different goals. Film music is subordinate to story and scene length, forcing composers to rely more on immediate gestures to make an impact; surface effects, rapid orchestration changes, and brief melodic motives are common. Large-scale structure - key to classical composition for the concert hall - is rarely a priority in film music when expressive points need to be made as succinctly as possible.
> 
> All of this makes it extremely difficult (if not downright impossible) to evaluate film and classical music side-by-side. Things that are usually hallmarks of a successful classical work can be detrimental to a film score's effectiveness. Of course, none of this means that one genre is "better" than the other, or that the best film music cannot stand comparison with the best classical music.
> 
> Concert suites extracted from films muddy the water a bit, and in that case I think comparisons are more appropriate.


I agree. Music derived from nearly any genre or tradition can be used for film, in addition to film music of certain periods being thought of as genres in and of themselves, including but not limited to music of the "golden age" of the major Hollywood studios circa 1930s to 1960s. This is yet another case where labels can cause more confusion, disagreement, and harm generally than good.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Portamento said:


> ...
> Concert suites extracted from films muddy the water a bit, and in that case I think comparisons are more appropriate.


But it's the same music. I don't think Petrouchka is not "classical.music" because it was originally intended to be performed with dancers. It still stands on its own, as does the incidental music to Rosamunde or A Midsummer Night's Dream.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

dissident said:


> But it's the same music. I don't think Petrouchka is not "classical.music" because it was originally intended to be performed with dancers. It still stands on its own, as does the incidental music to Rosamunde or A Midsummer Night's Dream.


Yes, but it's not quite "the same music". If you've seen the movie Alexander Nevsky and heard the cantata, the effect is not exactly the same. You certainly can call it classical music either way if you wish, but the different context makes a big difference, aside from any differences in the notes played or sung. I suppose one could call the former film music and the latter concert music. There's not much point in debating labels or terminology.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

MatthewWeflen said:


> So anyway, I would put John Williams in my top 30. Jerry Goldsmith might make the top 50. I haven't heard enough Morricone to form an opinion. Bernard Herrmann would almost certainly be in the top 50 as well.


Fair enough. But this leads me to wonder which of the great composers are relegated below 30 to make room for Williams in your personal ranked list.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Enthusiast said:


> Fair enough. But this leads me to wonder which of the great composers are relegated below 30 to make room for Williams in your personal ranked list.


That's how history works, doesn't it? The list of great composers simply grows with just about every generation.

I can give you my answer:

3. Bach, J.S.
3. Beethoven
3. Mozart
15. Berlioz
15. Brahms 
15. Debussy
15. Haendel
15. Mendelssohn
15. Rameau
15. Schubert
15. Shostakovich
15. Stravinsky
15. Tchaikovsky
15. Wagner
15. Williams
30. Bach, C.P.E.
30. Bruckner
30. Chopin
30. Dvorak
30. Goldsmith
30. Monteverdi
30. Morricone
30. Palestrina
30. Prokofiev
30. Ravel
30. Saint-Saens
30. Schoenberg
30. Strauss, R.
30. Verdi
30. Vivaldi

The one that I feel should belong with the top 30 but drew the short stick, was Alkan. He shouldn't have retired from composition so early!

The most comparable composer to Williams I find to be Tchaikovsky, when one compares the peak 15-ish years of their respective careers. (Williams 1977-1993, and Tchaikovsky 1876-1893). Classic FM polls also routinely have them right next to each other, although maybe I shouldn't have mentioned that, since people voting there are obviously a sarabande of profligates and hoi polloi 

Bernard Herrmann would be in my top 50 too.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

Enthusiast said:


> Fair enough. But this leads me to wonder which of the great composers are relegated below 30 to make room for Williams in your personal ranked list.


Definitely Mahler.

:devil:


----------



## atsizat (Sep 14, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> Since I don't consider film scores "Classical" music these three are not included on any of my composer lists. The only time I listen to film music is when I watch a movie.


Are you telling me these are not classical music?

If not, what makes a piece of music CLASSICAL? Being composed before the 20th century?

Some CLASSICAL music composed by Ennio Morricone


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

atsizat said:


> Are you telling me this kind of music is not really classical music?
> 
> If not, what makes a piece of music CLASSICAL? Being composed before the 20th century?
> 
> Some CLASSICAL music composed by Ennio Morricone


at the risk of this becoming a genre thread, genres are defined less by specific aesthetic elements and more by cultural context (which can _include_ specific aesthetic elements).

this is why, for instance, that famous bit in the last Beethoven piano sonata isn't "jazz" or "boogie-woogie" even though it shares aesthetic elements with them - Jazz isn't a set of aesthetic rules, it was an aesthetic tied to a specific cultural scene in a time and place that Beethoven was not a part of.

this is also why e.g. musique concrete/Xenakis/Stockhousen is not "EDM" or "house" or "techno" or whatever. in other words, the context of the composition of the music determines the genre as much as, or even more than the aesthetic elements of the music.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Film music is an important and wonderful genre on its own, and most folks don't listen to it unless they are also watching a movie.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

fbjim said:


> this is also why e.g. musique concrete/Xenakis/Stockhousen is not "EDM" or "house" or "techno" or whatever. in other words, the context of the composition of the music determines the genre as much as, or even more than the aesthetic elements of the music.


I'm not sure if Williams is less a classical music composer than Xenakis and Stockhausen; film music can be seen as the modern equivalent of incidental music.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Well, Williams was a classical music composer, though given his fame, it should be clear that his greatest renown was in the field of film music. 

Incidental music such as film/video game, and even production/library music* are their own genres - there are obvious crossovers with composers and artists working in many of these fields (like how a pianist can be both a jazz and rock pianist), of course


*a lot of electronic music artists did library music to pay the bills- quite a few people are actually into listening to library music for that reason. It can be a fascinating field in itself.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Why is it important for film music to be considered "Classical" music?


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Why is art music today considered by many 'bad'? Because art music evolves. It can't devolve back to being great, that would be a different genre. Arguable whether crafty but less-inventive music is fully classical. Schubert, Tchaikovsky, Mahler, Mendelssohn, Haydn, Dvorak, Ravel, Sibelius? Surely they weren't making purely artistic statements all the time, but they were making good music.



atsizat said:


> Are you telling me these are not classical music?
> 
> If not, what makes a piece of music CLASSICAL? Being composed before the 20th century?
> 
> Some CLASSICAL music composed by Ennio Morricone


Almost the right scene. "This is not the treasure you're looking for."


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

Public service announcement:

*Film music - or any other genre, for that matter - does not need to be labelled "classical" to be legitimate.*


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Portamento said:


> Public service announcement:
> 
> *Film music - or any other genre, for that matter - does not need to be labelled "classical" to be legitimate.*


I did my best a while back to come up with a definition of "classical music" in the sense of distinguishing it from "popular music". Without heading back down that road, I'll say (again) that popular music can be and often is the product of great care and skill and worthy of the utmost respect. Also, in the fullness of time when it can be put in its proper cultural context, the music of Robert Johnson or Miles Davis is as worthy of the label "classical" in the sense I am using it as that of Mozart and Beethoven.

