# Why do many people think that classical music composed for film scores is not classical music?



## HansZimmer

In the "Movie Corner" I opened a poll about the film scores which got the nomination "Best original score" in the Academy Awards (Oscars) of 1990: Talkclassical best film score award - 1990

This is for the first part of the competition Talkclassical best film score award.

Now, the score of the film "The Fabulous Baker Boys" (one of the film nominated in 1990) could be probably classified as Jazz (see for example the first theme) and Intrumental pop (see for example the second theme).






I think that no one would say that this is not jazz music because it was composed for a film. No one would say "this is not jazz but film music". Indeed, film music is not a genre of music: it only means that the music was composed for a film.

However, the other four nominated film scores, I think that can be classified as "romantic music".
Usually, the film scores which get a nomination for the "Best original scores" are more or less classical music.

That's why the radio Classic FM started to insert some film scores in the competition Classic FM Hall of Fame.
Their decision is criticized by many people. Read for example this article of the journal "The Guardian": Can film music ever be classical?

The argument of the writer of this article is that film scores can never be classified as "classical music" because they are composed for images and not for concerts (so, it is not standalone music, but a part of the movie).
If this argument is valid, then we must conclude that the score of "The Fabulous Baker Boys" is not jazz because it was composed for images and not for concerts.

However, I agree that pure "motion music" is not extractable from it's context, but the best film scores (the one who win at The Academy Awards) are not simply "motion music": it's music that can be extracted as standalone music. Indeed, the best score composers sell tickets for concerts.


Maybe the real reason of these people is that they think that John Williams is not as good as Beethoven, Mozart, Bach and so on and they see classical music as a "closed enclosure" where you can enter only if you have a special permission.
If it is so, still I don't see the logic: you don't have to be Roger Federer for being a tennis player. So, you could simply say "Peter is a tennis player but not the number one" and "John Williams is a classical music composer but not the number one".

You might say that Bach is the number one and John Williams only an ordinary composer, if you think this, but I don't see the logic of "the closed enclosure".
Someone could for example say that the composer of "The Fabulous Baker Boys" is a poor jazz composer, but it's still jazz.


To conclude, my opinion is that much of the music composed for film scores is good classical music: "good" is my personal judgement, but every one can have his own.
If you ask me "Don't you hear the difference between classical music and film scores?", my anwser is that usually film scores are built around one or more powerful themes, while some pieces in classical music are not so melody focused.
I won't say that film scores don't have their distinticive rules, but that those rules are compatible with classical music, because there are many pieces that are considered "classical" that are built around a main theme.
"Spring" of Vivaldi is a good example.
The idea that classical music must be "chaotic" is only a personal preference of some people and not a rule that every composer must respect.


----------



## Luchesi

HansZimmer said:


> In the "Movie Corner" I opened a poll about the film scores which got the nomination "Best original score" in the Academy Awards (Oscars) of 1990: Talkclassical best film score award - 1990
> 
> This is for the first part of the competition Talkclassical best film score award.
> 
> Now, the score of the film "The Fabulous Baker Boys" (one of the film nominated in 1990) could be probably classified as Jazz (see for example the first theme) and Intrumental pop (see for example the second theme).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that no one would say that this is not jazz music because it was composed for a film. No one would say "this is not jazz but film music". Indeed, film music is not a genre of music: it only means that the music was composed for a film.
> 
> However, the other four nominated film scores, I think that can be classified as "romantic music".
> Usually, the film scores which get a nomination for the "Best original scores" are more or less classical music.
> 
> That's why the radio Classic FM started to insert some film scores in the competition Classic FM Hall of Fame.
> Their decision is criticized by many people. Read for example this article of the journal "The Guardian": Can film music ever be classical?
> 
> The argument of the writer of this article is that film scores can never be classified as "classical music" because they are composed for images and not for concerts (so, it is not standalone music, but a part of the movie).
> If this argument is valid, then we must conclude that the score of "The Fabulous Baker Boys" is not jazz because it was composed for images and not for concerts.
> 
> However, I agree that pure "motion music" is not extractable from it's context, but the best film scores (the one who win at The Academy Awards) are not simply "motion music": it's music that can be extracted as standalone music. Indeed, the best score composers sell tickets for concerts.
> 
> 
> Maybe the real reason of these people is that they think that John Williams is not as good as Beethoven, Mozart, Bach and so on and they see classical music as a "closed enclosure" where you can enter only if you have a special permission.
> If it is so, still I don't see the logic: you don't have to be Roger Federer for being a tennis player. So, you could simply say "Peter is a tennis player but not the number one" and "John Williams is a classical music composer but not the number one".
> 
> You might say that Bach is the number one and John Williams only an ordinary composer, if you think this, but I don't see the logic of "the closed enclosure".
> Someone could for example say that the composer of "The Fabulous Baker Boys" is a poor jazz composer, but it's still jazz.
> 
> 
> To conclude, my opinion is that much of the music composed for film scores is good classical music: "good" is my personal judgement, but every one can have his own.
> If you ask me "Don't you hear the difference between classical music and film scores?", my anwser is that usually film scores are built around one or more powerful themes, while some pieces in classical music are not so melody focused.
> I won't say that film scores don't have their distinticive rules, but that those rules are compatible with classical music, because there are many pieces that are considered "classical" that are built around a main theme.
> "Spring" of Vivaldi is a good example.
> The idea that classical music must be "chaotic" is only a personal preference of some people and not a rule that every composer must respect.


I think it's a matter of intent. What are the composer's intentions for his creations? I can relate that playing a Beethoven sonata feels very different than playing a transcription by Bill Evans, or improvising something myself using jazz progressions and all the jazz inventiveness I know. What are the feelings? (without talking about the historical developments in music theory).


----------



## EvaBaron

Whether a piece is classical or not has nothing to do with the forces involved, but with the way in which it is intended to be listened to. Classical music is designed to be considered, contemplated and - being the most abstract of all the art forms - to provoke a truly subjective response in each of its listeners. Film music, on the other hand, is meant to accompany moving pictures, to provide an objective commentary to the on-screen action. Robbed of that on-screen imagery, it loses much of its meaning. Found this in the guardian


----------



## 4chamberedklavier

This is a pretty difficult question to answer since there doesn't seem to be a clear definition of "classical music"

Let's say I define classical music as being "music that doesn't need extramusical sources to be fully appreciated" i.e. stand-alone music.



HansZimmer said:


> However, I agree that pure "motion music" is not extractable from it's context, but the best film scores (the one who win at The Academy Awards) are not simply "motion music": it's music that can be extracted as standalone music. Indeed, the best score composers sell tickets for concerts.


I think this is it._ Some_ film scores are composed such that they can stand alone, but _not all_. These scores can stand alone because their composers wanted to make them stand alone, not because a film score is required to have music that can stand alone. So going by that, I would consider the best film scores as classical, but I wouldn't consider every film score as classical.


----------



## mikeh375

Hey Hans congratulations on the Oscar... 

If you listen to John William's 1st Violin Concerto and then compare it to his film work, you might get a sense of why he himself considers his film work distinct and a different musical aesthetic and technique to his concert work. Comparison of the two disciplines at work (yes, they are different disciplines in crucial areas), from a compositional and sounding point of view should go all the way to answering your question.

I've said this before in conversation with member Fabulin (who will chime in no doubt and make me waver in my opinion on the OP dilemna), that JW is quite unique in that his cue writing (as opposed to his excellent theme writing), is good enough to pass off as a more serious stand alone offering in the concert hall.

But it is rather telling that when he sits down and purposely writes for the concert hall, the language in particular is much more personal and one hears that his mindset and expressive reach is different and more personal. In other words just what you expect from absolute music, that of music from a deeper place within who's genesis is not instigated by what is fundamentally utility.


----------



## Chibi Ubu

When I listen to the soundtrack *Planet of the Apes, * composed by Jerry Goldsmith, composer, I hear an oblique classical tone poem. On the other hand, the soundtracks to many of Quentin Tarantino's movies, such as *Pulp Fiction* are based in pop music. Therein lies the confusion. The real issue is that "Classical" music has been around for hundreds of years, whereas the the technology of movie making redefined the listening of more modern music for today''s audiences.

I wonder what music called "Classical" consist of 200 years from now? Will it include Paul McCartney? Duke Ellington? Willie Nelson? Ryuichi Sakamoto?


----------



## Chibi Ubu

EvaBaron said:


> Whether a piece is classical or not has nothing to do with the forces involved, but with the way in which it is intended to be listened to. Classical music is designed to be considered, contemplated and - being the most abstract of all the art forms - to provoke a truly subjective response in each of its listeners. Film music, on the other hand, is meant to accompany moving pictures, to provide an objective commentary to the on-screen action. Robbed of that on-screen imagery, it loses much of its meaning. Found this in the guardian


Although this is generally true, there are compositions done for film that stand alone on their own merits. The real point is that man loves to generalize, but in the case of the arts, it becomes an exercise in selective perception.


----------



## mossyembankment

Chibi Ubu said:


> Although this is generally true, there are compositions done for film that stand alone on their own merits. The real point is that man loves to generalize, but in the case of the arts, it becomes an exercise in selective perception.


It's not really true that for music to be classical music it has to be intended to be contemplated on its own. Lots of classical composers wrote incidental music. This definition would also exclude all of opera.


----------



## mossyembankment

Lieder, too...


----------



## Chibi Ubu

it's fun to be taken out of context


----------



## Chibi Ubu

From my perspective, the modern American/European "Broadway" musical is the current equivalent of yesterday's operas. In 200 years, those musicals will be considered to be classical.


----------



## EdwardBast

Film music is classical music when and if it is routinely performed in classical music concerts, joins the standard repertoire classical music students must learn, is published and edited like other classical music, and so on. There is no impediment to film music being classical music other than these simple institutional requirements. There is no conspiracy. There is nothing to feel aggrieved about.


----------



## mossyembankment

Chibi Ubu said:


> it's fun to be taken out of context


Sorry, I was really replying more to EvaBaron's comment (that you were replying to) than to you.


----------



## Luchesi

EdwardBast said:


> Film music is classical music when and if it is routinely performed in classical music concerts, joins the standard repertoire classical music students must learn, is published and edited like other classical music, and so on. There is no impediment to film music being classical music other than these simple institutional requirements. There is no conspiracy. There is nothing to feel aggrieved about.


