# Are Movie Soundtracks the New Classics?



## dsunlin

What is classical music anyway? It stands the test of time, we all know that one.

Are the better soundtrack composers tantamount to our current classical composers? I am speaking of acclaimed composers like John Williams, Nino Rota, Hans Zimmer, Elmer Bernstein, Danny Elfman, Jerry Goldsmith, Alex North, Bernard Herrmann...

Got any favorites? 

Isn't that where the talent is going now? Wouldn't our classical heroes be working for Hollywood if they were alive today?


----------



## Guest

Short answer is no.

Longer answer is that there's plenty of new classical music out there and more made every day. It no longer sounds like Beethoven and Brahms, but then neither does Bartók or Stravinsky. And Stockhausen doesn't sound like Bach. (So if you're thinking "big orchestral," then you're limiting what you mean by "classical" for sure.)

Our current classical composers are our current classical composers, from Carter and Dhomont on the older end, down through Normandeau and Ferreyra to Marclay and Crawling With Tarts and Parallel Lives (some composers working in tandem under "group" names).

Not that there isn't a lot of music written for film that's pretty good. But movies no more where "the talent" is going than opera or concert halls or anything else. Composers are composing more for electronic media than before. That's certainly true. And more for other venues besides symphony halls. Most of the new classical music I hear live is in bars and coffee shops and art galleries and hotel lobbies and conference rooms of embassies. And living rooms, for that matter.

Not that new music composers really use the word "classical" much any more, either. But that's a whole 'nother topic.


----------



## YsayeOp.27#6

Actually, the longer answer would be something like:

No, it's not.


----------



## david johnson

williams, etc. often dabble in 'serious' music.

soundtracks are usually not set up to be developed along the classical music line.
we do find motifs and themes that can be woven together, as well as a good use of folk tunes in both movie and 'classical' music.

dj


----------



## Yagan Kiely

Soundtracks will stand the test of time longer than contemporary composition. Because soundtracks are instantaneously enjoyable. Contemporary classical music is not. Tell someone on the street about a certain cage piece and they will laugh, play them SW and they will enjoy it. Star Wars IS classical music, it is made up of pretty much romantic pieces - so if you don't see it as classical music, study it more. Contemporary music is court of in being different, they forget what Mozart said "Music, even in situations of the greatest horror, should never be painful to the ear but should flatter and charm it, and thereby always remain music."


----------



## YsayeOp.27#6

Yagan Kiely said:


> soundtracks are instantaneously enjoyable. Contemporary classical music is not.


You are wrong. It is.



Yagan Kiely said:


> Star Wars IS classical music, it is made up of pretty much romantic pieces


Star Wars' soundtrack is not classical music. It's the soundtrack to a movie. That's it. Don't let it's Wagnerian style confuse you.



Yagan Kiely said:


> so if you don't see it as classical music, study it more.


Are we allowed to just ignore your call here, noting from this previous notes that you may not be qualified to lecture us on this subject?



Yagan Kiely said:


> soundtracks are instantaneously enjoyable.* Contemporary classical music is not.*


And,



Yagan Kiely said:


> Contemporary music is court of in being different, *they *forget what Mozart said "Music, even in situations of the greatest horror, should never be painful to the ear but should flatter and charm it, and thereby always remain music."


Exactly who is supposed to not forget that? You didn't bring up a subject to that sentence.


----------



## WorldSaver

Lets hope Composers don´t have to die before there famous!
I hope to be working for "hollywood" one day!
(Composer of the 21st century)

P.S. would love to see some feedback on my compositions page!
Checkhttp://www.noisehead.com/mypage/blackmarshall/To hear and even download your favourite one for free!
Thanks World Saver.


----------



## dsunlin

So what is the definition of classical music? 

Is it classical music just because it is presented in a concert format with a symphony orchastra, even though the audience is small-to-nonexistent? Was there classical music before symphony orchestras, of course there was. Today we have new ways of using and presenting beautiful music. 

Was Grieg less of a classical composer for writing incidental music for Ibsen? Or Copland for his soundtracks? Where is the line, if there is a line at all?

Is "popular" music like Paul McCartney's non-classical, while earlier popular music (say Joplin and Dowland) is classical?

Just some questions I am sharing for reflection. Maybe we'll never have a consensus.


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> You are wrong. It is.


Okay, ask someone who does not listen to Classical music at all, whether pure silence is music, whether burning a piano is music, whether dragging a violin behind a truck is music, whether putting a grand piano in the ocean is music whether "Crawling into the ****** of a live whale" is music, because all of this is considered contemporary (or there abouts) music.



> Star Wars' soundtrack is not classical music. It's the soundtrack to a movie. That's it. Don't let it's Wagnerian style confuse you.


Wagnerian? Hardly just. Stravinsky, Dvorak, yes Wagner, but many other styles. Don't let your bias confuse you. 



> Are we allowed to just ignore your call here, noting from this previous notes that you may not be qualified to lecture us on this subject?


if YOU wish to remain ignorant, go ahead. 

Rather than reading contemporary composers talk about what they consider music, try listening to what the general people like listening to. I'm afraid they like Williams over burning a piano. Sorry. 



> Exactly who is supposed to not forget that? You didn't bring up a subject to that sentence.


Someone forgets to be logical. Contemporary composers do.


----------



## Guest

YsayeOp.27#6 said:


> Actually, the longer answer would be something like:
> 
> No, it's not.


This made me laugh. Loudly. At eleven twenty-six in the p.m.

So if my upstairs neighbor complains, I'm referring him to you, OK?

But now on to sadder things:



Yagan Kiely said:


> Rather than reading contemporary composers talk about what they consider music, try listening to what the general people like listening to.


Reading aside, since YsayeOp.27#6 is clearly referring to his or her direct experience listening, who constitutes "general people," and why do they get to decide? (If I'm reading all this correctly, the people you've identified as "general" don't listen to any classical music and so probably won't like listening to Mahler or Stravinsky. Or Bach. Or....



Yagan Kiely said:


> Okay, ask someone who does not listen to Classical music at all, whether pure silence is music, whether burning a piano is music, whether dragging a violin behind a truck is music, whether putting a grand piano in the ocean is music whether "Crawling into the ****** of a live whale" is music, because all of this is considered contemporary (or there abouts) music.


Hmmm, Yagan. Sounds like its YOU who's been doing the reading. And I know exactly which book you've been reading, too. Well, keep reading it, I'd say. These are indeed a couple of examples of contemporary music. Are they typical? Are they representative? Even if one does consider all of those to be music (and again, why do you consider people who don't listen to classical music to be the best judges of what is or is not music?), those questions would remain, I think. So what if those things are considered contemporary music? "Contemporary music" covers a lot more than just these examples.

As for "painful to the ear," surely you must know that that changes from year to year. The music of Tchaikovsky's first piano concerto, so "pretty" that some of it's been used to make a popular Hollywood song, was considered at first to be too "difficult for popular comprehension" (sound familiar?), a "formless void," and "extremely difficult, strange, wild, ultra-modern." Another piece, _Francesca da Rimini,_ was once described as "ear-flaying horror."

Now, if you all will excuse me, I think I'll go listen to some "impenetrably obscure" music, "full of unaccountable and ... repulsive harmonies." That's right. I'm going to listen to Beethoven, yeah!


----------



## YsayeOp.27#6

dsunlin said:


> So what is the definition of classical music?


That's what we are discussing here. If you didn't stop by just to throw the same general questions we've heard over, and over, and over again; and you worked instead on constructing some of the answers, we may perhaps be a little bit closer to the apparently inextricable solution to this subject.



dsunlin said:


> Is it classical music just because it is presented in a concert format with a symphony orchastra,


 . No. Think in Jules Massenet's piano pieces. (I've added a link to Wikipedia's Massenet page and, believe it or not, Massenet isn't really the point I'm trying to make with this brief sentence and its hyperlink).



dsunlin said:


> even though the audience is small-to-nonexistent?



You need to get out more, sport.



> Just some questions I am sharing for reflection. Maybe we'll never have a consensus.


Maybe, instead of popping up the same old questions that lead to nowhere, you can help us work this thread's idea out.


----------



## YsayeOp.27#6

Yagan Kiely said:


> Okay, ask someone who does not listen to Classical music at all,


And exactly why should I do that? If your goal is to have OSTs listed as Classical Music we should rely more on people with long experience in what we already know as classical music (that excludes your OSTs, of course, by now).
If _general people_, as you say, is so unable to spot the difference between a Rontgen* string quartet and Tom Green's stomach rear ventilations is being dependant on their conclusions really a wise thing?

*I can also give you a link to a bio of Rontgen. 



> Wagnerian? Hardly just. Stravinsky, Dvorak, yes Wagner, but many other styles. Don't let your bias confuse you.


I will go ahead and take your sarcasm as an effective way to point out that you ignore both Williams and Wagner.
Could you please give me a list with five elements that reveal Dvorak's influence to Williams' compositional style, that appear in the score of Star Wars?



> Rather than reading contemporary composers talk about what they consider music, try listening to what the general people like listening to. I'm afraid they like Williams over burning a piano. Sorry.


Don't be sorry. It's Ok to try to reach the general public and care for their interests. You are growing up, your personality is being defined and you are just trying to fit in, so that you can make a constant flux of friends to hang out with. That's why you are so interested in knowing the general people, isn't it?


----------



## shsherm

Don't forget the great scores written by Sergei Prokofiev for the Eisenstein films, "Alexander Nevsky" and "Ivan The Terrible". These were written over sixty years ago so fllm scores as classical music is not a new concept. Also remember " The Red Pony" by Aaron Copland also written over sixty years ago. I don't know if you could consider the music of Maurice Jarre for "Dr. Zhivago" and also "Lawrence Of Arabia" as classical music but they do come close. These were written forty years ago.


----------



## dsunlin

Maybe we'll never get a good grip on what is "classical music"; maybe that should only be used for a certain period of western music.

For my ear, accustomed to hearing the classics, at any rate, many modern soundtracks have an orchestral/symphonic "sound" yet have enough depth and creativity to make their listening as rewarding as any.


----------



## Gustav

dsunlin said:


> *Are Movie Soundtracks the New Classics*


No, it is not.


----------



## YsayeOp.27#6

Gustav said:


> No, it is not.


_*Standing ovation*_


----------



## tutto

we know the art of cooking and the art of washing the dishes...


----------



## Henkdawg

I used to wonder if film music would become the next "classical" music. Luckily since then I've discovered there are lots of contemporary composers I like: Micheal Dougherty, Aaron Jay Kernis, John Corliagno and composers like Phillip Glass and Arvo Part are still around. Really only naming a few off the top of my head. So, if you enjoy film music great, but I'd check out some of these guys. 

If the film music is good than it will probably stand the test of time. Some of it's not all that great.