If by "classical" we mean a certain European musical tradition prevalent among the aristocracy circa 1750-1825, or circa 1600-1900, then that is a different matter.

Labels should never be allowed to morph into implicit value judgments.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_I also think that film and classical music should be kept separate in evaluation. These are two very different genres that, in general, have two very different goals. Film music is subordinate to story and scene length, forcing composers to rely more on immediate gestures to make an impact; surface effects, rapid orchestration changes, and brief melodic motives are common. Large-scale structure - key to classical composition for the concert hall - is rarely a priority in film music when expressive points need to be made as succinctly as possible._

Do you also believe orchestral music accompany operas -- such as Strauss's Der Rosenkavalier Suite and Wagner's various bleeding chunks from The Ring -- and music accompanying a stage play -- such as Mozart's interludes from "The King Of Egypt" -- should also be assessed differently?

This music, like film music, would never exist without the opera or play and is/was used to accentuate the stage action. To me there is no difference between this music and film music.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

larold said:


> _I also think that film and classical music should be kept separate in evaluation. These are two very different genres that, in general, have two very different goals. Film music is subordinate to story and scene length, forcing composers to rely more on immediate gestures to make an impact; surface effects, rapid orchestration changes, and brief melodic motives are common. Large-scale structure - key to classical composition for the concert hall - is rarely a priority in film music when expressive points need to be made as succinctly as possible._
> 
> Do you also believe orchestral music accompany operas -- such as Strauss's Der Rosenkavalier Suite and Wagner's various bleeding chunks from The Ring -- and music accompanying a stage play -- such as Mozart's interludes from "The King Of Egypt" -- should also be assessed differently?
> 
> This music, like film music, would never exist without the opera or play and is/was used to accentuate the stage action. To me there is no difference between this music and film music.


To me there is a big difference. Wagner, Mahler and Strauss made innovative leaps in the concept of musical drama that influenced the golden age Hollywood composers of the 30s through the 60s and their movies. Traditional European opera before Wagner was based on a fundamentally different concept of the relationship between music and theater. Film music in the dawn of the post-John Williams era (though he is still kickin') looks like it will be vastly different yet again. But go ahead and call it all classical. Or not. There is no wrong answer.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Incidentally on the topic of relatively well known electronic musicians doing production music to pay the bills, this is a fascinating account.

https://twitter.com/ringtonebangers?s=09


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

fluteman said:


> I did my best a while back to come up with a definition of "classical music" in the sense of distinguishing it from "popular music". Without heading back down that road, I'll say (again) that popular music can be and often is the product of great care and skill and worthy of the utmost respect. Also, in the fullness of time when it can be put in its proper cultural context, the music of Robert Johnson or Miles Davis is as worthy of the label "classical" in the sense I am using it as that of Mozart and Beethoven.
> 
> If by "classical" we mean a certain European musical tradition prevalent among the aristocracy circa 1750-1825, or circa 1600-1900, then that is a different matter.
> 
> Labels should never be allowed to morph into implicit value judgments.


Are you saying that the label "Classical music" should encompass any kind of music which is "the product of great care and skill and worthy of the utmost respect"? This could include examples of Jazz, Blues, Folk, Rock, and many kinds of World music. An idea I reject since it confuses labeling with quality.

I prefer to limit the label "Classical music" to "a certain European musical tradition" which has developed via a written tradition, with a specific audience, training, and compositional concerns. Your dates are problematic: what is the music called which came after 1900 but which has been considered a continuation of the same tradition prior to 1900?

I completely agree that no label should imply inherent value.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

For me "classical music" is essentially synonymous with "music played by an orchestra." I don't have any ideological stakes in grouping orchestral music from films with orchestra music from the 18th-19th century. They just sound similar, and it seems silly for me to differentiate them, especially since incidental (orchestral music from plays) and opera (orchestral music from operas) are also usually grouped in with "classical."


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

fluteman said:


> I did my best a while back to come up with a definition of "classical music" in the sense of distinguishing it from "popular music".


What did you come up with? (Maybe you could refer me to a specific thread if it was on this forum.) I don't like going down the route of definitions, but that sort of conversation is to some extent inevitable.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

MatthewWeflen said:


> For me "classical music" is essentially synonymous with "music played by an orchestra." I don't have any ideological stakes in grouping orchestral music from films with orchestra music from the 18th-19th century. They just sound similar, and it seems silly for me to differentiate them, especially since incidental (orchestral music from plays) and opera (orchestral music from operas) are also usually grouped in with "classical."


What are string quartets and other kinds of chamber music? Also, solo piano works?


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Or organ works, or choral works, or etc etc.

The cultural context is what makes the genre. It's why so many musical genres go hand-in-hand with larger scale aesthetic movements (punks dress like this, mods dress like this, metalheads dress like this, etc etc).

And obviously there are works which could fit indeterminately into multiple genres - for a more practical point, I don't _want_ to listen a Morricone score with the same mindset as I listen to classical music, because Morricone didn't compose with this context in mind, and to do so would be unfair to his music.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> Are you saying that the label "Classical music" should encompass any kind of music which is "the product of great care and skill and worthy of the utmost respect"? This could include examples of Jazz, Blues, Folk, Rock, and many kinds of World music. An idea I reject since it confuses labeling with quality.
> 
> I prefer to limit the label "Classical music" to "a certain European musical tradition" which has developed via a written tradition, with a specific audience, training, and compositional concerns. Your dates are problematic: what is the music called which came after 1900 but which has been considered a continuation of the same tradition prior to 1900?
> 
> I completely agree that no label should imply inherent value.


No, I'm not saying that. To me, the distinction is that popular music is intended to capitalize, or does capitalize, on the zeitgeist of a particular time and place in order to have the largest possible impact in a particular social and cultural context on the largest possible audience (though perhaps only within a specific demographic) as quickly as possible. Classical music or art generally has a broader appeal over different eras and audiences, mostly by relying on more universal and fundamental cultural values, rather than immediate popularity with the largest possible audience.

Long term perspective is needed to put art in its proper cultural and historical context and evaluate it as a classic expression of the cultural values of its time and place. For me, if we are still listening to and thinking about music after a full human lifetime, 75 years or thereabouts, it has proved itself durable and significant enough to be considered classical in its particular cultural context. Robert Johnson is already there, and Miles Davis is on the threshold.

Originally, the "classical" period in western history and art referred to the time of ancient Greece and Rome. In China and India, they might define their classical period as even earlier. For a variety of reasons, that term was adopted to refer to music and other art forms of late 18th and early 19th century Europe. Charles Rosen wrote a great book about The Classical Style in music during that period. I've recommended a book by Walter Jackson Bate that more generally discusses classicism in English and other European art and literature during that period, and how it was overtaken by romanticism.