You can help me with my definition of a serious composer. I think of a person who is trying to advance the art of music and the effectiveness of such expression (or whatever art it is). For me in music, the fine examples are, the 3Bs, Mozart, Berg, Bartok, Prokofiev, Schoenberg.
Surely film composers have advanced the art of composing for films.


----------



## EdwardBast

Luchesi said:


> You can help me with my definition of a serious composer. I think of a person who is trying to advance the art of music and the effectiveness of such expression (or whatever art it is). For me in music, the fine examples are, the 3Bs, Mozart, Berg, Bartok, Prokofiev, Schoenberg.
> Surely film composers have advanced the art of composing for films.


Yes, some film composers have advanced the art of composing for films and are therefore serious film composers.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Whether film music "is" classical music is a wrong question that doesn't need to be "answered" but "dissolved." If you take "typical" examples of classical music with "typical" examples of film music and compare their various features it's clear that the latter will have some features in common with the former and some features that are unique to it. Film music can feature much of the instrumentation, harmonic language, and even quotes from classical music; the differences will be that it's typically not designed to be played on its own, but to accompany and enhance a non-musical source that is the film. It's not dissimilar to opera in the respect that many creative choices made in both are dependent upon the drama and dramatic context, and probably won't make a lot of sense outside of that. Concert-only classical music tends to have features that attempt to make it a coherent, self-contained work that doesn't require any external context (other than the general context of musical language in general) for it to make sense. These differences mean that each serve different purposes and are (or should be) heard and appreciated differently because of that.

So there are differences and similarities, and with all things with differences and similarities it's pointless to ask whether or not one thing "is" another thing. That's just a question of where we should draw lines through reality in order to form our mental categorizations. That's not a useless exercise--it's quite useful to have clearly defined mental categories--but I suspect it's not what most people mean when they ask "Is X also Y?"


----------



## NoCoPilot

"The Fabulous Baker Boys" was scored by Dave Gruisin, who is a bona fide jazz composer. Of course the soundtrack is jazz. Same deal with "I Want To Live!" by Johnny Mandel or "Bird" about Charlie Parker any number of other jazz soundtracks. You wouldn't hire a non-jazz musician to write the soundtrack for a movie about jazz.

I can't speak for the "many people [who] think that classical music composed for film scores is not classical music" -- whatever "classical music" means -- but I can speak for myself. Film cues are usually short, tied to the visuals on-screen, and intended to support the emotions displayed on-screen. Do you know of any symphonies composed for film? Keyboard sonatas? Violin concertos?

I don't. Music "composed for film scores" is music composed for film scores, nothing more. Just because it's played by an orchestra that doesn't automatically make it "classical music," any more than kittens born in your oven automatically become muffins.


----------



## Andrew Kenneth

Richard Strauss composed the soundtrack for the 1926 silent movie based on his opera "Der Rosenkavalier".

I'm aware of one soundtrack recording =>









the movie =>


----------



## NoCoPilot

Chibi Ubu said:


> I wonder what music called "Classical" consist of 200 years from now? Will it include Paul McCartney? Duke Ellington? Willie Nelson? Ryuichi Sakamoto?


Hip hop, god help us all.


----------



## NoCoPilot

Andrew Kenneth said:


> Richard Strauss composed the soundtrack for the 1926 silent movie based on his opera "Der Rosenkavalier".


 Didn't Shostakovich compose some music for film? Gershwin did. Copland did. Others whose names escape me right now. 

But although that music may be "in a classical language" it'll always be just "music composed for film." It was not intended to stand on its own merits. Even though some does.


----------



## NoCoPilot

mossyembankment said:


> Lots of classical composers wrote incidental music. This definition would also exclude all of opera. Lieder too.


Now you're over-specifying the definition of "classical music." Of course it can include opera and lieder and incidental music. Maybe even "film music" if it stands on its own without the film. As, arguably, film scores by John Williams, Hans Zimmer, Johanne Johannsson, Jerry Goldsmith, and others do.


----------



## golfer72

Classical music is a style or type of music, not an intent. Some film music is Classical whether it stands alone or not. Its a sub genre of the overall Classical category as are sonatas, quartets, Symphonies etc. Some film scores are jazzy so they arent Classical or they are Pop so they arent Classical. I dont know how to define Classical music but I know it when i hear it. Wasnt there a quote to that effect about something else lol!


----------



## Luchesi

golfer72 said:


> Classical music is a style or type of music, not an intent. Some film music is Classical whether it stands alone or not. Its a sub genre of the overall Classical category as are sonatas, quartets, Symphonies etc. Some film scores are jazzy so they arent Classical or they are Pop so they arent Classical. I dont know how to define Classical music but I know it when i hear it. Wasnt there a quote to that effect about something else lol!


We should ask people whether it sounds Classical to them.


----------



## EdwardBast

golfer72 said:


> *Classical music is a style or type of music*, not an intent. Some film music is Classical whether it stands alone or not. Its a sub genre of the overall Classical category as are sonatas, quartets, Symphonies etc. Some film scores are jazzy so they arent Classical or they are Pop so they arent Classical. I dont know how to define Classical music but I know it when i hear it. Wasnt there a quote to that effect about something else lol!


Is it? If it were, then one should be able to name shared stylistic features common to all instances of the style that are not also common to other styles. So what does an early Baroque monody have in common with a Mozart mass, a Schnittke string quartet, a Webern piano piece, or Penderecki's Threnody Hiroshima? Give it a go. I think you'll find that classical music is not in fact a style and that the only thing uniting all classical works is their loose association with a set of ever changing, steadily evolving social institutions and industries. If you think about it a little further you will likely find that it actually has more to do with intent than style.


----------



## DaveM

Related to this subject in a thread from almost 7 years ago:
Movie Themes/Soundtracks As a Category of Modern...


----------



## Chibi Ubu

NoCoPilot said:


> Hip hop, god help us all.





NoCoPilot said:


> Hip hop, god help us all.


----------



## mossyembankment

NoCoPilot said:


> Now you're over-specifying the definition of "classical music." Of course it can include opera and lieder and incidental music. Maybe even "film music" if it stands on its own without the film. As, arguably, film scores by John Williams, Hans Zimmer, Johanne Johannsson, Jerry Goldsmith, and others do.


Well, no, I'm saying that in my opinion all these things are classical music.


----------



## marlow

Depends on the film score. Ralph Vaughan Williams wrote a symphony from one of his film scores.


----------



## golfer72

EdwardBast said:


> Is it? If it were, then one should be able to name shared stylistic features common to all instances of the style that are not also common to other styles. So what does an early Baroque monody have in common with a Mozart mass, a Schnittke string quartet, a Webern piano piece, or Penderecki's Threnody Hiroshima? Give it a go. I think you'll find that classical music is not in fact a style and that the only thing uniting all classical works is their loose association with a set of ever changing, steadily evolving social institutions and industries. If you think about it a little further you will likely find that it actually has more to do with intent than style.


Thats why i said i dont know how to define it but i know it when i hear it LOL!


----------



## Enthusiast

One aspect of this question that always concerns me is that we are comparing true classical music - "musical high art" - with the music that some composers have written for popular films. There are quite a few blockbusters that I enjoy and in some of them I hear music that is effective. Almost by definition this suggests that the music in question is not "musical high art" because such music would not work with popular films. This means that the objection to EvaBaron's post (quoted below) - that the same argument could exclude opera from being true classical music - is wrong.



> Whether a piece is classical or not has nothing to do with the forces involved, but with the way in which it is intended to be listened to. Classical music is designed to be considered, contemplated and - being the most abstract of all the art forms - to provoke a truly subjective response in each of its listeners. Film music, on the other hand, is meant to accompany moving pictures, to provide an objective commentary to the on-screen action. Robbed of that on-screen imagery, it loses much of its meaning.


----------



## 59540

Enthusiast said:


> One aspect of this question that always concerns me is that we are comparing true classical music - "musical high art" - with the music that some composers have written for popular films. There are quite a few blockbusters that I enjoy and in some of them I hear music that is effective. _Almost by definition this suggests that the music in question is not "musical high art" because such music would not work with popular films_. ...


I don't understand the reasoning there. If it's effective it's not "high art"? Bernard Herrmann's score for Psycho is one of the most effective ever written, and I do think it's "high art". The question is whether it belongs in the same category as a Shostakovich symphony.


----------



## Enthusiast

dissident said:


> I don't understand the reasoning there. If it's effective it's not "high art"? Bernard Herrmann's score for Psycho is one of the most effective ever written, and I do think it's "high art". The question is whether it belongs in the same category as a Shostakovich symphony.


The reasoning is that musical high art would not be effective as music for popular films and that explains to me why the music in most of the films being discussed here does not (for me) resemble classical music. I do think that art films require music that is essentially classical (contemporary musical high art). 

I think the question concerns which film music (if any) is classical music in the same way that the music in operas and ballets is? I don't think there is any question of any film music resembling symphonies - clearly it won't.


----------



## 59540

> The reasoning is that musical high art would not be effective as music for popular films...


I don't think that's been demonstrated. Pre-existing "high art" music has been used in films, sometimes effectively, sometimes lazily and sloppily.


----------



## HansZimmer

mikeh375 said:


> Hey Hans congratulations on the Oscar...


Thanks! 

I wanted to give a slap to Chris Rock but Will Smith did it before me.



> If you listen to John William's 1st Violin Concerto and then compare it to his film work, you might get a sense of why he himself considers his film work distinct and a different musical aesthetic and technique to his concert work. Comparison of the two disciplines at work (yes, they are different disciplines in crucial areas), from a compositional and sounding point of view should go all the way to answering your question.
> 
> I've said this before in conversation with member Fabulin (who will chime in no doubt and make me waver in my opinion on the OP dilemna), that JW is quite unique in that his cue writing (as opposed to his excellent theme writing), is good enough to pass off as a more serious stand alone offering in the concert hall.
> 
> But it is rather telling that when he sits down and purposely writes for the concert hall, the language in particular is much more personal and one hears that his mindset and expressive reach is different and more personal. In other words just what you expect from absolute music, that of music from a deeper place within who's genesis is not instigated by what is fundamentally utility.