----------



## Yagan Kiely

I really couldn't be bothered discussing this with an arrogant individual who is pretending he knows what he is talking about.

Good day.


----------



## YsayeOp.27#6

Yagan Kiely said:


> I really couldn't be bothered discussing this with an arrogant individual who is pretending he knows what he is talking about.
> 
> Good day.


I know, you have already made clear you prefer discussing topics with people that reveal to have absolutely no knowledge in the matter (whatever subject), and you also have a taste for relying on their answers.



Yagan Kiely said:


> Okay, ask someone who does not listen to Classical music at all,


----------



## YsayeOp.27#6

And who is the arrogant individual? Is it Some guy? Is it me?



That's a good way to let my previous request waine, boy.


----------



## Guest

Ysaye, we _could_ alternate, you know. I could be arrogant one day and then you the next day. And so on.

Or I could take Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. And you could take Tuesdays, and Thursdays, and Saturdays.

Sundays? People had just better watch themselves on Sundays, that's all I'm sayin'.


----------



## Yagan Kiely

Okay I'll make it more clear:

Someone who also appears immature. Some Guy is more mature than you. 



> I know, you have already made clear you prefer discussing topics with people that reveal to have absolutely no knowledge in the matter (whatever subject), and you also have a taste for relying on their answers.


You know, it is comments like this (and your entire attitude) that gives classical music the elitist attitude and steers people away from listening to it.


----------



## Guest

I've been accused of many things over the past fifty-six years. So far, maturity has never been one of them!

(I do have a serious response to your comment about elitism, but I don't want to step all over Ysaye's answer.)


----------



## Daniel

...And don't forget smiling, folks!


----------



## YsayeOp.27#6

Yagan Kiely said:


> You know, it is comments like this (and your entire attitude) that gives classical music the elitist attitude and steers people away from listening to it.


At this point, it should be clear that I don't support your idea of discussing classical music with people that know nothing about it. Therefore ==> I just don't make contact with such people whenever I want to chat about music.

Since I don't speak to anybody whom my prejudices show to not have a clue about music ===> They don't know I know music ===> How is it that my passive no-contact policy will actually discourage them?


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> Since I don't speak to anybody whom my prejudices show to not have a clue about music ===> They don't know I know music ===> How is it that my passive no-contact policy will actually discourage them?


I can't tell you know music. Yet to provide any evidence of that!

It provides an elitist attitude that steers them away.


----------



## SalieriIsInnocent

Wagnerian? Hardly just. Stravinsky, Dvorak, yes Wagner, but many other styles. Don't let your bias confuse you. 

yes and Igor Stravinsky, Gustav Holst, William Walton is actually what george lucas was going for so john williams provided it ressurecting the Leitmotif a technique used in many operas by Wagner
Admit it every one when the star destroyer is coming in on leia's transport you an hear a sort of revival "if you will" of Holst's famous Mars The Bringer Of War
some say he was influenced by Richard Strauss too.


----------



## YsayeOp.27#6

Yagan Kiely said:


> It provides an elitist attitude that steers them away.


Is this the first step of an endlessly repetition of yourself? Again, how is it that by not making contact I ruin their possible interest on classical music?


----------



## YsayeOp.27#6

Yagan Kiely said:


> I can't tell you know music. Yet to provide any evidence of that!


So you refuse to discuss this with me because I don't know music, but one page ago you said something like



> Okay, ask someone who does not listen to Classical music at all,


Do you need any type of assistance from me so that you can find your own inconsistence here?



> Yet to provide any evidence of that!


To you? Why should I care?


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> Originally Posted by *Yagan Kiely*
> _I can't tell you know music. Yet to provide any evidence of that!
> _
> So you refuse to discuss this with me because I don't know music, but one page ago you said something like
> 
> Quote:
> Okay, ask someone who does not listen to Classical music at all,
> 
> Do you need any type of assistance from me so that you can find your own inconsistence here?


I dislike it when people deliberately misinterpret me. 



> Is this the first step of an endlessly repetition of yourself? Again, how is it that by not making contact I ruin their possible interest on classical music?


Excluding people does not make it appealing.


----------



## SalieriIsInnocent

some movie soundtracks are influenced by classical music but they ARE NOT CLASSICAL
they are a mere tool to keep movies interesting. Like in scary movies when ominous music plays when something jumps out at somone the music helps it.


----------



## Count_Dusseldorf

If you want to get technical, Classical Music (Classical era) was made in the 1700's and early 1800's, as far as movie soundtracks go I consider some of them Neoclassical. Which in my opinion means someone who has never heard a piece by Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert Etc... can enjoy it but it can also be enjoyed (and probably be more appreciated) by a classical music aficionado. Hell once I heard them talking about John Williams on a Classical Music radio station.

In My opinion it's NeoClassical.


----------



## SalieriIsInnocent

That is a good way of looking at it. People should call it symphonic or etc. Classical is like you pretty much stated called classical for its age. Which no one called it classical music when it was new it was called a symphony an opera a concerto etc.


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> some movie soundtracks are influenced by classical music but they ARE NOT CLASSICAL
> they are a mere tool to keep movies interesting. Like in scary movies when ominous music plays when something jumps out at somone the music helps it.


No one in there right mind would EVER listen to a Williams, Zimmer or Morricone score without the movie. Why do they sell soundtracks? Must make a loss on it because no one would buy it.

I don't agree with "Classical". Hell Contemporary and Modern have already been used up, and they happened 90 years ago.....


----------



## Dividend

YsayeOp.27#6 said:


> You are wrong. It is.
> Star Wars' soundtrack is not classical music. It's the soundtrack to a movie. That's it. Don't let it's Wagnerian style confuse you.


Funny you mentioned Wagner.
Wagner had a story, so did Lucas. Wagner on stage, Lucas on cinemas. In both cases the purpose is the same. To augment the emotions of the audience.

That both use orchestra, is not interesting in any other way than obviously that such a sett of instruments fit the mood of both stories,

The Star Wars plot is siilly, but so is Puccinis Tosca.


----------



## Dividend

dsunlin said:


> Maybe we'll never get a good grip on what is "classical music"; maybe that should only be used for a certain period of western music.


Of course, there is no exact definition, genres may (have been) blenden btw, and 16th (and earlier) classical, is not classical in any sense, except they use counterpoint and it is old.
So the word "classical" is NOT defined. 
The question "what is classical", depends on what piece you are listeing to and your preconceived notion of what classical is. There is a word for that "subjectivness".



> For my ear, accustomed to hearing the classics, at any rate, many modern soundtracks have an orchestral/symphonic "sound" yet have enough depth and creativity to make their listening as rewarding as any.


Some mentioned Jean Michel Jarre's father Maurice. Oustanding music to a FILM!


----------



## Dividend

Salieri=Innocent said:


> some movie soundtracks are influenced by classical music but they ARE NOT CLASSICAL
> they are a mere tool to keep movies interesting. Like in scary movies when ominous music plays when something jumps out at somone the music helps it.


How god-damn interesting would Wagners Ring be without the music (14h) If you know what the All-kunstwerk was (combining all arts to one was the goal)

Now we have knew arts. Like film. I agree that scary movies and much of hollywood lack in quality, when it comes to the majority of films and the music, in these cases follow a "formula" rather than being inventive. I would say inventivness is the prerequisite for somthing to be art. (Some estethical philosophers claim this)

But hey! People are simple creatures... Let them watch **** and pay fot it, if they like it. Not my problem.


----------



## YsayeOp.27#6

Dividend said:


> That both use orchestra, is not interesting in any other way than obviously that such a sett of instruments fit the mood of both stories,


Funny you mention that, the use of orchestra isn't what I had in mind. Ever heard of leitmotives?



> No one in there right mind would EVER listen to a Williams, Zimmer or Morricone score without the movie. Why do they sell soundtracks? Must make a loss on it because no one would buy it.


On a different topic... So, each time I listen to the Guns 'n Roses in *Live and let die* I'm listening to the NEW CLASSICS? And the same happens with Celine Dion! AWESOME!

They are the new classics! 

Which leads us to this: you will say something like
Yagan: You deliberately misinterpreted me. That's not what I had in mind.
Ysaÿe: And what were you thinking about?
Yagan: The more elaborated ones, not those involving rock stars.
Ysaÿe: So, for you, the new classics are the ones that make an intelligent use of various instruments (full orchestra included), develop motives and are wisely orchestrated.
Yagan: Maybe.
Ysayë: So, for you, the new classics are those who *emulate *what for you (only for you) come to be the Old Classics (Beethoven, Wagner, Stravinsky, etc.).


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> On a different topic... So, each time I listen to the Guns 'n Roses in *Live and let die* I'm listening to the NEW CLASSICS? And the same happens with Celine Dion! AWESOME!
> 
> They are the new classics!
> 
> Which leads us to this: you will say something like
> Yagan: You deliberately misinterpreted me. That's not what I had in mind.
> Ysaÿe: And what were you thinking about?
> Yagan: The more elaborated ones, not those involving rock stars.
> Ysaÿe: So, for you, the new classics are the ones that make an intelligent use of various instruments (full orchestra included), develop motives and are wisely orchestrated.
> Yagan: Maybe.
> Ysayë: So, for you, the new classics are those who *emulate *what for you (only for you) come to be the Old Classics (Beethoven, Wagner, Stravinsky, etc.).


Wow.

Just

Wow.

You're an idiot.


----------



## YsayeOp.27#6

So you don't support the idea of soundtracks being the new classics anymore?


----------



## YsayeOp.27#6

Your last post is offensive and goes against the forum rules. Be a nice _boy _and remove it.


----------



## Dividend

YsayeOp.27#6 said:


> Funny you mention that, the use of orchestra isn't what I had in mind. Ever heard of leitmotives?


The motif was a wagner invention. Maybe you are talking about something else, in which case: enlighten me.

---------


> On a different topic... So, each time I listen to the Guns 'n Roses in *Live and let die* I'm listening to the NEW CLASSICS? And the same happens with Celine Dion! AWESOME!
> 
> They are the new classics!


These are examples of modern folkmusic.
Pop/rock is usually referred to as folkmusic.


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> Your last post is offensive and goes against the forum rules. Be a nice _boy _and remove it.


All of yours have been. And the truth isn't against forum rules.


----------



## DeadlyKomplexx

Yagan Kiely said:


> *No one in there right mind would EVER listen to a Williams, Zimmer or Morricone score without the movie. Why do they sell soundtracks? Must make a loss on it because no one would buy it.*
> 
> I don't agree with "Classical". Hell Contemporary and Modern have already been used up, and they happened 90 years ago.....


Are you kidding me? I have tons of soundtracks on my ipod that I've never even seen the movie of.

I don't understand what makes Classical so much better than movie soundtracks,someone should explain that to me...