Largely for the convenience of the modern music industry in this age of recording (imo), "classical music" has become a catch-all for anything in the post-Enlightenment aristocratic European tradition, perhaps stopping short of modernism, which after all tends to reflect a different, often decidedly anti-aristocratic, set of cultural values.

None of this has anything to do with quality, except that for any music to continue to have a significant devoted audience after 75 years, I'd argue that it needs to possess certain significant qualities, with only rare exceptions. Otherwise, it would be forgotten.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

SanAntone said:


> What are string quartets and other kinds of chamber music? Also, solo piano works?


Also classical music  If it's played by elements of the orchestra, that's classical to me, too.

It's like the old Supreme Court definition of obscenity. I know it when I hear it.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

MatthewWeflen said:


> Also classical music  If it's played by elements of the orchestra, that's classical to me, too.
> 
> It's like the old Supreme Court definition of obscenity. I know it when I hear it.


The traditional symphony orchestra is made up of instruments developed in Europe from circa 1600 to 1900 and employed by the aristocracy and sometimes the Church, so that comment reveals what classical music is for you with a pretty high degree of precision. Thus it isn't like the Supreme Court's definition of obscenity. We can put your definition in terms of a specific time period and cultural context.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

fluteman said:


> The traditional symphony orchestra is made up of instruments developed in Europe from circa 1600 to 1900 and employed by the aristocracy and sometimes the Church


Or quarter-art, three-quarters-commerce capitalists like the directors of the Paris Opera, Bolshoi Theatre, Ballets Russes, and then Max Reinhardt, Broadway, Warner Brothers, MGM, George Lucas, Peter Jackson...

Look at this clean line succession. The "aristocracy or church" narrative is stuck in the times of Beethoven and does not accurately reflect even the 19th century.

If the cultural context is so important, then look at the ClassicFM. This is your vox populi.
https://www.classicfm.com/discover-...ovie-music-record-year-hall-of-fame-lockdown/
https://www.classicfm.com/discover-music/historic-photos-classical-composers-doing-normal-things/
https://www.classicfm.com/composers/williams/john-awarded-gold-medal-royal-philharmonic-society/

Pit/orchestra musicians interviewed about playing the parts don't see much difference either, other than some film music (Giacchino, Zimmer, Elfman) being of inferior quality in writing for instruments in comparison to the time-filtered concert warhorses. For obvious reasons I am yet to read such complaints made about the craft of the masters such as Herrmann, Goldsmith, Morricone, and Williams.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

fluteman said:


> Charles Rosen wrote a great book about The Classical Style in music during that period.


I don't get the fuss with the pianist and his overrated book seriously.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Fabulin said:


> Or quarter-art, three-quarters-commerce capitalists like the directors of the Paris Opera, Bolshoi Theatre, Ballets Russes, and then Max Reinhardt, Broadway, Warner Brothers, MGM, George Lucas, Peter Jackson...
> 
> Look at this clean line succession. The "aristocracy or church" narrative is stuck in the times of Beethoven and does not accurately reflect even the 19th century.
> 
> ...


???? All of that only reinforces my point. Though it retained an important role in western music well into the 20th century, and retains a lesser but still significant role today, the traditional symphony orchestra (including the piano) consists 100 percent of instruments developed between 1600 and 1900, which was its golden age. Yes, industrialization in the second half of the 19th century gradually created a wealthy entrepreneurial class and a rising middle class that could afford a piano in the parlor and lessons for the children, but the game didn't really change until the phonograph and the radio in the early 20th. Those two innovations ended the reign of the piano and the symphony orchestra as the king and queen of western music by the middle of the 20th century. By the 1970s, classical music by this definition was in steep decline. I know, I was there.



hammeredklavier said:


> I don't get the fuss with the pianist and his overrated book seriously.


The "fuss" with his underrated book, and The Romantic Generation, which is as good if not better, is justified, not due to any specific part of his analysis but to his innovative, if not revolutionary overall approach, which directly links general principles with very specific concepts and examples, when nearly all other musicologists only seem able to work with one or the other.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

fluteman said:


> ???? All of that only reinforces my point.


Nothing further from the truth, if you remember your previous post.



fluteman said:


> To me, the distinction is that popular music is intended to capitalize, or does capitalize, on the zeitgeist of a particular time and place in order to have the largest possible impact in a particular social and cultural context on the largest possible audience (though perhaps only within a specific demographic) as quickly as possible.





Fabulin said:


> quarter-art, three-quarters-commerce capitalists like the directors of the Paris Opera, Bolshoi Theatre, Ballets Russes





fluteman said:


> Though it retained an important role in western music well into the 20th century, and retains a lesser but still significant role today, the traditional symphony orchestra (including the piano) consists 100 percent of instruments developed between 1600 and 1900, which was its golden age. Yes, industrialization in the second half of the 19th century gradually created a wealthy entrepreneurial class and a rising middle class that could afford a piano in the parlor and lessons for the children, but the game didn't really change until the phonograph and the radio in the early 20th. Those two innovations ended the reign of the piano and the symphony orchestra as the king and queen of western music by the middle of the 20th century. By the 1970s, classical music by this definition was in steep decline. I know, I was there.


Yeah, and John Williams is widely aknowledged as the most identifiable wave against that trend with his work post-1975, especially the 1977 Star Wars, and then in the 1980s and 1990s with the Boston Pops. It is known that Williams continues to write for a traditional symphony orchestra not because there are no other ways of writing a film score, but because he considers it one of the greatest western cultural inventions (echoing Henry Pleasants' comment in _The Agony of Modern Music_ that the symphony orchestra is the "executive glory" of western music) and wants to support it and keep it alive, which he has been pushing for since the 1960s when as a young studio composer he built his reputation as the guy to call whenever someone needed an orchestra to save a scene. This is also why just about all of his concert works are written for soloists _and _an orchestra.

Many orchestra directors, starting with Andre Previn of the LSO in 1977, have been on record saying that Williams forestalled the trend of decline of orchestras as much as a single person could do.

This was formally recognized by his receiving of the Golden Medal of the Royal Philharmonic Society:


> The recipient of this year's RPS Gold Medal has dedicated his life to ensuring orchestral music continues to speak to and captivate people worldwide


So yeah, not a natural continuation of the "cultural context" at all. Yadda yadda.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

fluteman said:


> The traditional symphony orchestra is made up of instruments developed in Europe from circa 1600 to 1900 and employed by the aristocracy and sometimes the Church, so that comment reveals what classical music is for you with a pretty high degree of precision. Thus it isn't like the Supreme Court's definition of obscenity. We can put your definition in terms of a specific time period and cultural context.


My definition has to do with sounds. 
If it's made with computers and drum machines, it's not classical music. It's EDM or Rap. 
If it's made with guitar, bass, drums and vocals, it's not classical music. It's Rock.
If it's made with stand-up bass, saxophone, trumpet and piano, it's not classical music. It's Jazz.
If it's made with strings, brass, woodwinds and percussion, it's classical music.