As I wrote in the OP, it's true that music for film scores has some distinctive rules:
1) It's melodic
2) It's emotional and monumental

I'll now expand the second point.

In film scores you have to describe situations and emotions with music, so there are typically:

A danger theme
An action theme
A sad theme
A happy theme
A relaxing theme
A heroic theme
A greatness theme

and so on...

It's monumental because the sad theme, for example, must not be simply sad, but it must makes you cry. If you write a sad theme and people don't cry then you are not a good film score composer. You can win an Oscar only if the music you write has a strong emotional impact.

It's true that the music that John Williams writes for films follows these rules while the music he writes outside of this context is less melodic and less monumental.

However my point is that the rules of film music are not incompatible with classical music, indeed the "New World" symphony of Dvorak is a good example of something that could be used for a film score.

I'm thinking about a film with the title "The great emperor".

The main theme at the beginning is the "greatness theme": the king is in the top of the tower of his castle looking at his land.

1:14 it's the action theme: the knights of the emperor are fighting with the invaders of the empire.

2:35 it's the love theme: a knight is speaking with a beatiful woman and we all know that they will fall in love

4:45 it's the relaxing theme: the knight and the woman are walking in the wood


----------



## Enthusiast

dissident said:


> I don't think that's been demonstrated. Pre-existing "high art" music has been used in films, sometimes effectively, sometimes lazily and sloppily.


Well, to use the comparison with opera, film music would need to be an equal part of the whole. To claim that the music of a popular blockbuster can be high art while the film isn't loses it the validity of the "film music is classical in the same way that opera music is classical". 

And, yes, segments of existing classical music have been used in films, sometimes effectively. But not whole works, I suspect.


----------



## larold

Critics say film music is composed to accompany something else and is not absolute music AKA a Brahms symphony. Therefore it cannot stand alone as classical music.

I am sure that is true. However, no one claims any Tchaikovsky ballet isn't classical music. Nor do they claim classical compositions that are meant to accompany a play or talkfest, like Beethoven's Egmont or Strauss's The Bourgeois Gentleman, aren't classical music.

Which leads me to believe people that claim film music isn't the equal of classical music are snobs.


----------



## 59540

Enthusiast said:


> Well, to use the comparison with opera, film music would need to be an equal part of the whole. To claim that the music of a popular blockbuster can be high art while the film isn't loses it the validity of the "film music is classical in the same way that opera music is classical".


I don't see how "popular blockbuster" makes any difference, as if "high art" has to be inherently remote and off-putting, or that a film has to be artsy-fartsy in order for its score to be considered such as well. There are loads of operatic excerpts that are performed standalone, often without vocalists involved. And then there's the question of incidental music. The Mendelssohn music for Shakespeare isn't only played in conjunction with a staging of the play.




> And, yes, segments of existing classical music have been used in films, sometimes effectively. But not whole works, I suspect.


Well Prokofiev used segments of a film score to produce a whole other work.

My opinion on the matter is that film scores _can_ be "high art" but probably only within their own genre category. The main problem with considering "film scores" in the abstract as "classical music" is that there's such an insanely wide variety of styles and techniques within the genre.


----------



## Red Terror

NoCoPilot said:


> Didn't Shostakovich compose some music for film? Gershwin did. Copland did. Others whose names escape me right now.
> 
> But although that music may be "in a classical language" it'll always be just "music composed for film." It was not intended to stand on its own merits. Even though some does.


Very true. The issue is that too many people demand validation for their opinions. We’d be better off enjoying things we like and forgetting about labels.


----------



## Forster

@HansZimmer
In response to your question ("Why do many people think that classical music composed for film scores is not classical music?) I would ask,
"Why do some people feel the need to argue that "classical" music composed for film scores IS "classical" music?"

Music composed for films draws on different musical traditions, including that which is considered "classical". To that extent, it can be called classical. I'm not clear what the purpose of the argument is for labelling "classical-for-film" as "classical".


----------



## Enthusiast

dissident said:


> I don't see how "popular blockbuster" makes any difference, as if "high art" has to be inherently remote and off-putting, or that a film has to be artsy-fartsy in order for its score to be considered such as well. There are loads of operatic excerpts that are performed standalone, often without vocalists involved. And then there's the question of incidental music. The Mendelssohn music for Shakespeare isn't only played in conjunction with a staging of the play.


You are putting words into my mouth. I don't find high art remote and off-putting. That would be "bad art"! Nor am I clear what you mean by the term "artsy-fartsy". Presumably it is a way of putting down art films as a whole genre and an appeal for the superiority of Hollywood blockbusters? But I am not arguing that either one or the other is superior - merely that they are different and seek to achieve different things.

All I'm saying is that films that aspire to be high art need music that aspires to be musical high art (so that the film and its score come together as a whole). Popular films do not IMO although their scores might sample or imitate classical music.


----------



## EdwardBast

larold said:


> Critics say film music is composed to accompany something else and is not absolute music AKA a Brahms symphony. Therefore it cannot stand alone as classical music.
> 
> I am sure that is true. However, no one claims any *Tchaikovsky ballet isn't classical music. Nor do they claim classical compositions that are meant to accompany a play or talkfest, like Beethoven's Egmont or Strauss's The Bourgeois Gentleman, aren't classical music.*
> 
> Which leads me to believe people that claim film music isn't *the equal of* classical music are snobs.


Tchaikovsky's ballet music is classical music because it's routinely performed on classical orchestral concerts, conservatory instrumentalists learn to play excerpts for auditions, and classical publishers sell it like other classical music. That's all it takes. Claims are irrelevant. So is whether or not a work was composed to accompany stage action. Equality isn't at issue; It's not a status contest, it's about suitability for concert performance. Ballet excerpts, concert overtures, and the like are suitable for concert performance because they are composed as or comprise complete musical units like any other symphonic movement or overture. They have coherent internal structures that stand alone. Unlike film cues, their structures are, by and large, determined by the usual musical formal principles, not by stage action. Moreover, when adapted for concert performance, ballet suites generally dispense with any purely functional music and are arranged in a sequence with a standard arc of changing tempos and moods like any other musical suite. Not coincidentally, the ones in the standard concert rep tend to have been composed by people who are already successsful composers of classical concert music. 

Which leads me to suspect that those aggrieved by imaginary people who "claim film music isn't the equal of classical music" might be working on personal issues of some kind.


----------



## 59540

Enthusiast said:


> You are putting words into my mouth. I don't find high art remote and off-putting. That would be "bad art"! Nor am I clear what you mean by the term "artsy-fartsy". Presumably it is a way of putting down art films as a whole genre and an appeal for the superiority of Hollywood blockbusters? But I am not arguing that either one or the other is superior - merely that they are different and seek to achieve different things.


You were the one that made the differentiation, not me.



> All I'm saying is that films that aspire to be high art need music that aspires to be musical high art (so that the film and its score come together as a whole). ...


Those are often the self-consciously, pretentiously artistic types that brought about the term "artsy-fartsy". I don't see why a John Williams score written for a "blockbuster" would be inherently less artistic.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

EdwardBast said:


> Ballet excerpts, concert overtures, and the like are suitable for concert performance because they are composed as or comprise complete musical units like any other symphonic movement or overture. They have coherent internal structures that stand alone. Unlike film cues, their structures are, by and large, determined by the usual musical formal principles, not by stage action.


I've simply not found this to be true. Even though I don't care a wit for dancing I vastly prefer listening to ballet scores while watching ballets as the musical structure is clearly determined by the story that's unfolding on stage. What you might argue is that in ballet the music typically comes first and the stage action conforms to it, but it's also a case of composers imagining the kind of action that's going to be taking place (say, the transition in Romeo & Juliet between playful banter and the sword fights) and write music so that there's time for those events to unfold and lead into each other. However, when listened to in isolation it would be quite difficult to make sense of various changes in the musical structure without an awareness of the stage action that it's supposed to be accompanying. There is rarely the kind of internal logic that exists in, say, the sonata form.


----------



## 59540

Edward Bast said:


> Ballet excerpts, concert overtures, and the like are suitable for concert performance because they are composed as or comprise complete musical units like any other symphonic movement or overture.


Just because they _can_ stand alone doesn't mean they were _intended_ to do so.


----------



## ClassicalMaestro

It's not classical music, it's modern music.


----------



## NoCoPilot

larold said:


> Critics say film music is composed to accompany something else and is not absolute music AKA a Brahms symphony. Therefore it cannot stand alone as classical music.
> 
> I am sure that is true. However, no one claims any Tchaikovsky ballet isn't classical music. Nor do they claim classical compositions that are meant to accompany a play or talkfest, like Beethoven's Egmont or Strauss's The Bourgeois Gentleman, aren't classical music.
> 
> Which leads me to believe people that claim film music isn't the equal of classical music are snobs.


A Tchaikovsky ballet or a Donizetti opera or a Bernstein stage musical don't change scenes every 2.08 minutes. Their music has a chance to develop, create some continuity, and interweave themes. That's not true of "film music," which consists of a bunch of unrelated cues, a minute or two (or five) long, by and large.


----------



## sAmUiLc

Tomato tastes the same whether called a fruit or a vegetable.


----------



## Sid James

HansZimmer said:


> Maybe the real reason of these people is that they think that John Williams is not as good as Beethoven, Mozart, Bach and so on and they see classical music as a "closed enclosure" where you can enter only if you have a special permission.


I think film music holds a unique position in that although a lot of the earliest composers for film where classical composers, it clearly became a separate genre later on once talkies came in. Composers who settled in America from Europe during the 1930's and '40's (e.g. Waxman, Steiner, Rozsa, Korngold) essentially made film music into a specialised area.

Since then, film music has gradually entered the concert hall, particularly in the form of suites. In the last couple of decades, orchestras increasingly have come to perform entire scores while the film is simultaneously played on screen. These special events tend to attract many listeners who would otherwise not attend a classical concert.



> You might say that Bach is the number one and John Williams only an ordinary composer, if you think this, but I don't see the logic of "the closed enclosure".


I don't either, and I think this sort of exclusionary attitude is probably based on insecurities about the possibility of film music becoming fully accepted as a genre within classical rather than being on its fringes (or outside it). I guess its about it being in a somewhat uncomfortable position between the classics of the canon and post-1950 music. The former has been more or less stagnant since the mid 20th century and the latter is increasingly performed by specialist ensembles rather than orchestras.