----------



## YsayeOp.27#6

Yagan Kiely said:


> All of yours have been.


No, they have not.


----------



## Krummhorn

Yagan Kiely said:


> Wow.
> 
> Just
> 
> Wow.
> 
> You're an idiot.





Yagan Kiely said:


> All of yours have been. And the truth isn't against forum rules.





YsayeOp.27#6 said:


> No, they have not.


Ahem ... "ad homs" are not permitted on this forum. We refer you kindly to the posted posting rules. In part it reads:

"*Guidelines for General Behavior* Be polite to your fellow members. If you disagree with them, please state your opinion in a »civil« and respectful manner.

Do not post comments about other members person or »posting style« on the forum (unless said comments are unmistakably positive). Argue opinions all you like but do not get personal and never resort to »ad homs«.
Further abuse between members will result in suspended posting privileges or thread closure at the full option of the forum admins and staff. If you disagree with the posting rules, please contact the site owner, Frederik Magle, directly.

Let's get back to the thread topic.


----------



## Dividend

I also love listening to soundtracks. In some cases they are better than the movie.

In th 19th century some people decided what was classical and what was not. Its as simple as that.


----------



## shsherm

One example of music composed for a television series is "Victory At Sea" composed by Richard Rogers and orchestrated by Robert Russell Bennett about 1952 or 1953. Another is the Music gor "Air Power" written by Norman Dello Joio in 1957. "Victory At Sea" is a Pop concert favorite. So some pretty good music has been written for media other than movies.


----------



## Yagan Kiely

How many people think that 



 is not Classical?


----------



## Artemis

Yagan Kiely said:


> How many people think that
> 
> 
> 
> is not Classical?


I'd like to join the ranks of those who believe that film music with a serious flavour, such as that for Schindlers List, is not "classical music" in the sense that most people understand the term.

There are no doubt some exceptions, such as some of the film scores of Korngold, but it's such exceptions that make the rule. Film music is not generally seen to be a substitute for the real thing by the majority of those who perform/listen to classical music. It doesn't matter if some it may sound like classical music to the untutored ear, or is occasionally played by some famous classical performers. It's more a question of how it is viewed in the chain of substitutes as seen by the majority of participants (performers and listeners) in the classical music market.

I would suggest that there is a definite gap in this chain of substitutes, making film music not generally part of the classical market. For example, this can be shown by asking which orchestras or solo performers stage regular concert performances of film music such as that for Schindlers List? They don't. Further, does the same broad public listen indifferently to recordings or radio transmissions of film music and classical music? Again they don't. While there are some exceptions - e.g. some film music may get the occasional outing on lightweight classical music stations - the more serious classical radio stations generally avoid film music of this nature as they know their audiences don't generally wish to hear it (which is not to say they don't like it).

To suggest that film music is classical is rather like suggesting that operetta is also classical music. The latter isn't classical music for the same reasons, namely that (i) it appeals to a different segment of the music-loving public as opera and (ii) is normally performed by a different set of artists.

Thus, a simple piece of market-oriented economics may be the answer to this issue, rather than tortuous considerations of music structure and such like.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Wow! Just wow! (and I mean that in a GOOD way!) That was a great read, goddess! 
(_Ist das... Karfreitagzauber?_)


Artemis said:


> There are no doubt some exceptions, such as some of the film scores of Korngold...


Thanks for adding his name alongside *shsherm*'s mention of Prokofiev. 


Artemis said:


> To suggest that film music is classical is rather like suggesting that operetta is also classical music. The latter isn't classical music for the same reasons, namely that (i) it appeals to a different segment of the music-loving public as opera and (ii) is normally performed by a different set of artists.


That's a wonderful point... and one that I think could help animate our attitudes on this topic going forward. For instance (to personalize it a little), I have a weakness for much of Gilbert & Sullivan, would like to see their work even more widely appreciated, would prefer to listen to them that dozens of artists considered more serious... but I wouldn't attempt to argue that it's "classical;" nor would I consider it an attenuation of their artistry to not have their work considered as "classical."


----------



## Yagan Kiely

Let me reiterate. If you did not know that was for a movie (you heard it for the first time, without knowing who wrote it or where it was from), would you know immediately that it is_not_ classical?



> To suggest that film music is classical is rather like suggesting that operetta is also classical music. The latter isn't classical music for the same reasons, namely that (i) it appeals to a different segment of the music-loving public as opera and (ii) is normally performed by a different set of artists.


This isn't a musical argument. Are arguing that because different people listen it is not classical.

In Perth (Western Australia), that amount of 20yos who are NOT part of the typical Classical crowd are now going to classical concerts (especially the free ones done by our orchestra (Including Madama Butterfly, Magic flute etc.). If we apply your argument, then the music isn't Classical any more.

If a musical example is _musically_ not dissimilar to Classical composers of the 19th century, but the demographic (intentional or not), is different, to assume that it is not classical is ignoring the main element of music, the music itself.


----------



## Artemis

Yagan Kiely said:


> Let me reiterate. If you did not know that was for a movie (you heard it for the first time, without knowing who wrote it or where it was from), would you know immediately that it is_not_ classical?
> 
> This isn't a musical argument. Are arguing that because different people listen it is not classical.
> 
> In Perth (Western Australia), that amount of 20yos who are NOT part of the typical Classical crowd are now going to classical concerts (especially the free ones done by our orchestra (Including Madama Butterfly, Magic flute etc.). If we apply your argument, then the music isn't Classical any more.
> 
> If a musical example is _musically_ not dissimilar to Classical composers of the 19th century, but the demographic (intentional or not), is different, to assume that it is not classical is ignoring the main element of music, the music itself.


Examining modern film music and arguing that some of it is "not dissimilar" to traditional 19th Century classical music doesn't make it classical music. The way "markets" are defined doesn't rely on apparent physical similarities, as you allege. It is far more a question of how consumers react to an over-stretching of the definition of that market. The definition has been over-stretched at the point where a significant portion of the previous market walks away or otherwise rejects the new definition.

I'm suggesting that if you include a lot of so-called serious film music and operetta in the definition of classical music (e.g. in radio transmissions, or in concert performances purporting to be representative of classical music) a lot of people would walk away or complain, and a narrower definition would optimise the market from the point of view of suppliers. By consumers, I'm referring to consumers in general, not tiny pockets of them, e.g. a segment of 20 year olds in Perth, Australia who happen to like film music. To be fair, I'd also have to exclude a great deal of contemporary music as well as operetta and film music. While I'm not criticising its technical virtue, or suggesting that it will never make the grade, much of this material doesn't currently fit comfortably in the market for classical music as generally understood.


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> The movement stressed strong emotion as a source of aesthetic experience, placing new emphasis on such emotions as trepidation, horror, and the awe experienced in confronting the sublimity in untamed nature and its qualities that are "picturesque", both new aesthetic categories. It elevated folk art and custom, as well as arguing for a "natural" epistemology of human activities as conditioned by nature in the form of language, custom and usage.


 - Wikipedia "Romanticism". This fits, if not all, but most categories of Film music. If you accept these (agreed generalised), characteristics of Romantic music as a style of music (not market), then Film Music is also strongly related to the Romanticidiom.


> Examining modern film music and arguing that some of it is "not dissimilar" to traditional 19th Century classical music doesn't make it classical music. The way "markets" are defined doesn't rely on apparent physical similarities, as you allege. It is far more a question of how consumers react to an over-stretching of the definition of that market. The definition has been over-stretched at the point where a significant portion of the previous market walks away or otherwise rejects the new definition.


There is our problem you apparently are examining it as a 'market' as if you plan to capitalise on its market and exploit it to profit off it, while I am examining it as music within a style and genre, what the music means and conveys.


> currently fit comfortably in the market for classical music as generally understood.


I'm not arguing that is it. I'm arguing that the music _itself_ is Classical music, and that if current trends continue it _will_ be part of the market for music. Especially since the lecturers at various music universities I have talked to all regard it as such - they are 40+.


> By consumers, I'm referring to consumers in general, not tiny pockets of them, e.g. a segment of 20 year olds in Perth, Australia who happen to like film music.


Read what I said again. They are listening to world-over accepted 'classical music'. Yet they are not the accepted 'classical music' demographic or obvious crowd for a classical concert. If we use your idea of market, then it fails here, because the wrong end user is being attracted to the wrong market. I am not trying to prove my argument right, rather I am pointing out the fallacies in yours.

To analyse music as a market, rather than an art is avoiding the question.


----------



## Artemis

Yagan Kiely said:


> To analyse music as a market, rather than an art is avoiding the question.


There are clearly separate markets within music. A market is merely a way of defining what's in it. Of course music is an art but there is also a market through which it is supplied to consumers: i.e. via concerts, CDs, radio etc. The music market can be analysed like any market in terms of buyers and sellers. The buyers and sellers in the overall music market don't constitute a single homogenous group, but are differentiated in terms of tastes, performing skills and training etc.

It is obvious that there are a series of discrete, separate markets for music. I presume you would have no trouble seeing the distinction between say, Rap Music, and Electronica? The classical music market is just the same. Someone who wishes to buy a Rap CD wouldn't be content with an Electronica CD, or a work by Beethoven, would he? What I wrote previously merely sets out the usual way in which separate markets are identified.

Putting it all into context, if say a traditional classical music radio station or an orchestra began to play a lot of film music (or operetta) it would likely find its customer base dwindling, and arguments that it sounds like normal 19th Century classical would hardly wash with the customers. Personally, I would switch off the radio if it became persistent, and would not attend any concert which contained it, as I don't like any of it. Least-wise, if I do I don't want it mixed up with proper classical music. Rather, I normally want to spend my spare time listening to the real thing, not some modern so-called equivalent of "classical music". If many other people feel the same, as I suspect they do, then it matters not a jot that some modern material may sound vaguely like 19th Century music


----------



## Yagan Kiely

I really don't care what you think about Markets. If I wanted to know about the profitability of music I would have gone to a producer's forum, where they don't actually know or talk about music.



> If many other people feel the same, as I suspect they do, then it matters not a jot that some modern material may sound vaguely like 19th Century music


Read what I said about the concerts in Perth. The demographic IS changing slowly, and radio stations and orchestras are more frequently playing film scores.



> Rather, I normally want to spend my spare time listening to the real thing, not some modern so-called equivalent of "classical music".


If musically there is no difference (notes etc.), then you have no reason not to enjoy it. Apart from some pseudo philosophical idea devoid of musicality, which really is influenced more by an elitist idea rather than musical reasoning.


----------



## Artemis

Yagan Kiely said:


> If musically there is no difference (notes etc.), then you have no reason not to enjoy it. Apart from some pseudo philosophical idea devoid of musicality, which really is influenced more by an elitist idea rather than musical reasoning.


Laugh!!!