It may be good or bad, it may conform to this form or that. But if it gets played in a modern orchestra hall (as do Baroque, Classical, Romantic, Modern, Chamber, Piano, Opera, Incidental music, and Film music), it's classical music. And I know it when I hear it.

The theme to Star Trek TNG is classical music. Is it good? That's a matter of subjective taste. I like it.
The Film music for Raiders of the Lost Ark is classical music. Does it hang together as a unified composition? Nah. But neither does much incidental music. And it's sure fun to listen to.
Mahler's Das Lied von der Erde is classical music. I happen to think it's boring. But my opinion doesn't somehow negate its being classical music.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I think in film scores the music often plays a less central role. But I do think a concert suite of the film music is definitely considered Classical in my book. It's meant to be digested without visuals.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

It should be extremely obvious that an orchestral suite or transcription is classical music. The intent of the composition/arrangement could not be more obvious. I don't think anyone in this thread has actually said Williams (who has written multiple concert pieces and/or orchestral suites) is not a classical composer. I do think he (and Morricone et al) has greater renown as a film composer, but that's different. 

that said, as a film composer I like Elfman (and, at both disciplines, Philip Glass and Michael Nyman) more, regardless of the quality of his orchestral suite orchestrations


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Fabulin said:


> Many orchestra directors, starting with Andre Previn of the LSO in 1977, have been on record saying that Williams forestalled the trend of decline of orchestras as much as a single person could do.


This does have some truth to it, in my opinion, unlike the rest of your argument. In fact, this revealing statement refutes the rest of your argument, as one composer, however successful and long-lived, cannot (and has not) halted, or even significantly slowed, the trend away from the traditional acoustic instruments of the 19th century and the way they were used at that time, as in the symphony orchestra and string quartet. Late in his life, Shostakovich was asked why he thought most composers no longer customarily wrote symphonies. He acerbically replied, "Because they don't know how." But the fact that even Shostakovich implicitly acknowledged the trend speaks volumes.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Oh, I forgot to mention Jon Brion, I wish he did more film scores too.

Just as a demonstration of cultural context: classical? I mean, Brion produced it!


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

MatthewWeflen said:


> My definition has to do with sounds.
> If it's made with computers and drum machines, it's not classical music. It's EDM or Rap.
> If it's made with guitar, bass, drums and vocals, it's not classical music. It's Rock.
> If it's made with stand-up bass, saxophone, trumpet and piano, it's not classical music. It's Jazz.
> If it's made with strings, brass, woodwinds and percussion, it's classical music.


Pretty simplistic and inaccurate: there are a number of genres of music which share instrumentation. You can't tell a book by it's cover.

But, since I have no trouble hearing the difference between Classical music and film scores, Jazz, Rock, or Blues, it isn't worth debating the question with you or anyone else.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

fluteman said:


> This does have some truth to it, in my opinion, unlike the rest of your argument. In fact, this revealing statement refutes the rest of your argument, as one composer, however successful and long-lived, cannot (and has not) halted, or even significantly slowed, the trend away from the traditional acoustic instruments of the 19th century and the way they were used at that time, as in the symphony orchestra and string quartet. Late in his life, Shostakovich was asked why he thought most composers no longer customarily wrote symphonies. He acerbically replied, "Because they don't know how." But the fact that even Shostakovich implicitly acknowledged the trend speaks volumes.


I tried to answer within the context of the topic I started, but you seem to be talking about something else. Other than what I've mentioned in my previous post, what does the decline (whether in cultural sway or financial profitability) of orchestras or traditional instruments have to do with personal evaluations of the craft of Williams, Goldsmith, or Morricone?


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

SanAntone said:


> ...it isn't worth debating the question with you or anyone else.


Wonderful. We are in agreement then.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

John Williams - Top 30

I don't really know the two others. Overall I don't like films that much, but John Williams wrote really great classical film music imo. I don't need the films, just listening to the soundtracks is always a good experience for me.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Fabulin said:


> I tried to answer within the context of the topic I started, but you seem to be talking about something else. Other than what I've mentioned in my previous post, what does the decline (whether in cultural sway or financial profitability) of orchestras or traditional instruments have to do with personal evaluations of the craft of Williams, Goldsmith, or Morricone?


Nothing. I'm a fan of those composers, btw. My comments were in the context of defining the term "classical music", which I (perhaps foolishly) once again did here, at SanAntone's invitation. Whether the decline of the traditional symphony orchestra and its traditional acoustic instruments means there has been a corresponding decline in classical music entirely depends on how one defines "classical music".


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

fbjim said:


> I don't think anyone in this thread has actually said Williams (who has written multiple concert pieces and/or orchestral suites) is not a classical composer. I do think he (and Morricone et al) has greater renown as a film composer, but that's different.


"Classical composer" and film composer is not a contrasting pair. It is like "song composer": A song composer can be a composer of classical songs, or of some other songs. And a film composers can be a composer of classical film music or some other film music.

Film music can be classical, but films are not a classical form/medium. So I can see why some don't see it as classical music, but i think that is an outdated standpoint. Most good classical composers of today are film composers. Sad but true. You can earn money with film music, that is why. It is like in the 18th century when most works were commissioned works. Seems like the time of free composers was just a romantic thing. Good old times.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

It has nothing to do with whether film music is a "classical medium". It's just a statement that I have different expectations and a different context in mind when I listen to film music, on the occasions that I do, in the same way that I have different culturally learned expectations on how to evaluate a funk recording versus a rock recording.

If I were to judge most film scores as classical music it'd be deeply weird and probably not to the music's favor. It's much better to evaluate it in the genre in which it was written in!


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

fbjim said:


> It's much better to evaluate it in the genre in which it was written in!


But "classical music" is not a genre. It's a family of genres.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

e) just an example: a lot of film music is highly limited by an enormous amount of practical matters, e.g. scene lengths, or it having to be subordinate to spoken dialogue, etc etc etc. This is a specific skill, and one of the difficulties of listening to film music by itself is that it's difficult to actually evaluate how well the score functions as a film score, but that's somewhat besides the point.

Let's say someone does a great job at writing music which acts as a perfect soundtrack to a scene- perfectly accentuating the emotional beats of the drama, while not over powering it, etc etc. Now if I listened to it and basically said "where is the musical drama, where is the complexity, where is all the stuff I like in classical music, this is garbage"- that'd be unfair because that is _not the goal of the composition_. It's like complaining that dance music is rhythmically simplistic - a totally unfair way to evaluate the work. That's what I really mean when I say "not to evaluate film music as classical music".

e) and of course, it is entirely different when we are evaluating, say, a transcription or orchestral suite based on film music, because that is a separate work from the film score itself!


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Fabulin said:


> But "classical music" is not a genre. It's a family of genres.


It's sort of a super-genre, like "popular music". But filing film music under that has a lot of deeply weird consequences involving whether or not soundtrack composers who composed in e.g. an electronic music idiom, or jazz idiom, are therefore subject to be evaluated as classical composers.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

fbjim said:


> It's sort of a super-genre, like "popular music". But filing film music under that has a lot of deeply weird consequences involving whether or not soundtrack composers who composed in e.g. an electronic music idiom, or jazz idiom, are therefore subject to be evaluated as classical composers.