> If you ask me "Don't you hear the difference between classical music and film scores?", my anwser is that usually film scores are built around one or more powerful themes, while some pieces in classical music are not so melody focused.
> I won't say that film scores don't have their distinticive rules, but that those rules are compatible with classical music, because there are many pieces that are considered "classical" that are built around a main theme.


I think its got things in common with other genres within classical, especially ballet and incidental music. For one thing, a repertoire has developed of music derived from film scores (there are examples from Vaughan Williams, Walton, Bernstein, Shostakovich, Glass, as well as composers specialised in film such as Herrmann, Rota, John Williams).

Perhaps simultaneous screenings are more controversial, but I think its beneficial for orchestras to do these, and not only for financial reasons and as a way of attracting new audiences. We're in the 21st century, and its time for a shakeup of the conventions of concert performance which originated in the 19th century. Its also good to see music by living composers finding a wider audience. I'm quite sure that film will continue to open up new paths that can serve to enrich mainstream classical.


----------



## 59540

NoCoPilot said:


> A Tchaikovsky ballet or a Donizetti opera or a Bernstein stage musical don't change scenes every 2.08 minutes. Their music has a chance to develop, create some continuity, and interweave themes. That's not true of "film music," which consists of a bunch of unrelated cues, a minute or two (or five) long, by and large.


That's not true of all film music, either. All the above are somewhat episodic in nature.


----------



## Highwayman

Film music is music composed for a film. Simple as that. Why do you want to overcomplicate otherwise a very straightforward and all-inclusive definition? Not all film music are classical or jazz etc. but all film music are film music. What do you think will be the benefit of such a needless and ambiguous merger of genres?


----------



## Chibi Ubu

ClassicalMaestro said:


> It's not classical music, it's modern music.


Where do you draw the line?

How about "It's All Music". Composers and artists do so out of love for the creative spark, but they are all pretty much trying to make a living as well, 

"Classical" as it applies to the current perceptions of society is much too general to be specific. One needs to become more specific about subgenres in order to decide whether the soundtrack follows the historical perspective as it applies to Baroque, Classic, Romantic, etc. The term Classical Music is an oxymoron.


----------



## DaveM

For those who would categorically reject film music as a form of classical music, I ask: If the first work below is accepted as classical music, can the second or third work be rejected?


----------



## mikeh375

From the composing pov, there is a considerable difference in mindset, circumstance, technique and crucially, expressive freedom between composing a cue/theme for film and writing music for its own sake. As a result of this I find that if one defines concert music as being an expression of the composer's own, untrammelled personality and artistry, as indeed I do, then it becomes that bit harder to see a justification for music that is dictated to in every aspect - from timings through to orchestration - to be classed _unequivocably_ in the same way as perhaps a symphony, concerto or sonata.

Opera and ballet are not included in my distinction because music written for those genres is largely free from external expressive restraint other than service to dialogue, story telling and/or danceability. Likewise, there is no strict enforcement of timings, orchestration (other than numerical) and the composer's mindset and creative options have as much freedom in the language they use along with the expressive reach they wish to convey.

That said, I'm personally very happy to hear the best film work in the concert hall and love a lot of it. I can also see why others wont be bothered with the distinctions I make here. But a someone who has worked in both disciplines I am acutely aware that there is a fundamental difference in the compositional process for the two genres that utterly dictates the musical result. As always ymmv and on this, mine still does occasionally, especially when JW is on the programme.


----------



## Highwayman

DaveM said:


> For those who would categorically reject film music as a form of classical music, I ask: If the first work below is accepted as classical music, can the second or third work be rejected?


I`d happily denounce my love for classical music if the second or third are accepted as classical and/or the first to be rejected.


----------



## mikeh375

DaveM said:


> For those who would categorically reject film music as a form of classical music, I ask: If the first work below is accepted as classical music, can the second or third work be rejected?


Your so incorrigible Dave... In answer to your question, read my post below yours.


----------



## larold

Not all critics find film music the lesser or unequal to traditional classical music. I was reading an old Penguin Guide the other day where the authors waxed philosophic over Charles Gerhardt's recording of Franz Waxman's film music that includes the score to _The Bride Of Frankenstein_. They were especially impressed with the section labeled, "Creation of the female monster." Among other things they wrote, "...much of (Waxman's) music can stand on its own without the screen images it originally served to accompany."

I think that is the key to determining the quality and relative placement of music for orchestra. I think you can say same for any section of, say, Bernard Herrmann's score for _Mysterious Island_, _Fahrenheit 451_, _Psycho_ or any number of his scores -- the music is the thing whether or screen images are available simultaneously. FYI for those that don't know Hermann also wrote a traditional symphony that's pretty good, a lot better than most being written today. Get his recording if you're interested.


----------



## larold

NoCoPilot said:


> _A Tchaikovsky ballet or a Donizetti opera or a Bernstein stage musical don't change scenes every 2.08 minutes. Their music has a chance to develop, create some continuity, and interweave themes. That's not true of "film music," which consists of a bunch of unrelated cues, a minute or two (or five) long, by and large._


That isn't true for Beethoven's _Egmont_, Strauss's _Bourgeois Gentleman_, and Sibelius's _Pelleas and Melisande_ extracts, yet all those scores are played and recorded over and over as classical music. The average duration of a piece from the Sibelius I cited is 2-3 minutes with a couple that run 5-6 minutes. I think if you compare this to the complete 2-hour score from Jerry Goldsmith's _Alien_ you will find the ideas and their duration not any different.

This is why I find certain people have a bias for traditional classical composers and they categorize other forms of music as inferior because of their biases, not because of anything inherent to the music itself. The example more heinous than film music is dance music. if you go to a concert with a Beethoven contradance or a Strauss waltz there is no question that is classical music. But when something from Broadway or pop is played -- even something lengthy such as Donna Summer's 8:15 version of _I Feel Love_ -- some people will tell you of the differences ... and then play the modern form of classical music that sounds like it known as minimalism.


----------



## Enthusiast

Is this thread about whether classical music is superior to film music? Many answers suggest it is but I am merely seeing a request about whether or not to categorise film music as classical music.


----------



## Enthusiast

dissident said:


> Those are often the self-consciously, pretentiously artistic types that brought about the term "artsy-fartsy". I don't see why a John Williams score written for a "blockbuster" would be inherently less artistic.


OK, I get it. Among films you don't like art films. Fair enough. And within music you do like both art (i.e. classical) music and film music. Also fair enough. But I don't get why we are going around in circles through your insistence that I am saying one is superior to the other. I am not talking of aesthetic value, merely about whether the music that accompanies big Hollywood films is or is not classical music. I don't think it is but you do. You want to go on to assert that such film music is as artistically valuable as classical music is but I don't want to discuss relative values.


----------



## Luchesi

sAmUiLc said:


> Tomato tastes the same whether called a fruit or a vegetable.


But what about the children?

Does it remind anyone else of teaching kids that Pluto is the 9th planet?


----------



## EdwardBast

dissident said:


> Just because they _can_ stand alone doesn't mean they were _intended_ to do so.


Incorporating them into suites is a direct expression of that intention. It was pretty standard to create suites from ballet scores because this offered an additional source of income and the revenue stream tended to justify the sometimes significant work involved. There is no reason film composers couldn't do the same and I see no reason why successful adaptations for concert performance would fail to attract audience interest and hold the stage. Given the nature of movie cues, however, it's likely that adaptation into workable concert suites might entail considerably more work for a modern film composer than it did for, say, Tchaikovsky or any other composer whose ballet scores incorporated numerous set pieces and self-contained dances. Consider the relative financial incentives for modern film composers versus those of classical composers in creating such arrangements. For classical composers the rewards historically have been significant consdered in relation to their other revenue streams. For film composers, who get enormous wads of cash for their day work, and where they have stables of copyists and orchestrators at their beck and call (on the studios nickle) to do much of the grunt work, the incentives would have to look relatively meager. Having to do all the work the minions usually do oneself for a pittance is not something successful film composers are likely to want to endure. This incentive structure is going to result in adaptations done by journeymen arrangers hired by pops orchestras, rather than concert suites done by the composers themselves.



larold said:


> That isn't true for Beethoven's _Egmont_, Strauss's _Bourgeois Gentleman_, and Sibelius's _Pelleas and Melisande_ extracts, yet all those scores are played and recorded over and over as classical music. The average duration of a piece from the Sibelius I cited is 2-3 minutes with a couple that run 5-6 minutes. I think if you compare this to the complete 2-hour score from Jerry Goldsmith's _Alien_ you will find the ideas and their duration not any different.
> 
> This is why I find certain people have a bias for traditional classical composers and they categorize other forms of music as inferior because of their biases, not because of anything inherent to the music itself. The example more heinous than film music is dance music. if you go to a concert with a Beethoven contradance or a Strauss waltz there is no question that is classical music. But when something from Broadway or pop is played -- even something lengthy such as Donna Summer's 8:15 version of _I Feel Love_ -- some people will tell you of the differences ... and then play the modern form of classical music that sounds like it known as minimalism.


You too should consider the financial incentives noted above. Is a wealthy film composer like Goldsmith going to be motivated to make a concert suite from Alien? Has he done so?


----------



## 59540

Enthusiast said:


> OK, I get it. Among films you don't like art films. Fair enough. And within music you do like both art (i.e. classical) music and film music. ...


I never said I don't like art films in general. Some I do, some I don't. I just don't think that a score for an art film is somehow sanctified by virtue of it's being part of an "art film" while a "blockbuster's" score is automatically lesser.


----------



## 59540

EdwardBast said:


> Incorporating them into suites is a direct expression of that intention. ...


The Swan Lake suite for one wasn't done by Tchaikovsky.


----------



## DaveM

mikeh375 said:


> Your so incorrigible Dave... In answer to your question, read my post below yours.


I did, but I wasn’t convinced of your reasoning. Some soundtracks which have snippets of music throughout to coincide with what’s going on in the movie would not remind me of classical music, but other soundtracks that have what is essentially a work (such as my examples) and full-fledged segments indicating a love-scene or whatnot do.