I'm afraid that it's you who has no idea what gives music any real value. There's so much genuine Romantic music to choose from that the marginal supply from late 20th Century look-a-like film scores won't have any lasting appeal except possibly to a few musical unsophisticated who are really not interested in classical music at all, or if they are it's merely a passing amusement. People who much prefer the real thing to modern copy are by far and away the biggest section of the classical listening public, whether or not you like that fact.

Modern composers will generally only succeed if they can find new niche markets to satisfy, not by copying material that is already in quite abundant supply. Most of them realise that perfectly well. However, in the case of film music, there may on occasion be a need for a Romantic feel to the music, in which case there is clearly no virtue in writing something different from the old style. But that type of film music, i.e. with Romantic overtones, can't be anything else but a modern copy. The genuine Romantic era is now well and truly over. It probably ended some 80 years ago with the likes of Sibelius, and one the reasons he packed up early was because he realised Romantic music had probably reached the end of the road.

If you doubt this perhaps go along to a decent Auction Room and ask a few experts why a genuine work by, say, Renoir is worth umpteen times more than a modern look-alike. Or perhaps more relevantly, ask why modern copies of 19th Century art are not even remotely considered to be part of the same market. See how far get by telling them:

"If artistically there is no difference (brush strokes, colours, appearance etc.), then you have no reason not to enjoy it. Apart from some pseudo philosophical idea devoid of artistic appreciation, which really is influenced more by an elitist idea rather than musical reasoning".

They would laugh at you and probably tell you to come back when you're not so wet behind the ears.


----------



## Yagan Kiely

You will be getting a rude shock in ten or so years time. I'm sorry, but that idea is over.



> I'm afraid that it's you who has no idea what gives music any real value. There's so much genuine Romantic music to choose from that the marginal supply from late 20th Century look-a-like film scores won't have any lasting appeal except possibly to a few musical unsophisticated who are really not interested in classical music at all, or if they are it's merely a passing amusement.


Answer the question I asked over and over again and you ignore over and over again. If you listened to Schindlers List without having heard it before, and not being told who it is, or when it was written, when would you guess?



> Modern composers will generally only succeed if they can find new niche markets to satisfy, not by copying material that is already in quite abundant supply.


You clearly have no idea how to compose. I'm sorry to tell you but the entire music cannon is based on imitation and copying. Sure, each have their own style, but it is building on various styles of others.



> The genuine Romantic era is now well and truly over. It probably ended some 80 years ago with the likes of Sibelius, and one the reasons he packed up early was because he realised Romantic music had probably reached the end of the road.


Almost all Australian (famous Australian) composers compose in a neo-romantic style, Samuel Barber composed in a neo-romantic style, Shostakovitch also, and then there is Strauss who stayed Romantic throughout. It never ended, only changed. Not all contemporary music is burning a piano. - (Burning a Piano is sure to last in history more than the Star Wars score...).



> If you doubt this perhaps go along to a decent Auction Room and ask a few experts why a genuine work by, say, Renoir is worth umpteen times more than a modern look-alike. Or perhaps more relevantly, ask why modern copies of 19th Century art are not even remotely considered to be part of the same market. See how far get by telling them:


Apples and oranges. They are not copying a piece of music. The are copying an era and a general style. Strauss did that with Wagner. Brahms with Beethoven. Modern Painters and sculptors ALSO do this, and they do make money. Of course those that make an exact copy of the Statue of David make nothing, but I never said they would.

Your arguments are fallacious.

There is no musical reason why Williams is (that) sub par to Mahler. Pop music, fashion, Art, Jazz, almost every art _apart_ from classical goes in stylistic circles. 60s is making a comeback in modern Pop. Classical music is very limited because of it's dogmatic search for difference. So many styles have been omitted because we fail to look back and address what we missed. Modern bands aren't like the Beatles, yet they still are adhering to certain 60s music stylistic traits.


----------



## Artemis

Yagan Kiely said:


> You will be getting a rude shock in ten or so years time. I'm sorry, but that idea is over.
> 
> While I can happily listen to a wide range of material, I do so for the purpose of achieving variety and I certainly don't fool myself that it's of broadly homogenous quality.Answer the question I asked over and over again and you ignore over and over again. If you listened to Schindlers List without having heard it before, and not being told who it is, or when it was written, when would you guess?
> 
> ...........


I thought I had answered this question implicitly. I'd want to know who composed it and for what purpose. If I was told it was a film score and was written fairly recently (say since 1970), I'd probably bin it with no further ado after listening to it maybe once. I accept that such material may satisfy a few undiscerning groups, but for the classical cognoscenti it wouldn't get far as it's up against a great deal of vintage material of a much higher standard.

It seems most unlikely that there will ever be again the quality of composers of the likes of Schumann, Brahms, Wagner, and Tchaikovsky, in the writing of Romantic music. These and other famous people of that era wrote all the Romantic music I will ever wish to listen to.

Nobody, except idiots or people with poor taste, wants second rate music when there's so much better stuff to choose from. The very best material commands a huge premium over the rest. Recall, for instance, what happened to Mozart's Symphony No 37 in the year 1907 when it was discovered that it wasn't by Mozart: its status dropped like a brick and is now ever hardly played.

As for your opinion that film music will become the new classics in 10 years time, it sounds very much like wishful thinking to justify your present studies. So many try to succeed in composing, but the success rate must be miniscule. Without knowing you personally, and looking at the matter purely statistically, I'd rate your chances of success as being higher if you went searching for gold in the outback somewhere.


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> I thought I had answered this question implicitly. I'd want to know who composed it and for what purpose. If I was told it was a film score and was written fairly recently (say since 1970), I'd probably bin it with no further ado after listening to it maybe once. I accept that such material may satisfy a few undiscerning groups, but for the classical cognoscenti it wouldn't get far as it's up against a great deal of vintage material of a much higher standard.


That isn't the question and you continue to ignore it.



> Nobody, except idiots or people with poor taste, wants second rate music when there's so much better stuff to choose from.


Who are you to say that Williams music is second rate? It is harmonically complex, emotionally gripping. What _do_ you want apart from some abstract name to tack onto a piece so as to give it grandeur. You are not a Classical Music cognoscenti, you are merely looking for a label to latch onto. The label isn't the music.

What I love is that you fail to address the myriad of ideas I put forth and continue to beat your own agenda. And with so much repetition of the same statement, it is now just sounding like "No, your wrong, I'm right".



> As for your opinion that film music will become the new classics in 10 years time, it sounds very much like wishful thinking to justify your present studies.


What studies do you suspect I am doing?



> So many try to succeed in composing, but the success rate must be miniscule. Without knowing you personally, and looking at the matter purely statistically, I'd rate your chances of success as being higher if you went searching for gold in the outback somewhere.


Everything comes down to money with you doesn't it? "Markets" "Success". Why don't you actually enjoy the music rather than the success associated with the label attached to the music.

Answer the one question you refuse to answer and that I keep asking.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Artemis said:


> I thought I had answered this question implicitly. I'd want to know who composed it and for what purpose. If I was told it was a film score and was written fairly recently (say since 1970), I'd probably bin it with no further ado after listening to it maybe once.


So, you see, there are those who can come to a conclusion about such music, but first, they should be informed 1) who composed it, 2) when the person composed it, and 3) in what context the person composed it. After being informed of _all of that_, then they'll make up their mind(s) about whether or not it has any merit.


Artemis said:


> I accept that such material may satisfy a few undiscerning groups...


May I humbly posit the possibility that _greater discernment_ would lay with those that don't need to be told the three numbered items above in order to determine whether or not a composition holds some merit?


Artemis said:


> Nobody, except idiots or people with poor taste, wants second rate music when there's so much better stuff to choose from.


I understand this sentiment, but my original point that I consider most soundtracks to be 'a thing apart' from Classical Music remains. I'm not going to try to advocate Victor Herbert or John Williams for the Kimmel Center, but I'm not going to call their work "second-rate." Many of us enjoy a good Led Zep disc from time-to-time. Nah... it's not that exalted, sure... but sometimes our taste gravitates to genres that are (and always will be) 'a thing apart.'


Artemis said:


> Without knowing you personally, and looking at the matter purely statistically, I'd rate your chances of success as being higher if you went searching for gold in the outback somewhere.


Well, this wasn't our finest moment, was it? I believe this to be a curious judgement lapse- mocking the compositional aspirations of someone... on a message board that owes its existence to the energies of a modern composer.


----------



## Rondo

Someone may have already made this point, but before you go isolating all of the "soundtrack" *composers* from the "classical music" composers (as opposed to the *music* itself) please note that it isn't that clear cut. Some composers who are known for their soundtrack works (ie Williams) also composed various orchestral pieces, none of which are tied with a particular film. And, the reverse is also true (ie Shostakovich).

My point being, some of John Williams' works can (_undoubtedly_) be a part of any classical music repertoire, aside from his film scores.

If in doubt, check out Williams' _Concerto for Cello and Orchestra_.


----------



## YsayeOp.27#6

Rondo said:


> If in doubt, check out Williams' _Concerto for Cello and Orchestra_.


His violin concerto, his flute concerto... Treesong.



> enjoy the music rather than the success associated with the label attached to the music.


Isn't your goal to stick the "new classics" label to film music? I was pretty sure that's what this thread, in which you have been actively posting, is about.


----------



## Guest

What Rondo just said. (Thanks for that. If I were smarter, I would have said something very much like that; I'm seriously.)

Otherwise, the last exchanges by Chi_town/Philly and Artemis include a red herring that's bedeviled this and other threads that involve categories, and that is the idea of merit. If the term "classical music" is going to have any merit itself as a term, it's going to have to be as descriptive as possible. "Merit" takes us right out of description into evaluation.

Not to spend too much time on that here--that probably merits (!) a separate thread--but there are a lot of undeniably stupid and meritless pieces of music that are just as unquestionably classical, just as there are pieces of jazz and rock and so forth that are of very high quality.

The original question did encourage that side issue: "Are the better soundtrack composers tantamount to our current classical composers?" But take off "better" and I still think the answer is "No." Not because there isn't good film music written. Not because none of it could be called "classical." Not because no classical composer has ever written for film. But because the living classical composers are not a kind of substitute for 19th century romantics, but creative artists in their own right, doing what they do--with sound, with ensembles, with instrument techniques, with electronics, with film--just as the Romantic (and modern and Classical and Baroque, et cetera) composers did with the instruments and ensembles at their disposal.

The composers tantamount to current classical composers are the current classical composers.


----------



## Artemis

Chi_town/Philly said:


> ... Well, this wasn't our finest moment, was it? I believe this to be a curious judgement lapse- mocking the compositional aspirations of someone... on a message board that owes its existence to the energies of a modern composer.