Some films are scored with newly commissioned classical music, some with electronic music, some filled with pop song compliations. No problem.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Fabulin said:


> Some films are scored with newly commissioned classical music, some with electronic music, some filled with pop song compliations. No problem.


And in terms of the artistic goals of each commission, I think they have more in common with each other than they have with classical music, no matter what idiom the music is in.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

fbjim said:


> And in terms of the artistic goals of each commission, I think they have more in common with each other than they have with classical music, no matter what idiom the music is in.


Just like some jazz has more in common with the showmanship of 19th century virtuosi including Liszt and Rubinstein than either has with symphonies, regardless of the idiom.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

fbjim said:


> If I were to judge most film scores as classical music it'd be deeply weird and probably not to the music's favor. It's much better to evaluate it in the genre in which it was written in!


I don't think a classical film music and a pop film music is in the same genre. The main goal or purpose may be the same (the film) but it is too different musically. Classical film music is classical, pop film music is pop. It is like comparing an opera to a musical. Both are theatre with music, but one is classical, one is pop.



fbjim said:


> e) just an example: a lot of film music is highly limited by an enormous amount of practical matters, e.g. scene lengths, or it having to be subordinate to spoken dialogue, etc etc etc. This is a specific skill, and one of the difficulties of listening to film music by itself is that it's difficult to actually evaluate how well the score functions as a film score, but that's somewhat besides the point.
> 
> Let's say someone does a great job at writing music which acts as a perfect soundtrack to a scene- perfectly accentuating the emotional beats of the drama, while not over powering it, etc etc. Now if I listened to it and basically said "where is the musical drama, where is the complexity, where is all the stuff I like in classical music, this is garbage"- that'd be unfair because that is _not the goal of the composition_. It's like complaining that dance music is rhythmically simplistic - a totally unfair way to evaluate the work. That's what I really mean when I say "not to evaluate film music as classical music".
> 
> e) and of course, it is entirely different when we are evaluating, say, a transcription or orchestral suite based on film music, because that is a separate work from the film score itself!


But the actual film score itself is based on a separate work: The soundtrack. "Unlike film scores, the soundtrack may feature music that was not recorded for the film but fits its overall mood and tone." (Google)

Example here (Jurassic Park):

Full soundtrack (longer than the film):





Film score: 





Suite:


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Aries said:


> But the actual film score itself is based on a separate work: The soundtrack. "Unlike film scores, the soundtrack may feature music that was not recorded for the film but fits its overall mood and tone." (Google)
> 
> Example here (Jurassic Park):
> Full soundtrack (longer than the film):
> ...


I think your terminology is a bit confused...

Complete score (everything the composer wrote and recorded) is turned into the music track (cut in accord with the ultimate cut of the film). Music track joins the dialogues and sound effects in what becomes the soundtrack.

Then there have been different types of releases of film scores:

0. Solo release of a "theme from the film", or the overture. The first such release was the music by Gottfried Huppertz to _Metropolis _in 1927.
1A. "music from the film", which were albums of the most demanded film music of the Golden Age of Hollywood (Korngold and Steiner). A precursor of the later "soundtrack album"
1B. "soundtrack album" - usually the best bits, usually the specific recording takes used in the film, selected and organized as a listening experience that fit on a single CD. For the casual listener.
2. complete score - everything the composer wrote, usually restored to the composer's original intentions regardless of the final cut of the film. A classically-minded release marketed at more serious listeners.

Anyway, we are way off-topic now. I would prefer if we returned to the original question.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Fabulin said:


> But "classical music" is not a genre. It's a family of genres.


As I said above, there isn't much point in arguing what "classical music" is. That's just semantics. I gave a definition above that I find useful, but as I also said above, others, such as the American music industry, have other definitions that they find useful.

Unfortunately, some at TC (I'm not pointing the finger at anyone in this thread) have used arguments about what qualifies as classical music as a disingenuous way to promote European (i.e., white) cultural supremacy. I believe the poster who did this most explicitly has been banned, but others more oblique in their methods remain at large.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

fluteman said:


> As I said above, there isn't much point in arguing what "classical music" is. That's just semantics.


If the term classical music is used, it is useful that everyone understands it in the same way. That is why people talk about the definition. It is not just nonsense what is happening.



fluteman said:


> Unfortunately, some at TC (I'm not pointing the finger at anyone in this thread) have used arguments about what qualifies as classical music as a disingenuous way to promote European (i.e., white) cultural supremacy. I believe the poster who did this most explicitly has been banned, but others more oblique in their methods remain at large.


Why do you mention such a thought? How is that relevant?

The definition of classical music should be kept clean from political influences. Many, many classical composers were european, but the definition of classical music doesn't include superiority. Value judgments of whomever should in no case interfere with the definition of classical music. The purpose of the definition is neither to promote the superiority of some group nor to promote equality of some groups. Keep it clean.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Aries said:


> If the term classical music is used, it is useful that everyone understands it in the same way. That is why people talk about the definition. It is not just nonsense what is happening.
> 
> Why do you mention such a thought? How is that relevant?
> 
> The definition of classical music should be kept clean from political influences. Many, many classical composers were european, but the definition of classical music doesn't include superiority. Value judgments of whomever should in no case interfere with the definition of classical music. The purpose of the definition is neither to promote the superiority of some group nor to promote equality of some groups. Keep it clean.


Well, I've said what I mean when I use the term "classical music". So that should be clear and clean enough. I've also said I'm a fan of the music of Williams, Morricone and Goldsmith. What I'm not a fan of are arguments about what is and isn't classical music. One can call their music, and/or the music of other noteworthy composers of film scores, classical. Or not. It doesn't matter.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Fabulin said:


> ...
> 
> The standings of various figures could be aggregated anyway even when users would divide the composers / conductors / whomever into different tiers.
> User 1: TOP4, TOP15, TOP30
> ...


I'll pass on the ranking activity, since I tend not to do that. Even if I did it would take up way too many brain cells and be a chore.

In terms of film composers, they're favourites along with others like Rota, Herrmann and Jarre.

On average, I've got a disc each of their music, but that doesn't compare too badly with some big guns. Webern, Kodaly, Barber, among others, are also represented by about one disc each. Some like Berlioz and Boulez by even less, just one work each. As for major composers of opera (e.g. Wagner, Verdi) they're almost absent, I've got an overture or two, that's it.

I used to have more by Williams, excellent scores but but found them a bit too bleak for repeated listening (Amistad and Angela's Ashes).

My favourite scores by other (non film specialist) composers are Bernstein's On the Waterfront and Walton's Henry V.