I ask again in another way: Why are avant-garde works with no melody, no harmony and, frequently, dissonance throughout considered classical music and film-related music with a melody, harmony and use of instrumentation that reminds of classical music is not?

I understand that you feel that a difference in the mindset of the composer is a factor, but I’m not convinced that the major film music composers would agree. (More likely, they wouldn’t care. )

Just for the record, my position is that some, not all, film music reminds of classical music. And if push comes to shove, I’m not as fired up about the subject as some here -those on the side of dismissing all film music as classical music- seem to be.


----------



## larold

_Is this thread about whether classical music is superior to film music? Many answers suggest it is but I am merely seeing a request about whether or not to categorise film music as classical music._


No; the thread title is "Why do many people think that classical music composed for film scores is not classical music?" This argument/discussion has been going on around here for years. There are people around here that do not think film music rates as classical music. I do; so do the authors of the late, great Penguin Guide to Classical Music, Third Ear Classical Music, All Music Guide to Classical Music and most other professional listener guides.


----------



## Enthusiast

dissident said:


> I never said I don't like art films in general. Some I do, some I don't. I just don't think that a score for an art film is somehow sanctified by virtue of it's being part of an "art film" while *a "blockbuster's" score is automatically lesser*.


My last response on this. Where does lesser come from? Not from anything I have said. In fact, I have repeatedly said I am not discussing value. I'm not sure why you keep trying to pretend that I am discussing value. Trolling, I suspect.


----------



## larold

larold said:


> _Is this thread about whether classical music is superior to film music? Many answers suggest it is but I am merely seeing a request about whether or not to categorise film music as classical music._
> 
> 
> No; the thread title is "Why do many people think that classical music composed for film scores is not classical music?" Setting aside the repetitive question this discussion has been going on around here for years. There are people around here that do not think film music rates as classical music. I do; so do the authors of the late, great Penguin Guide to Classical Music, Third Ear Classical Music, All Music Guide to Classical Music and most other professional listener guides.


----------



## Luchesi

Enthusiast said:


> My last response on this. Where does lesser come from? Not from anything I have said. In fact, I have repeatedly said I am not discussing value. I'm not sure why you keep trying to pretend that I am discussing value. Trolling, I suspect.


For me, it's about helpful (educational) categories for students of music. 'Not about what it sounds like to a majority of listeners (who probably don't care about possible ramifications).

Give a kid Star Wars music and what happens?


----------



## DaveM

EdwardBast said:


> Incorporating them into suites is a direct expression of that intention. It was pretty standard to create suites from ballet scores because this offered an additional source of income and the revenue stream tended to justify the sometimes significant work involved. There is no reason film composers couldn't do the same and I see no reason why successful adaptations for concert performance would fail to attract audience interest and hold the stage. Given the nature of movie cues, however, it's likely that adaptation into workable concert suites might entail considerably more work for a modern film composer than it did for, say, Tchaikovsky or any other composer whose ballet scores incorporated numerous set pieces and self-contained dances...


Fwiw, I occasionally come across suites from film music composed by the original composer.






A number of suites exists from the music of Ennio Morricone. Not sure if he put all of them together. But others apparently did.


----------



## EdwardBast

dissident said:


> The Swan Lake suite for one wasn't done by Tchaikovsky.


There was no arranging done by whomever put the suite together. All this anonymous person did was pick complete excerpts from the score. Moreover, it is possible that Tchaikovsky in fact made those choices when he himself considered publishing a suite. By the way, this supports the other point I've been making concerning the relative easy of adapting ballet scores versus film scores. In any case, your response is just niggling over a detail rather than addressing the immediate point: What are the financial incentives for modern film composers to create concert suites and is it possible that a lack of incentives is part of the reason film music is underrepresented on classical concert programs — if one believes it is.


----------



## pianozach

Chibi Ubu said:


> When I listen to the soundtrack *Planet of the Apes, * composed by Jerry Goldsmith, composer, I hear an oblique classical tone poem. On the other hand, the soundtracks to many of Quentin Tarantino's movies, such as *Pulp Fiction* are based in pop music. Therein lies the confusion. The real issue is that "Classical" music has been around for hundreds of years, whereas the the technology of movie making redefined the listening of more modern music for today''s audiences.
> 
> I wonder what music called "Classical" consist of 200 years from now? Will it include Paul McCartney? Duke Ellington? Willie Nelson? Ryuichi Sakamoto?


200 years from now . . .

I suppose that it will be determined by what future folk value in music.

Well, we could get a clue by pretending that someone in 1822 is asking what "Classical Music" will sound like in 200 years. 

Maybe. 'Cause at the time, the phrase "Classical Music" likely had a different definition. 1822: Beethoven, Liszt, Mendelsohn, Schubert, Kuhlau, Donizetti, Meyerbeer.

_So 'scuse me while I go slightly off topic._

For so very long now, Classical Music has been reproduced faithfully . . . as well as could be ascertained . . . faithful to the composer's intent. But in the 20th Century people started recontextualizing works, whether it be lifting tunes for popular songs, or resetting/reorchestrating them for synthesizers, vocal ensembles, rock band, etc.

But lately there's also been a trend to reproduce pop music faithfully, as originally released. *Todd Rundgren* may have been one of the first with his 1976 album *Faithful*, where he covered a handful of influential pop/rock tracks, but with the intent of reproducing them 'faithfully'. His intent was to get as close to the original recordings five to ten years on or so, and succeeded.

Nowadays there's a group, *The Analogues*, who are performing live concerts faithfully reproducing entire albums of the *Beatles*, using period instruments whenever possible, note for note. They consist of a core group of six musicians, and supplemented with whatever else is needed, including guest vocalists, small string and brass sections, harp, whatever . . . And they do this with the reverence formerly given to Classical Music concerts. Live.

Funny, but a couple of decades ago I had to put together a Beatles backing band for a show, and it took six of us to faithfully reproduce the music: drums, bass, 2 guitarists, piano, and keyboards.






Here's the Analogues performing the *White Album* live:


----------



## EdwardBast

DaveM said:


> Fwiw, I occasionally come across suites from film music composed by the original composer.
> 
> A number of suites exists from the music of Ennio Morricone. Not sure if he put all of them together. But others apparently did.


I've actually worked on music excerpted from film scores in two orchestra libraries, in each case adapted in house without the composer's input. This relates to the issues of financial incentive noted above.


----------



## Fabulin

EdwardBast said:


> What are the financial incentives for modern film composers to create concert suites and is it possible that a lack of incentives is part of the reason film music is underrepresented on classical concert programs — if one believes it is.


Re: economic context

Historically (when we speak of the music composed for films before the 1980s) it was in a large part a matter of lack of interest from the concert establishment and the traditional concert-going audiences. While plenty of home listeners demanded via letters the release of the music from popular films such as _Metropolis _in Germany in 1927, and then _Gone With the Wind_ in 1939 and _Kings Row_ in 1942, back then the famous maestro conductors distanced themselves from it (Klemperer I think disparaged Korngold and his music, and even Korngolds' former neighbour Bruno Walter did not 'risk' performing it) and paying regular concert audiences, many of whom attended concerts chiefly for prestige or incidental reasons, were well-informed from their morning papers what conservative music column critics or an ego-hurt Stravinsky thought about 'film music'. When Max Steiner tried to make a concert of his own music at the Concert Bowl in L.A. (in the 1940s, I think), it was poorly attended to the point that he never tried it again. Likewise, attempts to sell sheet music with arrangements from his scores were faced with disbelief from music publishers and none of them 'risked' testing the market in any serious way. Kitchy as Steiner's music is, on the other side of the easy listening of the 1960s both the concert and publishing world would have been much more favourable, but he was already in his late 70s and half-blind. As for Korngold, when he returned to Austria after WWII, the audiences and critics there wanted nothing to do with the _schlagobers _of an affluent composer who comfortably spent the war in the U.S. He died aged just 60 in 1957, and it would take 15 years before his son George and the conductor Charles Gerhardt collaborated on their series of famous 'classic film scores' recordings and put Erich Korngold back into business. Some composers did create suites of their music and conducted it in packed venues as early as the 1960s (Rózsa, Herrmann and... I think Mancini as well), but investing time in preparing suites was a risky business when the composers did not expect it to be accepted into the regular repertoire anyway.

Herrmann and Rózsa from the outset had eventual concert performances of some of what they had been writing for film in the back of their minds, but they prepared their suites thinking of their artistic value and their personal legacies, not necessarily about money, which neither of them lacked. Goldsmith and Morricone on the other hand did not care about it, ironically enough, because they were too rebellious, experimental, and casual (at least, back then), much as one would expect from a modernist / avant-garde composer. Interesting case here was Williams, who despite speaking about how surprised he was by the popularity of the music to the (first) _Star Wars_, and how disposable it supposedly seemed at the time, was nonetheless a shark businessman (pun not intended) and had a release of a 'soundtrack album' selection of some of the music he wrote prepared for release even before the film became a blockbuster. He arranged a concert suite only after he learned that unauthorized, badly transcribed by ear excerpts from his score were being sneakily performed at some concerts in the UK and U.S.

Nowadays the market for concerts is there and every composer in the media seems to be creating suites of some kind.


----------



## HansZimmer

I still have to answer to the many replies.

Meanwhile, I want to give a new input to this discussion.

Keep in mind that many times the composers write music for the end credits.

For Indiana Jones in the Talkclassical best film score award - 1990 I posted the final credits.
I don't see the difference between writing a symphonic movement and writing this.







For the Lion King, Hans Zimmer didn't compose anything for the end credits, however he made this arrangement for concerts.

What is the intent of this arrangament? Concerts.






Can we agree at least that that music arranged for end credits and concerts is self-contained, eventhough it still references a film?

Then we can go on and discuss about the music exclusively arranged for scenes of the film.


----------



## HansZimmer

Enthusiast said:


> The reasoning is that musical high art would not be effective as music for popular films and that explains to me why the music in most of the films being discussed here does not (for me) resemble classical music. I do think that art films require music that is essentially classical (contemporary musical high art).
> 
> I think the question concerns which film music (if any) is classical music in the same way that the music in operas and ballets is? I don't think there is any question of any film music resembling symphonies - clearly it won't.


Do you consider Schindler's List as an "art film"?