I'm sorry you took my comment that way. I had no intention of mocking anyone's compositional aspirations. I thought that I had made it clear that I was looking at it purely statistically, by which I meant that the chance of big time success for a randomly selected current day composer in producing music of a Romantic flavour, music that might rival that of the past Greats, is miniscule. I'm not suggesting that no modern composers can possibly compete against these former Greats in terms of one day eventually emulating their esteem, but if so the vast majority will fail along the way and the tiny few who make it will have written in different styles of music than we associate with the traditional Romantic school.

I'm also saying that a great deal of contemporary "classical" music (much of which I happen to dislike intensely, but that is irrelevant) is not truly Classical because it is not yet sufficiently well credited by the vast majority of classical music fans to form part of that broad genre. It's too new and some of it too different from the established norms. For example, just listen to a typical radio station. Many play little more than catchy snippets from Mozart, Beethoven and such like; and for the better ones they hardly scratch they surface of the great deluge of contemporary music. I fully expect at some stage that things may change so that some parts current contemporary music will have made the grade, but that's for the future.

Underpinning all my remarks is the view that what constitutes "classical music" cannot be assessed by considering only the form/quality of the music per se, as Yagen Kiely appears to insist, but is much more to do with the empirical matter of the public's acceptance of what it considers to be "kosher" and what isn't. It's sadly typical of many artistic sorts to overlook the wider commercial/economic aspects, and to focus exclusively on narrow form alone.


----------



## Yagan Kiely

*Musique concrète*



> Isn't your goal to stick the "new classics" label to film music? I was pretty sure that's what this thread, in which you have been actively posting, is about.


1: check my definition of label against yours, they do not correlate.2: No, I am merely pointing out that Film Music should warrant a higher appreciation than it does.



> Someone may have already made this point, but before you go isolating all of the "soundtrack" composers from the "classical music" composers (as opposed to the music itself) please note that it isn't that clear cut. Some composers who are known for their soundtrack works (ie Williams) also composed various orchestral pieces, none of which are tied with a particular film. And, the reverse is also true (ie Shostakovitch).
> 
> My point being, some of John Williams' works can (undoubtedly) be a part of any classical music repertoire, aside from his film scores.
> 
> If in doubt, check out Williams' Concerto for Cello and Orchestra.


Unimportant. And I also doubt whether any Stockhausen Musique concrète will ever be popular like Beethoven's 5th. Same with Cage, etc. etc..



> The original question did encourage that side issue: "Are the better soundtrack composers tantamount to our current classical composers?" But take off "better" and I still think the answer is "No." Not because there isn't good film music written. Not because none of it could be called "classical." Not because no classical composer has ever written for film. But because the living classical composers are not a kind of substitute for 19th century romantics, but creative artists in their own right, doing what they do--with sound, with ensembles, with instrument techniques, with electronics, with film--just as the Romantic (and modern and Classical and Baroque, et cetera) composers did with the instruments and ensembles at their disposal.


You had a go at everyone for using 'merit', then say there aren't any good Film composers.



> The composers tantamount to current classical composers are the current classical composers.


Current Classical composers do not need to follow the experimental idiom that has plagued us for the last 80 years you know. So, this is invalid.



> I'm sorry you took my comment that way. I had no intention of mocking anyone's compositional aspirations. I thought that I had made it clear that I was looking at it purely statistically, by which I meant that the chance of big time success for a randomly selected current day composer in producing music of a Romantic flavour, music that might rival that of the past Greats, is miniscule.


Williams made his money out of it. And the next generation of composer ARE doing it.



> few who make it will have written in different styles of music than we associate with the traditional Romantic school.


Yes, Shostakovitch, Strauss, Barber,Australian Composers, they haven't made it at all............................................................................



> Underpinning all my remarks is the view that what constitutes "classical music" cannot be assessed by considering only the form/quality of the music per se, as Yagen Kiely appears to insist, but is much more to do with the empirical matter of the public's acceptance of what it considers to be "kosher" and what isn't. It's sadly typical of many artistic sorts to overlook the wider commercial/economic aspects, and to focus exclusively on narrow form alone.


Look at it from a commersial point of view and you you get modern pop. Music that is short repetitive,simple and with a drum beat. Looking at an art from from a money perspective is NOT addressing art, it is ONLY addressing money.


----------



## YsayeOp.27#6

> Current Classical composers do not need to follow the experimental idiom that has plagued us for the last 80 years you know. So, this is invalid.


How is that the claim is invalid? Could you please elaborate on this point? I don't see how yours is an accurate answer to the sentence by some guy you quoted.


----------



## YsayeOp.27#6

> 1: check my definition of label against yours, they do not correlate.


What is, so far, my definition of label?



> 2: No, I am merely pointing out that Film Music should warrant a higher appreciation than it does.


So you think Film Music has not enough intrinsic value to reveal itself to listeners as something that should be highly appreciated.

So, listeners in general underestimate the value of film music, as you say ("Film Music should warrant a higher appreciation than it does"); but you are skilled enough to see they are wrong. And you are here waving your flag trying to change their mind.

Does anyone else sense the arrogance here?


----------



## Guest

Yagan,

Read my last post again. I did NOT say that there are no good film composers. What I said, and I'm paraphrasing now to give a different way of saying the same thing--as it were--that the presence or absence of good film music does not affect the answer "no" to the question "are film composers the new classical composers?"

To ask if film composers are the new classical composers is like asking if ballet composers are the new classical composers--or opera or symphony or concerto. Those are all just genres; and most composers work in more than one genre. To isolate one genre and say that that's the new classical music just isn't on, that's my point. It would be valid to ask if serial or electroacoustic or experimental or live electronic are the new classical music, since those are not genres, but even that wouldn't really work, as classical music is not limited to just one style or one trend.

Some


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> Read my last post again. I did NOT say that there are no good film composers. What I said, and I'm paraphrasing now to give a different way of saying the same thing--as it were--that the presence or absence of good film music does not affect the answer "no" to the question "are film composers the new classical composers?"
> 
> To ask if film composers are the new classical composers is like asking if ballet composers are the new classical composers--or opera or symphony or concerto. Those are all just genres; and most composers work in more than one genre. To isolate one genre and say that that's the new classical music just isn't on, that's my point. It would be valid to ask if serial or electroacoustic or experimental or live electronic are the new classical music, since those are not genres, but even that wouldn't really work, as classical music is not limited to just one style or one trend.


Okay, I understand now, and agree with you.



> How is that the claim is invalid? Could you please elaborate on this point? I don't see how yours is an accurate answer to the sentence by some guy you quoted.


Misread his statement. 



> What is, so far, my definition of label?


Keep trying, you'll get it some day!


> So you think Film Music has not enough intrinsic value to reveal itself to listeners as something that should be highly appreciated.
> 
> So, listeners in general underestimate the value of film music, as you say ("Film Music should warrant a higher appreciation than it does"); but you are skilled enough to see they are wrong. And you are here waving your flag trying to change their mind.
> 
> Does anyone else sense the arrogance here?


Nope. Sorry!


----------



## Artemis

A SUMMARY THUS FAR

Personally, I find all this snipping up of posts and commenting on odd sentences very confusing, especially when it’s not clear whose post it is and what the reply actually means. For anyone who is confused by this thread, or can’t be bothered to read it, here’s my simple summary of the discussion thus far.

It was originally asked whether the better quality film soundtrack composers (like John Williams) now constitute the core of modern classical music composers, thus implying that serious music modern composers who write primarily in non-film genres don’t make the grade on account of the fact that their music has not caught on to the same extent.

Opinion divided into four broad camps. 

Group A broadly agreed with the proposition that it’s the best of modern film soundtrack music that should be considered to be the bedrock of current-day classical music, as it is more instantly enjoyable; it bears the same main hallmarks as the Romantic music of old; it is likely to stand the test of time more robustly than other contemporary music, much of which is not generally liked. I don’t think this Group are saying that only film-type music (with its broadly Romantic feel) will make it, but they appear to think that other types of contemporary music don’t stand much chance of long term success. 

Group B feels that film music is not the only contemporary music that’s liked by classical audiences, so the argument that it constitutes the only true modern-day classical standard-bearer falls flat on its face. Such other types of contemporary classical type music are just as much “classical music” as film music.

Group C agrees broadly with Group B but argues that film music shouldn’t be called “classical music” as it’s not a substitute for the type of classical music written by historical Romantic composers. 

Group D argued that, even if film music meets all the conditions claimed by Group A, it doesn’t make it as “classical music” because film music is not sufficiently widely accepted by the public as true classical music in the Romantic tradition, i.e. it’s not a real substitute for any of that. Instead, film music constitutes a completely different market niche just like jazz or rap, etc. Up to a point, this opinion also includes other types of contemporary music purporting to be classical music. While some may have already passed the general acceptability test, the majority is still too young and the jury is still out in assessing its worth. As such it’s in a kind of “limbo”.

It would be especially interesting to hear views of anyone who hasn’t yet posted. Where do you fit in this debate?


----------



## Yagan Kiely

[It was originally asked whether the better quality film soundtrack composers (like John Williams) now constitute the core of modern classical music composers, thus implying that serious music modern composers who write primarily in non-film genres don't make the grade on account of the fact that their music has not caught on to the same extent.[/quote]

In case anyone feels I am in the A group they are wrong, I am plainly in the B group, in fact I can't see anyone who is in the A group thus far.

It is quite obvious that the extremely experimental and (arguably amusical regardless of your opinion, you can see why Fluxus and silence would not be regarded as music by a majority of the world, including the classical world) composers will not and have never been popular. It bears no enjoying characteristics, and few are memorable.


----------



## Artemis

Yagan Kiely said:


> [It was originally asked whether the better quality film soundtrack composers (like John Williams) now constitute the core of modern classical music composers, thus implying that serious music modern composers who write primarily in non-film genres don't make the grade on account of the fact that their music has not caught on to the same extent.
> 
> In case anyone feels I am in the A group they are wrong, I am plainly in the B group, in fact I can't see anyone who is in the A group thus far.
> 
> It is quite obvious that the extremely experimental and (arguably amusical regardless of your opinion, you can see why Fluxus and silence would not be regarded as music by a majority of the world, including the classical world) composers will not and have never been popular. It bears no enjoying characteristics, and few are memorable.


It's a bit difficult pinning down exactly what you are claiming as you appear to have a rather mirky idea about where you stand. Perhaps this is why you seem to spend all your time correcting other people's impression of what you've said, and telling them they have misunderstood you, and asking them to re-read your posts.

Sifting through your posts, I thought that you basically fitted into Group A by virtue of your posts No 5 and 35, your high esteem of film music and generally negative attitude about other types of contemporary classical music. If you want to change your mind and place yourself in Group B, well fine but in that case I can't see what you have been arguing about all along as this Group is prepared to take a very wide defintition of what constitues classical music.