I think that film music is becoming more and more accepted into the fold of mainstream classical. The same with musicals. They're basically becoming the bread and butter of orchestras and opera companies, e.g.:

https://nyphil.org/starwars
https://www.operanorth.co.uk/whats-on/a-little-night-music/

Film music was its own category, but so much has changed since the earliest examples (Saint-Saens' L'assassinat du duc de Guise and Ippolitov-Ivanov's Stenka Razin, both from 1908). The scores of the silent era are hard to distinguish from incidental music to plays, and composers tended to do both. With the emergence of talkies, composers began to specialise in film music. Notable examples where Europeans who made their careers in the USA, like Franz Waxman, Miklos Rozsa, Dmitri Tiomkin, Franz Waxman, Max Steiner, Alfred Newman.

Some composers, whether through preference or necessity, contributed significantly to film music, e.g. Erich Korngold, Georges Auric, Dmitri Shostakovich, George Antheil, Aaron Copland, Sergei Prokofiev, and Arthur Bliss.

I think that a big shift happens in the 1950's, with emergence of diverse trends:
- Film scores influenced by jazz (e.g. Streetcar Named Desire by Alex North).
- Film scores by jazz musicians (e.g. Ascenseur pour l'échafaud by Miles Davis).
- Film scores incorporating influences from avant-garde (e.g. Hiroshima, Mon Amour by Giovanni Fusco).
- Film scores featuring the newly emerged rock and roll (e.g. Blackboad Jungle).

Williams, Morricone and Goldsmith started to come to prominence in the 1960's. They added to film music in their own unique ways. Goldsmith, for example, is credited with one of the first film scores to be composed using serial procedures (Planet of the Apes, 1968). His partnership with director Franklin J. Schaffner was so fruitful, yielding other classic scores like Papillon and The Boys from Brazil.

In this context, its obvious why film music is no longer just something which classical musicians do on the side. It crosses boundaries. At the same time, classical music itself is opening up to embrace film music. I think this is good since it revitalises classical music as a whole. A different way of seeing it might be that film music has come back to where it started, to fit more tightly within the realm of classical music.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

fluteman said:


> Yes, but it's not quite "the same music". If you've seen the movie Alexander Nevsky and heard the cantata, the effect is not exactly the same. You certainly can call it classical music either way if you wish, but the different context makes a big difference, aside from any differences in the notes played or sung. I suppose one could call the former film music and the latter concert music. There's not much point in debating labels or terminology.


Alexander Nevsky the cantata is more compact than the more expansive complete film score. Musically there's not much difference at all.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

dissident said:


> Alexander Nevsky the cantata is more compact than the more expansive complete film score. Musically there's not much difference at all.


The other difference is, the film score is arranged to accompany a movie.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

fluteman said:


> The other difference is, the film score is arranged to accompany a movie.


And The Rite of Spring was written to be played with dancers on stage. So? Is that the only proper context for that music? The idea that music is somehow cheapened, or is something automatically less than "serious" artistic expression by being a part of a movie is bewildering.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

And as some caricature of Mozart or Beethoven might say, "Classical music was designed by satan to be listened to sitting in a corner with your thumb up your ***," and do people still do that? Oh... well... perhaps some still do


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

dissident said:


> And The Rite of Spring was written to be played with dancers on stage. So? Is that the only proper context for that music? The idea that music is somehow cheapened, or is something automatically less than "serious" artistic expression by being a part of a movie is bewildering.


Actually I personally believe their _is _an artistic compromise when writing film music as opposed to writing for the concert hall. It manifests itself in a restriction on freedom of exploration and personal expression, a limitation on the musical idea and its full linear, vertical and motivic potential and a conformity to more limited musical resources. Along with a specific compositional mindset that's necessarily employed when writing film music, the whole tends to be anathema to untrammelled artistic vision, mainly because of the subservience required of the music in its capacity as a utility.

This is not always apparent, especially with JW who, because of his ability to straddle two paradigms of composing (film and concert), without any discernible compromise, definitely belongs in the concert hall imv. There are a few others too, but generally speaking, although restricted creative parameters are vital and have a dominant bearing on a composers approach in both disciplines - psychologically and musically - in the case of film music's defining parameters, they will result in music the composer may not have necessarily written as absolute or programmatic, or imv, typical concert hall music. I would suggest that choral and ballet music, unlike film music, are different because collaboration in those art forms are more of an equal partnership.

I suppose what matters to me most is the genesis, the instigation for a composer to write in a particular way as that obviously influences the result. Even with JW one hears a different composer and a different expression in his concertos compared to his film work - one I would say that is more personal and 'elevated' in a musical sense for want of a better word.

Despite my highfalutin' misgivings about film music's compromises when compared to the more profound, personal expression one will find in say a symphony, I'm very happy to see it in programmes anyhow - the last thing I am is a musical snob thanks to my composing day job for many years and acknowledge that my perspective will be a little different to the average listeners.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

mikeh375 said:


> Actually I personally believe their _is _an artistic compromise when writing film music as opposed to writing for the concert hall. It manifests itself in a restriction on freedom of exploration and personal expression, a limitation on the musical idea and its full linear, vertical and motivic potential and a conformity to more limited musical resources. Along with a specific compositional mindset that's necessarily employed when writing film music, the whole tends to be anathema to untrammelled artistic vision, mainly because of the subservience required of the music in its capacity as a utility.
> 
> This is not always apparent, especially with JW who, because of his ability to straddle two paradigms of composing (film and concert), without any discernible compromise, definitely belongs in the concert hall imv. There are a few others too, but generally speaking, although restricted creative parameters are vital and have a dominant bearing on a composers approach in both disciplines - psychologically and musically - in the case of film music's defining parameters, they will result in music the composer may not have necessarily written as absolute or programmatic, or imv, typical concert hall music. I would suggest that choral and ballet music, unlike film music, are different because collaboration in those art forms are more of an equal partnership. ...


But the same lack of total freedom that you ascribe to composing for film still applies to ballet, opera, and incidental music like Mendelssohn's Midsummer Night's Dream.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

If one composer writes a B7 chord scored for horns and trumpets and claims that it expresses their immortal soul, and another writes down an exactly same chord, orchestrated in the same way, but says that it was just a job, the result of their work is the same. Ditto a progression.

Tchaikovsky was a notorious softie who thought that his emotions (or those of others) determined the value of their own music. This is magical thinking.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

^^^I didn't make clear what I'm suggesting then as your B7 chord example is too simplistic and not what I was trying to get at...my bad I guess. 
Of course the chords and materials are the same, it's the internal compositional processes that are different between film and concert composing because they have to be. I'm the last person to attach too much in the way of emotion to music as music expresses itself as much as anything else - it's also easy to write emotively which is not always a good way to do it in concert music nor film music - a cool head is always required even at the most intense moments. 

My objection rests purely on the mindset of the composer before composing who has to work within defined parameters that are more limited than concert writing in that they are inordinately dictated to by film and the expectations for the musical language used, the length of cues, dialogue/sfx and the emotive raison d'etre etc.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

dissident said:


> But the same lack of total freedom that you ascribe to composing for film still applies to ballet, opera, and incidental music like Mendelssohn's Midsummer Night's Dream.


sorry, between you and Fabulin, I don't seemed to have made my point of view clear enough. I said that restrictive parameters are important in both disciplines, the crucial point is that the film requirements instil a different paradigm at a fundamental composing level.
I also mentioned equality between the disciplines, this affects the resulting music. Film music is not the equal of film in the eyes and ears of the consumer, although JW comes close.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

mikeh375 said:


> My objection rests purely on the mindset of the composer before composing who has to work within defined parameters that are more restrictive than concert writing.