Why is this classical music?







Why is this not?


----------



## Enthusiast

HansZimmer said:


> Do you consider Schindler's List as an "art film"?
> 
> Why is this classical music?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is this not?


I am not a big fan of Schindler's List and have only seen it once. It did not come over to me as an art film (too sentimental?) but I'm open to arguments that it is. The music:

The Massenet is a short piece from an opera (so it is clearly classical music). It is also famous, beautiful and inventive, and is more or less of its time for art music.
The John Williams is horribly sentimental as pure music (IMO) and does not sound at all as belonging as art music of the time it was written in.

Was I meant to hear the pieces as similar or equivalent? I doubt many CM listeners would, frankly.

I will say, though, that what you are getting from me is strongly coloured by how I like (or not) the works in question ... and I know only too well that many others will legitimately disagree with my opinion. The point is that in this thread I have been comparing opera music (I refer you to the first page of this thread to see why) with film music to see if the latter is "as classical as" the former. I don't think this can be done from tiny little clips. It is about whole works - or at least substantial portions.


----------



## 59540

Enthusiast said:


> My last response on this. Where does lesser come from? Not from anything I have said. ...


Ok...less artistic then. How's that? And the "anyone who disagrees with me is a troll" shtick got old by 2010.


----------



## EdwardBast

HansZimmer said:


> For Indiana Jones in the Talkclassical best film score award - 1990 I posted the final credits.
> *I don't see the difference between writing a symphonic movement and writing this.*


I do. It's short attention span music flitting from one idea to the next. The main heroic theme is repeated over and over with no significant development. There are cheesy arbitrary modulations all over. The orchestration is full of cliche gestures like the sweeping harp and string flourishes. I couldn't imagine this being mistaken for a movement from a symphony.


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

I agree with Edward Bast. There can be no mistaking of the finale of TLC as presented above (a chain of unmodified themes) for a symphonic movement. At the same time, the themes of prof. Henry Jones and of the Holy Grail are magnificent and deserve to be mentioned with respect. The scherzo music is excellent as well. Where theme writing is concerned, Williams has few peers and no superiors.

_Schindler's List_, much like Bela Keler's _Erinnerung an Bartfeld_ (in Brahms' version), has too much repetitiveness for my liking, but it has to be admitted it _is _an accurate rendition of the repetitive pleas people suffering tragedies express to the world - and it is a most effective tear-jerker to just about anyone but 'hardened musicians'. The Massenet piece on the other hand... pure Romantic kitsch. It's enduring existence mystifies me.


----------



## 59540

EdwardBast said:


> There was no arranging done by whomever put the suite together. All this anonymous person did was pick complete excerpts from the score. Moreover, it is possible that Tchaikovsky in fact made those choices when he himself considered publishing a suite. By the way, this supports the other point I've been making concerning the relative easy of adapting ballet scores versus film scores. In any case, your response is just niggling over a detail rather than addressing the immediate point: What are the financial incentives for modern film composers to create concert suites and is it possible that a lack of incentives is part of the reason film music is underrepresented on classical concert programs — if one believes it is.


I would think that bringing up financial incentives is niggling. The question is, if Swan Lake can be considered in purely musical terms apart from the ballet setting, why can't a film score?


----------



## sAmUiLc

Luchesi said:


> But what about the children?
> 
> Does it remind anyone else of teaching kids that Pluto is the 9th planet?


I was devastated hearing Pluto's demotion and am yet to recover emotionally from it.. Since we are on a classical music forum, perhaps we should denounnce those people who attempted to add Pluto into Holst The Planets.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

DaveM said:


> For those who would categorically reject film music as a form of classical music, I ask: If the first work below is accepted as classical music, can the second or third work be rejected?


While I'm not terribly interested in how or whether to classify film music as classical music, these examples do bring to mind perhaps my biggest issue with much (certainly not all) film music as classical music: why does so much film sound like pastiches of romanticism and impressionism? I can't think of any artistic field that's dominated by pastiches from art that's over a century old by now. I may dislike the Ferneyhough, but at least it is undoubtedly contemporary and isn't just a regurgitation or pale imitation of sounds and styles that are ancient by now. Most all great composers wrote music that was contemporary to their own time rather than imitating sounds/styles that preceded them by a century. Maybe JS Bach comes the closest in holding onto the Renaissance's emphasis of polyphony, but it's not as if Bach didn't also incorporate contemporary influences as well like Vivaldi. I also don't know why anyone would want to listen to the latter in isolation as opposed to any number of romantic or impressionistic composers whom I think most would agree did similar things but usually better. Of course, if you do prefer the latter then don't let me stop you, but it is a point worth considering in the discussion.


----------



## DaveM

Eva Yojimbo said:


> While I'm not terribly interested in how or whether to classify film music as classical music, these examples do bring to mind perhaps my biggest issue with much (certainly not all) film music as classical music: why does so much film sound like pastiches of romanticism and impressionism? I can't think of any artistic field that's dominated by pastiches from art that's over a century old by now. I may dislike the Ferneyhough, but at least it is undoubtedly contemporary and isn't just a regurgitation or pale imitation of sounds and styles that are ancient by now. Most all great composers wrote music that was contemporary to their own time rather than imitating sounds/styles that preceded them by a century. Maybe JS Bach comes the closest in holding onto the Renaissance's emphasis of polyphony, but it's not as if Bach didn't also incorporate contemporary influences as well like Vivaldi. I also don't know why anyone would want to listen to the latter in isolation as opposed to any number of romantic or impressionistic composers whom I think most would agree did similar things but usually better. Of course, if you do prefer the latter then don't let me stop you, but it is a point worth considering in the discussion.


I understand that people have differing views on film music. Personally, rather than argue points of individual negative perceptions, I go back to asking why Avant-Garde works that remove so much of what constituted classical music for centuries are accepted so easily as CM while film music which often retains significant elements of CM is rejected so quickly and absolutely (by some).


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

DaveM said:


> I understand that people have differing views on film music. Personally, rather than argue points of individual negative perceptions, I go back to asking why Avant-Garde works that remove so much of what constituted classical music for centuries are accepted so easily as CM while film music which often retains significant elements of CM is rejected so quickly and absolutely (by some).


I think it's because avant-garde works, despite not sounding like older classical music, are still an evolution of that lineage, rather than just being a regression back to what it was a century ago. All the classical eras removed much of what constituted the classical music of the eras before them and did that while also introducing new methods of organization and new emphasis on certain aesthetic concepts, principles, or general sensibilities. How intelligible would Stravinsky or even Wagner have sounded to Bach? I'd wager "not very." I think the reaction would be similar in literature if someone was trying to write like Charles Dickens today.


----------



## 59540

Eva Yojimbo said:


> While I'm not terribly interested in how or whether to classify film music as classical music, these examples do bring to mind perhaps my biggest issue with much (certainly not all) film music as classical music: why does so much film sound like pastiches of romanticism and impressionism? I can't think of any artistic field that's dominated by pastiches from art that's over a century old by now. I may dislike the Ferneyhough, but at least it is undoubtedly contemporary and isn't just a regurgitation or pale imitation of sounds and styles that are ancient by now.


Because they're writing for a varied, paying audience, and that's how most of them make their living.
Ferneyhough is writing for himself, academics and critics, or that small niche that's "in the know". Though a lot of his stuff would probably fit in films of a certain type.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

dissident said:


> Because they're writing for a paying audience. Ferneyhough is writing for himself, academics and critics.


That's the pragmatic answer, of course, but how does it affect our ability to judge it as art? Typically relentless pastiches in other genres are consigned to the bin of kitsch, maybe more acceptable (as in the case of, say, the neo-classical movement) when the old is merged with the new in some ways. It also provokes questions about whether fans of classical themselves have stagnated for over a century and all that's left are the composers and an audience made up of mostly academics and critics.


----------



## 59540

Eva Yojimbo said:


> That's the pragmatic answer, of course, but how does it affect our ability to judge it as art? Typically relentless pastiches...


You'd have to post some examples. Not everything is "pastiche" just because it's tonal. You take each score by itself, just as with everything else. It's not all going to be brilliant. A lot of "art" music I'd call "junk" as well. Subjectively.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

dissident said:


> You'd have to post some examples. Not everything is "pastiche" just because it's tonal. You take each score by itself, like with everything else.


I was using the examples I quoted in DaveM's post. They very much sound like romantic/impressionistic works to my ears. They also sound pretty typical of a lot of film music I hear that attempts to imitate the sounds/styles of classical music. There are, of course, exceptions.


----------



## 59540

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I was using the examples I quoted in DaveM's post. They very much sound like romantic/impressionistic works to my ears. They also sound pretty typical of a lot of film music I hear that attempts to imitate the sounds/styles of classical music. There are, of course, exceptions.


And to my ears Ferneyhough sounds like the typical "contemporary" stuff.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

dissident said:


> And to my ears Ferneyhough sounds like the typical "contemporary" stuff.


Sure, but it still sounds contemporary, which was my point.


----------



## 59540

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Sure, but it still sounds contemporary, which was my point.


So...what artistic point are you making? It does raise one interesting point though. A lot of contemporary music advocates here have stated that it's a contemporary strength that composers now have the freedom to use whatever styles they want. But...they really can't, not completely. If they go too far outside the contemporary idiom they'll probably be dismissed by quite a few as hopelessly retro or derivative.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

dissident said:


> So...what artistic point are you making? It does raise one interesting point though. A lot of contemporary music advocates here have stated that it's a contemporary strength that composers now have the freedom to use whatever styles they want. But...they really can't, not completely. If they go too far outside the contemporary idiom they'll probably be dismissed by quite a few as hopelessly retro or derivative.


That it's very common to think of pastiches as kitsch, the bundling of familiar sentiments from previous eras into easily digestible and pleasing forms, rather than "art" (or, at least, "good art."). I think that's one way in which it makes sense to not consider film music in the same light as other classical music, which was almost always contemporary with whatever time it was composed in; maybe to more or lesser extents, but I can't think of any widely-considered classical masterpieces that were pastiches.