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> Sifting through your posts, I thought that you basically fitted into Group A by virtue of your posts No 5 and 35, your high esteem of film music and generally negative attitude about other types of contemporary classical music. If you want to change your mind and place yourself in Group B, well fine but in that case I can't see what you have been arguing about all along as this Group is prepared to take a very wide defintition ofwhat constitues classical music.


That is my argument, that (certain) film music be included as classical music. Not that it is the only classical music. Never have I said that.

I will be ignoring everything you say from now on Ysaye, Ihave yet to read any post by you that isn't designed to antagonize. Don't get some pathetic idea that your argument was 'that strong'. You haven't got an argument. Good day.


----------



## Newton G

Fascinating discussion. I think when you factor in how often true classical music is used in movies, it tends to lend a little creedance to the notion that musical scores wrote in the classical tradition could be considered in a way the "new" classics.

Speaking of... Any chance someone could pop in and listen to my song in the ID thread? I've heard it in movies before, but I can't for the life of me figure out this song title.


----------



## Yagan Kiely

Since "Classical" is such a horrible name (as is Classical, Baroque, Romantic - the fact that Moden and Contemporary are already eras). I propose a new name, for Classical music (not the era, the genre, from 800ad to now), I propose that "Fine" music be used as a replacement.


----------



## Rondo

Yagan Kiely said:


> Since "Classical" is such a horrible name (as is Classical, Baroque, Romantic - the fact that Moden and Contemporary are already eras). I propose a new name, for Classical music (not the era, the genre, from 800ad to now), I propose that "Fine" music be used as a replacement.


Too pompous sounding.


----------



## Yagan Kiely

And classical isn't? Art music isn't? It's more accurate than these. Art music included Jazz and pop, aren't they some form of art also? Classic is not what contemporary music is, and never has been. Fine lends to the idea that Classical musicians and composers are finely trained and every not is there for a reason.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

*Please forgive the morning waffle*

This is something of a digression from the topic... but I have to say, YK, that I have some sympathy for the attempted scope of your goal in this statement:


Yagan Kiely said:


> Since "Classical" is such a horrible name (as is Classical, Baroque, Romantic - the fact that Modern and Contemporary are already eras). I propose a new name, for Classical music (not the era, the genre, from 800ad to now), I propose that "Fine" music be used as a replacement.


You know, there doesn't seem to be any completely satisfactory resolution. I guess you could say "Classical" runs the risk of confusing genre with era- although I'd argue that decades (if not centuries) of use has kind of temporally neutralized the term "Classical" to the point that if one refers to the time period, one is safest speaking of "music of the classical era" rather than "classical music." Then there's also the issue of confusion based on culture/location. Every now and then, we receive a guest from another part of the world- someone who looks forward to discussing "Indian Classical Music." I've previously resorted to the term "Western Art Music" to avoid _that _ potential confusion. It's an imperfect solution- but I'm willing to entertain alternatives.

As to whether "Fine music" is more valuable as a descriptor than "Art music," I'd say that it is prey to the same circularities that trouble the word "Art." Yes, orchestra musicians are finely trained... but so are history's great Jazz ensembles (to cite just one example).


----------



## Yagan Kiely

Who here cansay that every note in a Duke Ellington piece, or a Contrane Solo are meticulously thought and and are there for scientific, emotional, personal (to name a few) reasons. Not that all classical music has all, but it has at least one ever seince Bach. Every not is there for a reason.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

I'm trying to find common ground here, really I am...


Yagan Kiely said:


> Who here can say that every note in a Duke Ellington piece, or a Coltrane Solo is meticulously thought...


Not I- I'm with you so far- but when you continue


Yagan Kiely said:


> and are there for scientific, emotional, personal (to name a few) reasons?


we part company, I'm afraid. A brilliant Jazz immprovisation contains a profusion of notes that issue forth from the artist for cogent emotional and personal reasons. (I feel so strange... I'm not even that much of a Jazz fan. Must be the Mrs. Philly influence.)


----------



## Rondo

Admins, or whom it may concern...

Since the film score discussion has shown to be very lengthy at times, would it suffice to suggest a new forum devoted to Film Scores/Soundtracks? With all of the great film score composers out there past and present (Herrmann, E. Bernstein, Goldsmith, Williams, Elfman, Debney, Shore, Silvestri--to just name a few) I'm sure this forum could get some good attention.


----------



## Krummhorn

Rondo,

Sounds like a good idea ... I'll copy your post and bring it to the attention of the Admins.

Kh

UPDATED NEWS:

The forum admin has created a new discussion area, the Movie Corner as suggested by Rondo.


----------



## Herzeleide

To further my point in confuting the idiotic idea that film music has supplanted 'pure' music as the new 'classic', I feel the need to point out current composers whose music I genuinely feel is extremely accomplished and excellent, and thoroughly dwarfs film music in originality, quality and execution of ideas, musicality and general compositional thought:

Elliott Carter, Henri Dutilleux, Hans Werner Henze, Tristan Murail, Gerard Grisey, Wolfgang Rihm, Brian Ferneyhough, Oliver Knussen, Nicholas Maw, Robin Holloway, Alexander Goehr, Harrison Birtwistle, Peter Maxwell Davies, Robert Saxton, Kaija Saariaho, Magnus Lindberg, Julian Anderson, Thomas Adès and Mark-Anthony Turnage.


----------



## Rondo

Herzeleide said:


> To further my point in confuting the idiotic idea that film music has supplanted 'pure' music as the new 'classic', I feel the need to point out current composers whose music I genuinely feel is extremely accomplished and excellent, and thoroughly dwarfs film music in originality, quality and execution of ideas, musicality and general compositional thought:


I agree with you, but I interpreted Yagan's comment as a commentary on public opinion, or how others define classical music. I may be wrong.


----------



## Herzeleide

Herzeleide said:


> To further my point...


If anyone wonders why I initiated my post with this, it's because I had posted something before it, which has now mysteriously been deleted.


----------



## tahnak

*Film background composers - a continuation of classical trend?*

Yes. Why not? In fact, as I was mentioning few days back, I rely more on film music as a continuation of the expression of spirit after Shostakovich's output.
Composers like Elmer Bernstein, Miklos Rozsa, Bernard Herrmann, John Williams, Maurice Jarre and many others are continuing the tradition of music that moves the spirit and film is the only podium left now. Concert hall has become an abattoir of experimental hoo ha.


----------



## Rondo

Film scores are nice, and I enjoy listening to them. However, the problem with them is their success (in _most_ cases) relies on the success of the film. This isn't based on any empirical evidence, but my guess is that the vast majority of those who enjoy John Williams' music without any regard to the films also enjoy, or are involved with, traditional (or "pure") classical music. So, are they the new classics? It's hard to say, as both pure classical and film scores have entirely different purposes.

But...let's not disregard the _non-film_ orchestral music written by Williams and company. If film score music is to be ignored, don't ignore the composer completely.


----------



## Tapkaara

I had two cents in my pocket, so I thought I'd throw it in...

I would certainly say that a good, orchestral film score can be considered "classical" music. Yes, I know there was a Baroque period, then Classical, then Romatic, etc. and that is not the "classical" to which I am referring. I am talking about legit art music in the "classical" tradition. You know what I mean.

Anyway, I personally find it fascinating so many are so quick to deliniate between legit classical music and a film soundtrack. Somehow, they are seperate. I would put forth that they are not.

Are any of Wagner's operas not "classical?" Is Bizet's L'Arlesienne music not classical? Is Sibelius's music for The Tempest not classical? Any of these examples (and many more) are certainly considered solid works of classical music today. But these scores all had extra-musical purposes: to accompany action on a stage. While Tannhauser is certainly an opera, L'Arlesienne and The Tempest started out as "incidental music," in other words, they were like little "soundtracks" for stage plays which were, I suppose, the films of their day.

Many of our favorite composers of yesteryear have written incidental music for plays or operas. But, as time marches on, our techinology improves and instead of plays, we now move towards moving pictures. Just like the stage plays of yore, films also needed music to enhance the visual action, and so the film composer was born.

How many times have Herrmann, Rozsa, Korngold, Waxman, Steiner been mentioned in threads like this? These "fathers" of the film score were all, first and foremost, composers in the true "art music" tradition and composed the "incidental music" of their day. No different than taking a professional composer like Bizet to score a popular play. Just a different "medium," I suppose.

I suppose because movies can be considered a type of vulgar, stupid entertainment, anything attached to them, music included, should be spat upon. (You mean to tell me opera is NEVER vulagr or stupid?) Anyway, that may or may not be the case, but if music is good, then it is good. Perhaps better than the movie. But if it is well-crafted music, we should appreciate it as such.

At the end of the day, music in in the ear of the beholder, and if you prefer the silly sounds of a Cage or Stockhausen to the lush neo-Romanticism of a John Williams or a Howard Shore, that is purely up to you. But I think it is snobbish and wrong to "downplay" a film score in a popular idiom in favor of a more "intellectual" work by an obscure composer who does not write for films.

So, are film scores modern classics? I my estimation, yes. But it only makes up part of today's classical music, it does not exclusively encompass it.


----------



## Guest

tahnak said:


> Concert hall has become an abattoir of experimental hoo ha.


Really? In Secunderabad, the symphony* doesn't play endless concerts of Mozart, Beethoven, Dvorak, and Tchaikovsky like everywhere else in the world? That would be very cool, I would think, that is, if the words "abattoir of experimental hoo ha" could be made to contain any sort of information.

Give us some names, some statistics, some percentages--some information, in short. Your judgmental conclusion gives us nothing but a vague sense of your prejudices.

*I could find no reference to a symphony orchestra in either of the twin cities, so this is merely a rhetorical device. Tahnak is obviously referring to concert halls generally, or as far as I can tell, having some knowledge of concert halls specifically, to concert halls nowhere.


----------



## Herzeleide

Tapkaara said:


> At the end of the day, music in in the ear of the beholder, and if you prefer the silly sounds of a Cage or Stockhausen to the lush neo-Romanticism of a John Williams or a Howard Shore, that is purely up to you.


Hmm yes.

Both Stockhausen and Cage are dead. There are current composers whose music does find a rapproachment with tonality and the Romantic aesthetic (if that's what you want). For example, Robin Holloway and Nicholas Maw, both of whose music is far and a way superior to Williams' or Shore's.


----------



## Herzeleide

tahnak said:


> Yes. Why not? In fact, as I was mentioning few days back, I rely more on film music as a continuation of the expression of spirit after Shostakovich's output.
> Composers like Elmer Bernstein, Miklos Rozsa, Bernard Herrmann, John Williams, Maurice Jarre and many others are continuing the tradition of music that moves the spirit and film is the only podium left now. Concert hall has become an abattoir of experimental hoo ha.


You only think that because you're ignorant about contemporary music.


----------



## PostMinimalist

tahnak said:


> an abattoir of experimental hoo ha.