To me constrained writing is something of a game. Be it strict counterpoint on a given theme or action music that fits a scene, both constrain one's urge to follow a given musical moment with something that feels most right. Still, masterpieces can and have been written this way. Moreover, some composers sincerly enjoy constraints, which has been the case especially with sacred music composers over the centuries, and has been the case with many media composers, the most prominent being Jerry Goldsmith.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

^^ erm yes. I'm advocating restrictions in composing - it's vital in both film and concert disciplines.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

I'd have thought the difference between JW's concert music and commercial music would make my point clear enough. I'll exaggerate a little with an example and maybe it'll help get my point across....
2 pieces, one composer. One written for the concert hall, one for a commercial. The composer uses notes, chords, scoring, instruments etc. in the usual way for both, but that's all they have in common. They are clearly distinguished by totally different approaches and the flow of music instigated for different reasons and that is in essence, the basis for my nagging doubt about the validity of film music as classical...some for sure, but not all. My definition of concert hall music requires music to be if not absolute, then always equal in combination with other arts.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

dissident said:


> But the same lack of total freedom that you ascribe to composing for film still applies to ballet, opera, and incidental music like Mendelssohn's Midsummer Night's Dream.


I'd say not even close. The film director has much more say to the music in the film than the composer himself. I recall reading in cases where the composer got fired, just because the director was after something different to go with the movie, and nothing to do with the quality of the music. Considering Hans Zimmer is so sought after, and it's not anything close to concert hall music. There are lots of better composers that are much less well known than Zimmer, who admitted himself that he is limited in what he can do since he can't read music. The music is all mood, and development in the music is very much not in the forefront.

The guys in the thread title are much more gifted than these guys doing the music in these clips, but it shows that when success as a film composer is not in the musical development or in exploring their artistic freedom, there is a much bigger compromise.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

...yeah good one Phil. I was holding back on mentioning input from other people during the composition of cues and themes but it is worth mentioning now. Even JW I'm sure had to endure that creative malarkey for a while...not so much latterly..right F?

I myself have had to endure it and it's a right effin pain believe me, especially when the deadline doesn't shift yet you still have to re-write and get music approved on time...oh and sometimes before a damn committee, not just the director. But enough of my bitching.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

mikeh375 said:


> ...yeah good one Phil. I was holding back on mentioning input from other people during composition but it is worth mentioning now. Even JW I'm sure had to endure that creative malarkey for a while...not so much latterly..right F?
> 
> I myself have had to endure it and it's a right effin pain believe me, especially when the deadline doesn't shift yet you still have to re-write and get music approved on time...oh and sometimes before a damn committee, not just the director. But enough of my bitching.


You should not have learned to read music. There's a higher chance your music would have been approved. Just kidding.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> You should not have learned to read music. There's a higher chance your music would have been approved. Just kidding.


....you might not realise how close you are to the reality of how the world of media music functions Phil. The lack of formal training is one reason for the decline of the type of orchestral film scoring typified by JW in his big famous scores.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

mikeh375 said:


> My objection rests purely on the mindset of the composer before composing who has to work within defined parameters that are more limited than concert writing in that they are inordinately dictated to by film and the expectations for the musical language used, the length of cues, dialogue/sfx and the emotive raison d'etre etc.


yes. and it's not just the limitations, it's that we frequently evaluate film music _by how well it fulfills the limited role it plays_. good film music must be functional, and when people (by which i mean- people into film music, not an average guy listening to an orchestral suite from Jurassic Park) critically evaluate film music, we don't say "oh, we need to keep in mind this was composed to a strict program and grade it on a curve", they actively look to see how well the music fits within that program - if it's distracting, if it accentuates the emotional beats of the film, if it fits tonally with what the director is trying to do.

you could say the same about operatic music- except like films, we evaluate operas as complete works. the difference being that hollywood films are not considered musical compositions, and operas (the whole work), masses/cantatas, and even ballets frequently are.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

fbjim said:


> yes. and it's not just the limitations, it's that we frequently evaluate film music _by how well it fulfills the limited role it plays_. good film music must be functional, and when people (by which i mean- people into film music, not an average guy listening to an orchestral suite from Jurassic Park) critically evaluate film music, we don't say "oh, we need to keep in mind this was composed to a strict program and grade it on a curve", they actively look to see how well the music fits within that program - if it's distracting, if it accentuates the emotional beats of the film, if it fits tonally with what the director is trying to do.
> 
> you could say the same about operatic music- except like films, we evaluate operas as complete works. the difference being that hollywood films are not considered musical compositions, and operas (the whole work), masses/cantatas, and even ballets frequently are.


A hint as to why music written for operas or ballets is inherently different than music written for films is the fact that operas and ballets are identified by the composer whereas films by the director.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

dissident said:


> And The Rite of Spring was written to be played with dancers on stage. So? Is that the only proper context for that music? The idea that music is somehow cheapened, or is something automatically less than "serious" artistic expression by being a part of a movie is bewildering.


What on earth made you think I was saying that? Film music is not (necessarily) cheap or less serious than other forms. But it is very different from concert, opera, or ballet, music, or even incidental music for a play. It is not played live. It is recorded and then edited and produced by a director to synchronize with a movie in a certain way.

I suppose I'll have to give up on getting this point across, though I see some in this thread understand this point.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> A hint as to why claiming that music written for operas or ballets is no different than music written for films is the fact that operas and ballets are identified by the composer whereas films by the director.


It's because unlike with film music there's not the squeamishness in examining the *music* apart from its opera/ballet context.

And composers have dealt with external pressures and meddling throughout music history. A picky film director would be nothing compared to the cultural commissars Shostakovich and Prokofiev had to deal with. Anyway, Herrmann's score for Psycho (for example) is at least as musically imaginitive and interesting as any standalone composition from the era.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Well, yeah. Opera and ballet are musical artforms. And people do express things to the effect that listening to recordings is only part of the experience of the art, but both operas and ballets are considered musical artforms, while film generally is not.

This isn't to mention that we have a musical tradition of programming ballet music without choreography, while outside of orchestral suites, we don't really have that with film music. We rarely have that with opera, but if you want to argue that opera isn't strictly classical music, where does that get you? There probably are a few people who think it's big enough to be a separate type of music as is.

And yeah, Psycho is at least as musically imaginative as any standalone composition from that era. So is _Trans-Europe Express_. I'm not sure what the point is.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

fbjim said:


> This isn't to mention that we have a musical tradition of programming ballet music without choreography, while outside of orchestral suites, we don't really have that with film music.


You mean the live-to-projection concerts that John Williams and John Mauceri pioneered 25 years ago (and which have been growing since)?