If any contemporary composer "completely" uses old styles then they're just doing pastiches too. The freedom is generally thought to be valuable in their ability to mix the old and new, not JUST do the old or JUST the new. An example that comes to mind is Schnittke and his "polystilism" (really just postmodernism) and works like the Concerto Grosso #1, itself a work that mixes many different styles across its movements. Some of the movements mix the old and new within that movement, like the 2nd that starts off sounding like Corelli and ends sounding like Corelli being melted in the microwave of modern harmony:


----------



## 59540

> That it's very common to think of pastiches as kitsch, the bundling of familiar sentiments from previous eras into easily digestible and pleasing forms, rather than "art" (or, at least, "good art."). I think that's one way in which it makes sense to not consider film music in the same light as other classical music, which was almost always contemporary with whatever time it was composed in...


Some people may like pastiche. "Art" and "good art"? What's that? The incongruity with the thoughts expressed in the other thread is a bit much. 

Just my own personal tastes: I'm not prepared to use Ferneyhough as a yardstick for "good" or "true art".


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

dissident said:


> Some people may like pastiche. "Art" and "good art"? What's that?


Sure, and I already said more power to them if they do. I'd think you know by now given our other discussion that "good art" is the art that people think are good. In this case, the music most classical fans consider "good" were contemporary with their own times, unlike a lot of film music. Maybe that doesn't matter to them, which is fine. I was merely offering it as one possible perspective of why some might not think of film music as classical music, or "good classical music." I personally don't care that much as I don't find most semantic debates interesting.


----------



## 59540

> I'd think you know by now given our other discussion that "good art" is the art that people think are good.


 Apparently sufficiently large numbers of audience members like the "pastiche", so end of discussion.


----------



## DaveM

I find the application of the word pastiche as applied to film music totally irrelevant to what film composers are trying to accomplish. None of them are trying to remind movie goers of classical music or return to a time when CP era music reigned. Producers hire composers who are going to compose music that transmits a message or draws an emotional response commensurate with the subject matter. And they are willing to pay well for composers who produce successfully and repeatedly.

Some of the most successful and memorable film scores have melodies and themes that draw the viewer in at the opening of the movie and/or elsewhere during romantic, exciting or otherwise dramatic moments. It’s an incredible skill and not all would-be film composers have it. And btw, the signals of romance in music have not changed much over centuries. Rather than such music being a pastiche, it is simply based on the fact that, if well composed, most people will know it when they hear it and, more importantly, feel it.

Hans Zimmer is one incredible talent. While the film scores he is credited with now are more a large group effort, some of his early works from 20+ years ago were more his effort alone. Take this opening to Pearl Harbor circa 1999: It immediately draws the viewer in to the movie:






IMO, this segment from Han Zimmer’s music for the movie Nine Months which predates the above by a few years is remarkable. How can one not be moved:


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

dissident said:


> Apparently sufficiently large numbers of audience members like the "pastiche", so end of discussion.


You can "end the discussion" if you wish, but I in no way suggested that a "large number of audience members" thought otherwise; my intent was to suggest why some classical fans might think otherwise.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

DaveM said:


> I find the application of the word pastiche as applied to film music totally irrelevant to what film composers are trying to accomplish. None of them are trying to remind movie goers of classical music or return to a time when CP era music reigned. *Producers hire composers who are going to compose music that transmits a message or draws an emotional response commensurate with the subject matter.* And they are willing to pay well for composers who produce successfully and repeatedly.


Yes, but they do that through pastiche, in large part because these older styles of music contain within them ready-made emotional response cues due to their familiarity, and maybe also because of the associations they've built up through their uses in film, TV, etc. Films are often criticized themselves for being sentimental, kitschy, or emotionally manipulative in similar ways when some audience members don't like being hit over the head with art that seems to be screaming FEEL THIS, DAMMIT! People have greatly varying tolerance levels for such things. Some films have even played around with these sentimental excesses to make various sociological commentaries, like the films of Douglas Sirk or Todd Haynes, in which case these kind of pastiche scores were perfectly fitting (here's the opening theme of Haynes's Far from Heaven, itself a kind of homage to Sirk's All That Heaven Allows): 






DaveM said:


> Some of the most successful and memorable film scores have melodies and themes that draw the viewer in at the opening of the movie and/or elsewhere during romantic, exciting or otherwise dramatic moments. It’s an incredible skill and not all would-be film composers have it. And btw, the signals of romance in music have not changed much over centuries. Rather than such music being a pastiche, it is simply based on the fact that, if well composed, most people will know it when they hear it and, more importantly, feel it.
> 
> Hans Zimmer is one incredible talent. While the film scores he is credited with now are more a large group effort, some of his early works from 20+ years ago were more his effort alone. Take this opening to Pearl Harbor circa 1999: It immediately draws the viewer in to the movie:
> 
> IMO, this segment from Han Zimmer’s music for the movie Nine Months which predates the above by a few years is remarkable. How can one not be moved:


No disagreement that talent is still required to this, but talent is required for a lot of kitsch. I hear from painting experts that Thomas Kinkade is technically talented too (I don't know much about painting myself). 

As for your examples, I remain a stone. 

If I think about it, there are some even pastiche-y film music I still love, such as: 





Despite the credit, Patrick Cassidy (rather than Hanz Zimmer) actually composed this piece, though Zimmer compose the rest of the soundtrack. Though as I listen to it I wonder the extent to which it sounds like a pastiche. Old in some respects, but newer (even if not contemporary) in others.


----------



## DaveM

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Yes, but they do that through pastiche, in large part because these older styles of music contain within them ready-made emotional response cues due to their familiarity, and maybe also because of the associations they've built up through their uses in film, TV, etc. Films are often criticized themselves for being sentimental, kitschy, or emotionally manipulative in similar ways when some audience members don't like being hit over the head with art that seems to be screaming FEEL THIS, DAMMIT! People have greatly varying tolerance levels for such things. Some films have even played around with these sentimental excesses to make various sociological commentaries, like the films of Douglas Sirk or Todd Haynes, in which case these kind of pastiche scores were perfectly fitting (here's the opening theme of Haynes's Far from Heaven, itself a kind of homage to Sirk's All That Heaven Allows):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No disagreement that talent is still required to this, but talent is required for a lot of kitsch. I hear from painting experts that Thomas Kinkade is technically talented too (I don't know much about painting myself).
> 
> As for your examples, I remain a stone.
> 
> If I think about it, there are some even pastiche-y film music I still love, such as:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Despite the credit, Patrick Cassidy (rather than Hanz Zimmer) actually composed this piece, though Zimmer compose the rest of the soundtrack. Though as I listen to it I wonder the extent to which it sounds like a pastiche. Old in some respects, but newer (even if not contemporary) in others.


Why all the negativity? The word ‘pastiche’ is not meant to apply to a work that is not derivative or that is not meant to imitate another work, artist or period unless the movie requires it. To apply the word ‘pastiche’ as a derogatory label for music that, say, is likely to draw from the viewer a feeling of romance, love, affection, passion etc. because that is what is happening in the movie is just criticizing for the sake of criticizing. For all the films that you allege are criticized in the way you describe, far more are film-score-wise successful otherwise the composers whose names are familiar wouldn’t continue to be hired or, if approached, wouldn’t dare touch them.

Whether you like the music or not is your subjective right, but when it comes to criticism, try to be -I know you’ll find this excruciating- a little more objective.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

DaveM said:


> Why all the negativity? The word ‘pastiche’ is not meant to apply to a work that is not derivative or that is not meant to imitate another work, artist or period unless the movie requires it. To apply the word ‘pastiche’ as a derogatory label for music that, say, is likely to draw from the viewer a feeling of romance, love, affection, passion etc. because that is what is happening in the movie is just criticizing for the sake of criticizing. For all the films that you allege are criticized in the way you describe, far more are film-score-wise successful otherwise the composers whose names are familiar wouldn’t continue to be hired or, if approached, wouldn’t dare touch them.
> 
> Whether you like the music or not is your subjective right, but when it comes to criticism, try to be -I know you’ll find this excruciating- a little more objective.


Why are you assuming negativity? I enjoy many pastiches myself. Even started a thread on the Non-Classical Music forum a long time ago looking for example of examples of popular music pastiches. Again, I was offering the pervasive existence of such as one possible reason why some classical fans may consider film music to be a distinctly different thing from classical music, because you simply don't see such pervasiveness in other artistic fields: most authors aren't imitating Dickens and Keats, eg. I can sympathize with some of those reasons, but I also don't really care. 

Hell, I even offered an example of two film music pastiches I happen to enjoy, and admitted it requires talent to compose them (and then said it requires talent to do a lot of things in art many people don't value: like writing hit pop songs). Why would you think I'm using the term derogatorily if I'm offering examples that I enjoy? And how would you like me to be "more objective" beyond stating that not everyone enjoys film music that exists JUST to "draw from the viewer a feeling of..." especially when the means of doing that can be very cliched?


----------



## Sid James

I think the answer to this question will continue to be a moot point into the near future. Whether or not film music becomes fully accepted into classical won't be determined by debates like this, but what's the reality on the ground. It will be the same as other changes during the history of classical, some of which have been controversial. When Handel introduced the oratorio, for example, purists argued that religious subjects should only be presented in church.

Listeners will continue to distinguish film music from other classical music, simply because of the reason that they will initially hear a film score while watching the film. However, if presented alongside other classical music as part of a straight concert (as a suite) it can blend into the program very well.

I don't think there's any danger of film music swamping the core repertoire. It serves different purposes, similar to how Grieg's _Peer Gynt_ is different from his piano concerto, for example. There's only a small amount of film suites that are played with any regularity by orchestras. Its similar with incidental music, but in terms of recordings, there's now a lot out there from this genre.

Simultaneous screenings are special events, they are more complicated and cost more to present. This emerging type of concert tends to attract audiences who are new to the classical experience (many of them younger than the average concertgoer). They are becoming increasingly popular, but not all movies are appropriate to be presented in this way. Apart from the popularity of the movie, the placing of the music in it will be taken into account.

Jerry Goldsmith, for example, tended to let the action on screen speak for itself and only used music when he thought it to be necessary. This is the case with the _Papillon _score, that I have on disc. Its a wonderful score and a great movie, but I don't see it appropriate for a simultaneous screening concert. The film is two and a half hours long, but the score lasts only forty minutes.