WOW! I love the idea! I do know some concert halls which might fill this description, and that's only the derssing rooms! Seriously though the concert hall is changing. One of the most popular (and I don't claim that this is a meuasure of quality but only that it's nescessary for these places to survive) concert types these days is a 'Hits from the Movies' program.

As with any genre there is a peroid of acceptance but Orchestral Film music has been around a long time and takes just as much skill and imagination to write as some 12 tone score, or other such 'classical' works. Musicians and composers have long accepted flim scores as part of the classical tradition, extending it and enriching it in the same way every new style or field does. It is a comment on it's strength as a description that 'classical' music doesn't colapse into a black hole restricting new or old additions. (Don't forget that now everyone listens to Palestrina with the same ear as Mozart and Penderewski). Taking that into account one could say that 'Film music' is not _the_ classical music of the future but it _will_ be a part of it!
FC


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Oh, well, I guess I bear some responsibility for this. A perfectly good scab had formed over this thread, and now (in some cases) we're tearing the bandages off _á la_ a 3rd Act Tristan!

First of all, I have to agree with *post-minimalist*'s conclusion- and that the answer to "Are Movie Soundtracks the New Classics?" is (ultimately) "it depends on the soundtrack!"

I understand that when there are posts that seem dismissive of "Contemporary Classical Music," it frequently touches a nerve. [I'm trying to channel empathy by imagining how I used to feel when someone launched ectoplasm at my belovèd _Wagner_'s music.] 
Nowadays, it sort of rolls off my back, anymore.

However, when certain new music advocates sit across the card-table and make their opening bids in language that sounds kind of like "you're idiotic," you're prejudiced," and "you're ignorant," I'm disinclined to feel as though they've done any service to their cause...


----------



## Guest

Play fair, Chi. Name names. Quote the exact words. 

Coynesses like "certain new music advocates" and interpretations like "'you're prejudiced'" substitute your judgments for the facts.

By all means give us your judgments, but be a dear and support them, fairly.

Thanks,

A certain new music advocate


(Yes, I'm aware that "Coynesses" is my interpretation. You'll allow me my little joke, I hope!)


----------



## PostMinimalist

More experimental hoo ha please!


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

some guy said:


> Play fair, Chi. Name names. Quote the exact words... interpretations like "'you're prejudiced'" substitute your judgments for the facts.


O.K.:


some guy said:


> Your judgmental conclusion gives us nothing but a vague sense of your prejudices.


You asked, I answered- and I don't think my assessments of the attitude(s) involved are off-base, here.

What you call prejudice, others might call discernment.

To your credit, you weren't the one who invoked the terms "idiotic" and "ignorant" (of course, you knew that already). There's that old bit of Latin- _De gustibus non est disputandum_, but that doesn't stop a lot of us (including me) from our _'disputandur'_. My point was that this was a case of "not what we say, but how we say it." I know that topics like this are contentious enough without the pointed language that pushes the envelope of "civil & respectful" [wording in the board's terms-of-service agreement] or (in the case of those two "i" words) breaks right on past civil & respectful to another, entirely less worthy plane.


----------



## Guest

Chi_town/Philly said:


> What you call prejudice, others might call discernment.


You would seriously call "Concert hall has become an abattoir of experimental hoo ha" a discerning statement? Or rather, you would seriously admit the possibility that anyone would call that statement discerning?

Well, I'm afraid that we're not going to be in agreement, then, that's for sure. That certainly sounds like a judgmental statement to me. And not very um dignified language.

And it reveals nothing about the topic and only a very little about Tahnak. So not really very much of the "attitude" you deprecate in my comment, is there? Just a fairly neutral description of the limits of Tahnak's statement.

Herzeleide's comment is only a little less neutral, that is if one takes his "i" word as descriptive--and it certainly is in this case--rather than derogatory. Tahnak has indeed revealed his lack of knowledge about contemporary music. Maybe embarrassing for him, now, but we've all been there, haven't we? I know I've made some pretty pompous statements in the past that I've had to eat, word by word, later on.

In any case, the only person to have used the other "i" word you refer to was you. Neither Herzeleide nor I used that word. Whether we implied anything of the sort is up for interpretation. But your post was about "pointed" language that pushes the limits of civil & respectful, about, in short, particular words, one of which was only used by yourself.

Criticize us all you like for using the words "judgmental" and "ignorant" if you must, but don't drop "idiotic" into the conversation and then criticize us for using that!!


----------



## Herzeleide

Chi_town/Philly said:


> However, when certain new music advocates sit across the card-table and make their opening bids in language that sounds kind of like "you're idiotic," you're prejudiced," and "you're ignorant," I'm disinclined to feel as though they've done any service to their cause...


I care more about saying what's true than labouring under some such misapprehension that I am in anyway doing some sort of _service_ by posting on this forum.

I've already quoted many a contemporary composer whose music is echelons above pretty much all film music. All I can do is entreat people to listen to the music of said composers.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

some guy said:


> I know I've made some pretty pompous statements in the past that I've had to eat, word by word, later on.


And I, too have made pompous and even erroneous statements in the past, and will doubtless do so again-- and will also need to dine on my words, once more.

The occasion for your next repast, however, is now at hand:



some guy said:


> In any case, the only person to have used the other "i" word you refer to was you. Neither Herzeleide nor I used that word.


However, some 15 posts ago...


Herzeleide said:


> To further my point in confuting the IDIOTIC [capitals mine] idea that film music has supplanted 'pure' music as the new 'classic'...


I understand that your error probably wasn't wilful- but it amounts to a false accusation, all the same...


----------



## Guest

Chi_town/Philly said:


> And I, too have made pompous and even erroneous statements in the past, and will doubtless do so again-- and will also need to dine on my words, once more.
> 
> The occasion for your next repast, however, is now at hand:
> 
> However, some 15 posts ago...I understand that your error probably wasn't wilful- but it amounts to a false accusation, all the same...


I took your remarks as directed toward responses to Tahnak's remark about experimental hoo ha. I didn't go back any further than that. You were taking a more general view of the whole thread than I sussed.

And Herzeleide's "idiotic" in the post you mention, which preceded Tahnak's remark, was modifying the word "idea." In your post, the word "idiotic" is a predicate adjective modifying the word "you." So granted that Herzeleide used the word in question, albeit before the exchange I thought (perhaps too hastily) we were talking about, it was not used to describe a person or persons, as you presented it, but a concept.


----------



## Herzeleide

some guy said:


> So granted that Herzeleide used the word in question, albeit before the exchange I thought (perhaps too hastily) we were talking about, it was not used to describe a person or persons, as you presented it, but a concept.


Precisely.


----------



## marinermark

Here's another spin on the topic - if we can knock off the personal comments and return to the topic. How about people who discover classical music through film scores? When John Williams moved on to the Boston Pops, I suspect more than a few (especially young) people started listening to BP because of the popularity of Jaws and SW scores and Williams' name. Others may look further into a composer's music because of their introduction to it in film - think Walton, Rosza, Corigliano, Antheil, Copland and Glass. Even as small an item as seeing that the score was performed by the (name) Symphony Orchestra may help introduce classical music to an unsuspecting viewer. The "quality" of the music (whatever that is) isn't necessarily the issue. Whether Williams "sounds like" Holst, Dvorak or anyone else isn't either. It may well be more difficult to compose to the medium - where the music must enhance but not overpower the action - with split-second timing. Much film music "sounds classical" and, I think, deserves to be thought of as such when it subsequently appears in a concert or as a "suite" on record. Rosza's "Spellbound Concerto" is a good example.


----------



## PostMinimalist

If you need convincing of how close film scores and 'serious' modern classical musi are to one another you need only listen to John Williams' music for 'Close Encounters of the Third Kind'. I play this 'blind' to students and friend asking them to identify the composer. After Varese, Boulez, Panufnik and other logical 'shots in the dark' so to speak, the famous 5 note theme from the movie comes in the oboe! You should see the reactions!
FC


----------



## Herzeleide

marinermark said:


> Here's another spin on the topic - if we can knock off the personal comments and return to the topic. How about people who discover classical music through film scores? When John Williams moved on to the Boston Pops, I suspect more than a few (especially young) people started listening to BP because of the popularity of Jaws and SW scores and Williams' name. Others may look further into a composer's music because of their introduction to it in film - think Walton, Rosza, Corigliano, Antheil, Copland and Glass. Even as small an item as seeing that the score was performed by the (name) Symphony Orchestra may help introduce classical music to an unsuspecting viewer. The "quality" of the music (whatever that is) isn't necessarily the issue. Whether Williams "sounds like" Holst, Dvorak or anyone else isn't either. It may well be more difficult to compose to the medium - where the music must enhance but not overpower the action - with split-second timing. Much film music "sounds classical" and, I think, deserves to be thought of as such when it subsequently appears in a concert or as a "suite" on record. Rosza's "Spellbound Concerto" is a good example.


Hmm yes. It's all but a conduit to actual contemporary classical. That's okay - everyone needs to start somewhere, it's only wrong if they go on to claim that film music is on a par with contemporary classical. This is not to impugn the genuine craftsmanship and skill involved in film music - I myself enjoy some film music, but it is but crumbs to the large tasty cake of contemporary (and every other period for that matter) classical.

Some music that wasn't composed originally for film but is nonetheless used in a film is the best - e.g. Ligeti's Requiem and _Lux aeterna_.


----------



## PostMinimalist

Herzeleide said:


> it's only wrong if they go on to claim that film music is on a par with contemporary classical. This is not to impugn the genuine craftsmanship and skill involved in film music - I myself enjoy some film music, but it is but crumbs to the large tasty cake of contemporary (and every other period for that matter) classical.


I have to express my disagreement here. Film music is as relevent and important as 'taffel musik', French or Spanish 'court music', 'Gebruachtmuzik', or any other form of patronised musical composition. The fact that music was written for a patron and thus 'tailored' to suit a purpose is as you know common throughout the history of music (and all the arts). The artist who has the opportuntiy to really express freely is a very rare beast. I will not deny that comtemporary classical music (not related to film) does offer a rich feast but please do not assume that this new patronisation system in some way degrades music written therein. There are two bountiful cakes here to be enjoyed - let's not waste the crumbs of either!
FC


----------



## Herzeleide

post-minimalist said:


> I have to express my disagreement here. Film music is as relevent and important as 'taffel musik', French or Spanish 'court music', 'Gebruachtmuzik', or any other form of patronised musical composition. The fact that music was written for a patron and thus 'tailored' to suit a purpose is as you know common throughout the history of music (and all the arts). The artist who has the opportuntiy to really express freely is a very rare beast. I will not deny that comtemporary classical music (not related to film) does offer a rich feast but please do not assume that this new patronisation system in some way degrades music written therein. There are two bountiful cakes here to be enjoyed - let's not waste the crumbs of either!
> FC


The problem is that there is now a rent between the system of patronised musical composition and musical composition 'for its own sake', which obviously started at the beginning of the nineteenth century; this divergence has intensified since thereafter. Most attempts - like Hindemith's _Gebrauchmusik_ - have been inferior, his (and Shostakovich's) attempts at composing a _Well-Tempered Clavier_ for the twentieth-century risibly antediluvian. Bártok's _Mikrokosmos_ is an exception, but I'm afraid the idea of writing music deliberately to please to public or anyone else is incompatible with good quality. This is a huge issue really, and I hesitate at bringing it up. But having said this, serious composers whose music has genuine potential for reaching a wider audience are often forestalled by the people in charge unwilling to play the music of some (to them) unheard-of composer, and the profound dominating spirit of historicism implicit in mainstream concerts.