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

fbjim said:


> Well, yeah. Opera and ballet are musical artforms. And people do express things to the effect that listening to recordings is only part of the experience of the art, but both operas and ballets are considered musical artforms, while film generally is not.
> 
> This isn't to mention that we have a musical tradition of programming ballet music without choreography, while outside of orchestral suites, we don't really have that with film music. We rarely have that with opera, but if you want to argue that opera isn't strictly classical music, where does that get you? There probably are a few people who think it's big enough to be a separate type of music as is.


No, ballet is dance. To me there is no difference between separating the music from the choreography in a ballet and separating and considering on its own stylistic terms the score for a film.



> And yeah, Psycho is at least as musically imaginative as any standalone composition from that era. So is _Trans-Europe Express_. I'm not sure what the point is.


The point is as stated. So is Blade Runner. I don't see the point in calling aleatory and electronic music "classical music", but those examples are not. As *music*. Is Beethoven's music for _Egmont_ classical music or not?


----------



## jojoju2000 (Jan 5, 2021)

Williams is a very interesting unusual case. If anything however; I would argue that Williams is a gateway to the higher classical arts; because young kids; they listen to the violin, the trombone being played through these scores; they get inspired to pick up a instrument. That is very very unique to be able to be a open door; from the Pop Music Average Joe Middle Class World, to the world of Brahms, Strauss, Stravinksy. In a way, he reminds me of Leonard Bernstein who wrote in many different styles, musicals, operas, concertos, film, and used that to bring people to orchesteral music.

He's the only film composer to have received the AFI Life Achievement Award ( previously only given to Film Directors, and Actors ) because of his impact on Cinema. He was also awarded the Kennedy Center Honors in 2004 on the basis of his film scores; his own singular achievement.

There are a few things I would disagree with though : 
1. Williams was lucky. Someone here mentioned how in Opera and Ballet, there is a more equal partnership than in Film. People forget however; that Williams in the last 20 years for instance, has chosen to work almost exclusively with Steven Spielberg and George Lucas; because they understood how symphonic music should work. And they made their films so that the music can tell the story; not just serve the story. But become a character in the movie itself. Spielberg of course has called Williams his greatest collaborator.

2. This goes to my second disagreement. That Soundtrack Music serves a functionary role, not the central role. Maybe for the newer soundtracks by Zimmer and his folks. But that was not Williams ( Nor Goldsmith, and Morricone ). The traditional golden age of Hollywood emphasis was on the Music and Visuals being one. They tell the story together. Leonard Slatkin explains the history of film music here : 




Go to 15:50 where they view some 1920's film clips and then discuss Aaron Copland's definitions for Film Music. It's very interesting and it explains how Film fits in the whole music foundation.

I am not arguing that Williams is a Classical Composer but he is a very interesting figure in music. And his legacy will be debated, but admired at the same time.


----------



## jojoju2000 (Jan 5, 2021)

Fabulin said:


> You mean the live-to-projection concerts that John Williams and John Mauceri pioneered 25 years ago (and which have been growing since)?


There you go : 




One thing to remember was that in the early days of film music, the orchestra often played while the film was being projected because at the time; they needed revenue to survive; and the studios would hire orchestras to come play live the soundtracks for the films that they're showing at the theatre.


----------



## jojoju2000 (Jan 5, 2021)

Phil loves classical said:


> I'd say not even close. The film director has much more say to the music in the film than the composer himself. I recall reading in cases where the composer got fired, just because the director was after something different to go with the movie, and nothing to do with the quality of the music. Considering Hans Zimmer is so sought after, and it's not anything close to concert hall music. There are lots of better composers that are much less well known than Zimmer, who admitted himself that he is limited in what he can do since he can't read music. The music is all mood, and development in the music is very much not in the forefront.
> 
> The guys in the thread title are much more gifted than these guys doing the music in these clips, but it shows that when success as a film composer is not in the musical development or in exploring their artistic freedom, there is a much bigger compromise.


Actually this was one of the reasons why John Williams went into semi retirement after 2005. Because by that time, the way movies are and still is being made; has changed from the Traditional Spielberg/Lucas/Golden Age synthesis to a modern quick short scene style. Williams has only requested to score a film once since 2005, 2013's The Book Thief.

But Since we're talking about Williams, Morricone, and Goldsmith, it's important to point out the differences between the three composers listed, and modern soundtrack making. https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-SEB-68290

The article talks about how there was a time when the Composer was king aka the Golden Age of Hollywood, and how Williams is the last man standing from that time period. Spielberg has complete trust in Williams, that he doesn't have to do sample tracks or mock ups. He can request anything he wants and Kathleen Kennedy gives it. That's rare in Hollywood. And to have a partner like Spielberg where he just meshes with you so well... it is nothing short of amazing.


----------



## jojoju2000 (Jan 5, 2021)

fbjim said:


> I'm not that surprised- I imagine a lot of professional writers of instrumental music have probably done this kind of thing.
> 
> Like I said- I think he was a genius, and certainly one of the best film composers in history. I just don't see the use in rating him in a prospective list of classical composers when I never listen to his work in the mindset of listening to classical music - in fact I rarely listen to film soundtracks by themselves.


I do. In fact, I have never watched the films themselves. I have listened to John Williams's works, and Morricone's and Goldsmith's outside of the film, and that was my first introduction to the film.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

fluteman said:


> What on earth made you think I was saying that? Film music is not (necessarily) cheap or less serious than other forms. But it is very different from concert, opera, or ballet, music, or even incidental music for a play. It is not played live. It is recorded and then edited and produced by a director to synchronize with a movie in a certain way.
> 
> I suppose I'll have to give up on getting this point across


It is a weak point. Recording and editing aren't classical techniques. But the music to which these techniques are replied can be classical. And we talk about the music. If you record a Beethoven symphony its state as classical isn't changed by that. So the music for a film can be classical music. But a film as a whole can't be a classical art.


----------



## jojoju2000 (Jan 5, 2021)

Aries said:


> It is a weak point. Recording and editing aren't classical techniques. But the music to which these techniques are replied can be classical. And we talk about the music. If you record a Beethoven symphony its state as classical isn't changed by that. So the music for a film can be classical music. But a film as a whole can't be a classical art.


I mean in the early days of film; and in some auteurs worlds; Film is considered a Classical Art. It just happens to have a moving image on a screen. https://medium.com/lessons-from-his...and-how-cinema-connects-them-all-6d63250b9000



> Ricciotto Canudo lived in Paris. He was an early Italian film theoretician who worked side by side with avant-garde writers and artists.
> In 1913 he published Montjoie!, a bimonthly magazine promoting Cubism in particular. Sometime before, in his manifesto The Birth of the Sixth Art, published in 1911, Canudo argued that cinema was a new art: "A superb conciliation of the Rhythms of Space and the Rhythms of Time."
> A synthesis of the five other arts:
> Architecture
> ...


Of course; does Hollywood realize this today ? No of course not.


----------