----------



## PostMinimalist

I agree that the chasm has widened since it's appearance in the late 18thCentury but I don't see any reason to ascribe 'quality' according to the origin of the specific impetus for creation. i.e. High quality for music composed for the fulfilment of the artist's goal and low for composition written to 'please' an audience. There must of course be more criteria and a composite appraisal of a work must finally lay within the work itself and not only in its reason for existence. Again we cannot deny that there is also 'bad' contemporary classical music and 'good' film music and vice versa. If we base our judgement on what is (and always objectively of course) 'high quality' music then its original purpose may become of (at most) secondary importance. For example I listen to Bach Cantatas without being bothered about any religious and liturgical intentions under which the composer may have been labouring. After all Bach wrote these 'one a week' gigs under the same pressure and external requirements that a film composer works today. (Now there's an interesting thought!)
FC


----------



## Herzeleide

post-minimalist said:


> After all Bach wrote these 'one a week' gigs under the same pressure and external requirements that a film composer works today. (Now there's an interesting thought!)
> FC


But he had the advantage of being possibly the greatest Western composer ever. 

Perhaps Telemann would be a better comparison.


----------



## PostMinimalist

Yes, Telemann! Agreed!


----------



## Composer1992

I would say that parts of movie soundtracks definitely become 'classics' or at least they become very very well known. Think John Williams.


----------



## Rondo

I may be digressing a bit here, but maybe someone can explain this. Go online and search for recordings of _Alexander Nevsky_ or _Peer Gynt_. There are dozens, performed by a number of groups. After that, go search for the original soundtrack to _Chinatown_ by Jerry Goldsmith. You'll find that it is much more scarce (and MUCH pricer). Also, there are _far_ fewer interpretations of more contemporary film scores. Nevsky was made in 1938, and Chinatown was made in 1974. I would love to buy a recording of a fairly recent performance of the latter soundtrack, but something tells me that may be difficult to find.

Of course, my point is more _commercial_ in nature, and my second example is an obscure one, but does work to prove a point: if soundtracks are the new classics, then why are the ones composed by Prokofiev and Shostakovich outliving those composed by individuals considered to be predominately 'film composers'?

Now whether soundtracks _should_ be considered the new classics is a totally different question than whether they *are* considered the new classics. I would love to *think* they are (nearly half of my music library consists of them). However, the questions of _which film_ and _which composer_ remain to be a factor.


----------



## Tapkaara

Well, I suppose there is good and bad classical music, as there are good and bad film scores.

Yes, I consider orchestral film scores to be a minifestation of "modern" classical; I assert again that film scores are the "incidental" scores of our day. But there will always be spectacular film scores and ones that are fairly mediocre. Even the mediocre ones should be counted as "classical," just not GOOD classical. (Hope that makes sense!)

Alexander Nevsky is a GREAT score!!!


----------



## dsunlin

I don't know if I'm way off-base, but "good music" is a subjective judgement of whether is something enjoyable by someone or not. And classical, for me, is any thing that continues to be appreciated by subsequent generations. It doesn't matter whether the composer had a noble client, or was writing for publication for sale, or was scoring an opera. 

Most musicians are not born rich and have to make a living; that doesn't automatically make their music unlistenable. 

There must have been plenty of "classical music" that nobody bothered to play twice and quickly faded into obscurity. Just because you have a harpsichord doesn't mean you're an automatic musical genius.


----------



## Rondo

What Tapkaara may have meant by "GOOD" is "Successful." GOOD or not, it seems to me that a disproportionate number of film scores (compared to non-film classical works) are falling by the way-side.

I would love to see the day when I can find the soundtrack to *any* film ever made (assuming there was an orchestral score written for it) as easily as I could find a copy of Peer Gynt, Nevsky, Hamlet, etc... .

Speaking of which, here is a _very_ interesting album I just came across. Anyone have it??


----------



## Tapkaara

Don't have that one, Rondo, but I do have a disc of film music by Khachaturian. I'm a big Khachaturian fan, but I haven't listened to that disc in a while. I should give it another go.

Naxos has a great cataloge of film music that is available at their famous budget price. Two discs in that series I recommend are the scores of Polish composer Wojciech Kilar and British composer Benjamin Frankel.

Kilar is most famous for scoring Bram Stoker's Dracula in 1992. Snippets from that score are included on the disc as well as others. Also of note is his music fro Polanski's fil Death and The Maiden. Haunting stuff.

Frankel was a composer of some reputation during the middle part of the last century. While I am not familiar with his concert output, his film music is great stuff. Check out his score for Curse of the Werewolf. It's avant-garde without being silly and noisy. I really should explore this man's symphonies...

At any rate, these men were "serious" composers first, "film" composer second. (I suppose there is a line of demarkation here...). So, I'd say, the quality of their music for films is certainly top-notch...though I'm afraid some would try to downplay its intrinsic quality because it's music that comes from films.


----------



## Herzeleide

dsunlin said:


> I don't know if I'm way off-base, but "good music" is a subjective judgement of whether is something enjoyable by someone or not. And classical, for me, is any thing that continues to be appreciated by subsequent generations.


LOL 

By your logic, The Beatles, Led Zeppelin etc. are, by dint of their having been appreciated by subsequent generations, classical - as is most jazz.

Some people can sense correctly what's good and bad, but some can't. No one's perfect so no one knows exactly what's good and bad.


----------



## Herzeleide

Rondo said:


> What Tapkaara may have meant by "GOOD" is "Successful." GOOD or not, it seems to me that a disproportionate number of film scores (compared to non-film classical works) are falling by the way-side.
> 
> I would love to see the day when I can find the soundtrack to *any* film ever made (assuming there was an orchestral score written for it) as easily as I could find a copy of Peer Gynt, Nevsky, Hamlet, etc... .
> 
> Speaking of which, here is a _very_ interesting album I just came across. Anyone have it??


The problem with film music is that 'good' film music fulfils a practical role as whether it is good or successful or not.

This is unlike classical music, where the criteria is based exclusively on the quality of the music.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Herzeleide said:


> The problem with film music is that 'good' film music fulfils a practical role as whether it is good or successful or not.


Mein! Was ist das? Verstand man recht?!

A MASS- fulfils a practical role (element in the worship service)
An ORATORIO- fulfils a practical role (relays a story, with singers static)
INCIDENTAL MUSIC- fulfils a practical role (background, often to a stage-play)
A BALLET- fulfils a practical role (music composed for the purpose of dancing and forwarding a tale via choreography)
An OPERA- fulfils a practical role (advances a plot with singers directly involved in the action)

If "fulfilling a practical role" is a "problem" with film music, then similar problems exist in Bach's *St. Matthew Passion*, Handel's *Messiah*, Mendelssohn's music to *A Midsummer Night's Dream*, Tchaikovsky's *Swan Lake*, and Wagner's *Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg* (which incidentally is the source for the small-print quote found above).

Oh, and keep the 'LOL's' to yourself. I am (although it's taking some effort at the moment).


----------



## Herzeleide

Chi_town/Philly said:


> Mein! Was ist das? Verstand man recht?!
> 
> A MASS- fulfils a practical role (element in the worship service)
> An ORATORIO- fulfils a practical role (relays a story, with singers static)
> INCIDENTAL MUSIC- fulfils a practical role (background, often to a stage-play)
> A BALLET- fulfils a practical role (music composed for the purpose of dancing and forwarding a tale via choreography)
> An OPERA- fulfils a practical role (advances a plot with singers directly involved in the action)
> 
> If "fulfilling a practical role" is a "problem" with film music, then similar problems exist in Bach's *St. Matthew Passion*, Handel's *Messiah*, Mendelssohn's music to *A Midsummer Night's Dream*, Tchaikovsky's *Swan Lake*, and Wagner's *Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg* (which incidentally is the source for the small-print quote found above).
> 
> Oh, and keep the 'LOL's' to yourself. I am (although it's taking some effort at the moment).


In all the examples you've given, the plot/'role' is simply a vehicle for the music. The form of an opera or oratorio is dictated by the music. The only strictures placed on a mass is that it is performable within the liturgical setting; it is not even in the same ball-park as the extent to which film music has to be composed in time to the actual film, and the effect this has on the music.

I suppose it's too much to ask for you to recognise not-so-subtle distinctions, in the same way that it would be too much to ask me to contain the torrential cacchination occasioned by reading your post.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Herzeleide said:


> I suppose it's too much to ask for you to recognise not-so-subtle distinctions...


I would have recognized distinctions (not-so-subtle or otherwise) had you made them three posts ago. In order to receive credit for one's distinctions, one must first make said distinctions. Remember, you said that "fulfill[ment] of a practical purpose" was _the _ [emphasis mine] "problem" with film music. I misspoke earlier- you did not say it was _a_ problem, you said it was _the_ problem.

Now, you have revised your wording, and that is all to the good [even if your new wording could be interpreted as saying that Ibsen's _Peer Gynt_ exists as a vehicle for Grieg's music, but we'll move quickly past that one].


----------



## Herzeleide

Chi_town/Philly said:


> I would have recognized distinctions (not-so-subtle or otherwise) had you made them three posts ago. In order to receive credit for one's distinctions, one must first make said distinctions. Remember, you said that "fulfill[ment] of a practical purpose" was _the _ [emphasis mine] "problem" with film music. I misspoke earlier- you did not say it was _a_ problem, you said it was _the_ problem.
> 
> Now, you have revised your wording, and that is all to the good [even if your new wording could be interpreted as saying that Ibsen's _Peer Gynt_ exists as a vehicle for Grieg's music, but we'll move quickly past that one].


That's precisely what Peer Gynt is (or used for) - in that particular context. How tendentious of you to use the word 'exist'; I never suggested that the plots/literature etc. _exclusively_ exist as a conduit for music.

I suppose I ought to have made 'said' distinctions, for people who *NEED EVERYTHING SPELLING OUT FOR THEM* and suffer from an inability to pause and think or infer information from what they read.


----------