In reference to the debate above, Harry Partch is an example of a radical composer from the second half of the 20th century who also composed film music. His _Daphne of the Dunes_ started as a film score and has been performed as a ballet. Here, its performed by an ensemble specialising in contemporary music, as a simultaneous screening with the addition of choreographed dancers on stage. Can this be neatly categorised as being one thing or another? Does it really matter if people are enjoying the concert?


----------



## mikeh375

DaveM said:


> I did, but I wasn’t convinced of your reasoning. Some soundtracks which have snippets of music throughout to coincide with what’s going on in the movie would not remind me of classical music, but other soundtracks that have what is essentially a work (such as my examples) and full-fledged segments indicating a love-scene or whatnot do.
> 
> *I ask again in another way: Why are avant-garde works with no melody, no harmony and, frequently, dissonance throughout considered classical music and film-related music with a melody, harmony and use of instrumentation that reminds of classical music is not?*
> 
> I understand that you feel that a difference in the mindset of the composer is a factor, but I’m not convinced that the major film music composers would agree. (More likely, they wouldn’t care. )
> 
> Just for the record, my position is that some, not all, film music reminds of classical music. And if push comes to shove, I’m not as fired up about the subject as some here -those on the side of dismissing all film music as classical music- seem to be.



The answer Dave to my way of thinking might lie in the idea that personal artistry and profundity expresses only itself in a concert work and not any extraneous aspects that severely limit the reach of the expression - music for music's sake. One could also argue, depending upon one's tastes, that because film music has to have immediate appeal for commercial reasons (whilst not drawing too much attention to itself for the most part), and is therefore written as such, then this is also a limit on a composer's personal expressive reach. Also, approved film music is most likely to include the aesthetic and emotional input of a director, and/or producer and even an editor, not to mention a music producer or a supervisor, irrespective of the technical demands. It may even include 'influence' from a temp track. You very often have to 'let go' of your best moments in a cue and leave them lying on the proverbial cutting room floor.

The composer often has a battle on his hands getting music approved via committee and trying to please many egos within a deadline and get paid is a great motivator to compromise all round musically speaking. The "A" list of composer's are known for their way of thinking and sounding and are employed for those very reasons, but even their voices are hampered by the reality and practicalities of scoring. One thinks of Zimmer's cue in Gladiator where he had no choice but to pastiche Prokofiev's 'Romance' from Lt. Kije, not exactly the most personal of utterances right? Worse still was Horner's utter rip-off of Britten's 'Sanctus' from his 'War Requiem'. Admittedly Horner was under a severe and pressing deadline with which to try and conquer the temp track of Britten's. Regardless of that, the music ended up more Britten than Horner and as a result also ended up in court. These are extreme examples of how individual expression is compromised in scoring but instances like this and how they affect a resulting score are a contributing factor imv as to the ambiguity of film score status in the concert hall. It has to be said too that only a handful of film composers actually have the training to create concert music or rather, have 'classical' training that infuses and informs their film work.

So the trials and compromises of film scoring are not ideal conditions with which to create art to the highest of standards we hear in the concert hall imo. That said, I don't object to the end result of a committe process being in a concert hall programme for the most part. But the purity if you like, of a composer's expression is severly restricted and maybe even tainted in film work and at worst not in evidence at all. This may or may not matter to the listener who prefers immediacy in music. It bothers me slightly because as I've mentioned, what the composer writes for film is not what they would write for the concert hall at all, Williams, Hermann and others prove this and I personally know it. Oh, and the art of music has much more to offer than instant gratification imo.

I'm not engaging you on Fernyhough because I know where that's coming from with you and we'll never agree aesthetically speaking because I don't bemoan the decline of CP writing as much as you do ....

EDIT...I've just remembered that a well known classically trained and respected composer used to have a bonfire party when he'd completed a film score to ceremoniously burn the manuscripts, such was the disdain he had for the resulting music. Damn though, I can't remember who it was...Fabulin any ideas? He was a golden age composer iirc.


----------



## EdwardBast

dissident said:


> I would think that bringing up financial incentives is niggling. The question is, if Swan Lake can be considered in purely musical terms apart from the ballet setting, why can't a film score?


Asked and answered. I've said they can be judged on that basis.



VoiceFromTheEther said:


> I agree with Edward Bast. There can be no mistaking of the finale of TLC as presented above (a chain of unmodified themes) for a symphonic movement. At the same time, the themes of prof. Henry Jones and of the Holy Grail are magnificent and deserve to be mentioned with respect. The scherzo music is excellent as well. Where theme writing is concerned, Williams has few peers and no superiors.


Williams's score is good film music. I always understood it, like the movie itself, as a campy homage to/parody of the conventions of earlier adventure films and scores.


----------



## EdwardBast

DaveM said:


> I understand that people have differing views on film music. Personally, rather than argue points of individual negative perceptions, I go back to asking why Avant-Garde works that remove so much of what constituted classical music for centuries are accepted so easily as CM while film music which often retains significant elements of CM is rejected so quickly and absolutely (by some).


The answer is easy for me: The only viable definition of CM is the institutional one. The Avant-garde works are centrally products of the institution in all of their facets, film scores usually aren't.


----------



## HansZimmer

ClassicalMaestro said:


> It's not classical music, it's modern music.


@ClassicalMaestro so do you classical music as "ancient music"?


----------



## HansZimmer

mikeh375 said:


> From the composing pov, there is a considerable difference in mindset, circumstance, technique and crucially, expressive freedom between composing a cue/theme for film and writing music for its own sake. As a result of this I find that if one defines concert music as being an expression of the composer's own, untrammelled personality and artistry, as indeed I do, then it becomes that bit harder to see a justification for music that is dictated to in every aspect - from timings through to orchestration - to be classed _unequivocably_ in the same way as perhaps a symphony, concerto or sonata.
> 
> Opera and ballet are not included in my distinction because music written for those genres is largely free from external expressive restraint other than service to dialogue, story telling and/or danceability. Likewise, there is no strict enforcement of timings, orchestration (other than numerical) and the composer's mindset and creative options have as much freedom in the language they use along with the expressive reach they wish to convey.
> 
> That said, I'm personally very happy to hear the best film work in the concert hall and love a lot of it. I can also see why others wont be bothered with the distinctions I make here. But a someone who has worked in both disciplines I am acutely aware that there is a fundamental difference in the compositional process for the two genres that utterly dictates the musical result. As always ymmv and on this, mine still does occasionally, especially when JW is on the programme.


@mikeh375 do you work for Hollywood? Is it possibile to know on which scores did you work?


----------



## mikeh375

HansZimmer said:


> @mikeh375 do you work for Hollywood? Is it possibile to know on which scores did you work?


I did do some. I'll PM you.


----------



## 59540

EdwardBast said:


> The answer is easy for me: The only viable definition of CM is the institutional one. The Avant-garde works are centrally products of the institution in all of their facets, film scores usually aren't.


I don't know. Isn't the purpose of the "avant garde" to push the envelope so much that it becomes outside the institution? Then it becomes"establishment" which seems the opposite of "avant garde". I don't think avant garde really exists anymore in the absence of artistic barriers.


----------



## EdwardBast

dissident said:


> I don't know. *Isn't the purpose of the "avant garde" to push the envelope so much that it becomes outside the institution?* Then it becomes"establishment" which seems the opposite of "avant garde". I don't think avant garde really exists anymore in the absence of artistic barriers.


No. "It" isn't an entity capable of purpose. Avant garde might be in opposition to establishment, but that has nothing to do with its institutional membership; An institution can accommodate all ranges of products from the conservative to the radical.


----------



## 59540

EdwardBast said:


> No. "It" isn't an entity capable of purpose. Avant garde might be in opposition to establishment, but that has nothing to do with its institutional membership; An institution can accommodate all ranges of products from the conservative to the radical.


So what's the institutional linkage between Brahms and Ferneyhough? If one of "its" functions is to separate Chopin from the Rolling Stones from Jerry Goldsmith, I wouldn't say it's incapable of purpose.


----------



## EdwardBast

dissident said:


> So what's the institutional linkage between Brahms and Ferneyhough? If one of "its" functions is to separate Chopin from the Rolling Stones from Jerry Goldsmith, I wouldn't say it's incapable of purpose.


Wikipedia, particularly the first bits of each entry, answers your question. (They're both classically trained composers.)

The musical avant-garde ("It") at any moment comprises individuals whose purposes are not unitary or united by a common manifesto, so the group as a whole cannot be said to have a purpose — or a function, for that matter.


----------



## 59540

EdwardBast said:


> Wikipedia, particularly the first bits of each entry, answers your question. (They're both classically trained composers.)
> 
> The musical avant-garde ("It") at any moment comprises individuals whose purposes are not unitary or united by a common manifesto, so the group as a whole cannot be said to have a purpose.


I'm sorry, "it" in my statement immediately above was referring to the "institution". I didn't realize the "it" you were referring to is that avant-garde. But "purpose" in that case can refer to function rather than specific, conscious effort. I still don't think there's such a thing anymore. Avant garde is establishment.


----------



## EdwardBast

dissident said:


> I'm sorry, "it" in my statement immediately above was referring to the "institution". I didn't realize the "it" you were referring to is that avant-garde. But "purpose" in that case can refer to function rather than specific, conscious effort. I still don't think there's such a thing anymore. Avant garde is establishment.


The it i was referring to was the it you were originally referring to.  Why don't we just agree to fail to agree or disagree?


----------



## 59540

EdwardBast said:


> The it i was referring to was the it you were originally referring to.  Why don't we just agree to fail to agree or disagree?


It's fine with me.


----------



## Fabulin

Speaking of institutions, there is a Julliard sub-library named after Williams (since 2011?), which features / will feature, amongst other items, a complete collection of his manuscripts:









and here is Williams stopping there at the invitation of the school last week to give some instruction to the orchestra and young conductors in how to rehearse his music:


----------



## Enthusiast

dissident said:


> I'm sorry, "it" in my statement immediately above was referring to the "institution". I didn't realize the "it" you were referring to is that avant-garde. But "purpose" in that case can refer to function rather than specific, conscious effort. I still don't think there's such a thing anymore. Avant garde is establishment.


I don't suppose that the avant garde has a single unified function unless it be to participate in the development and evolution of classical music. Even those composers who have rubbished the classical music of the past (usually in their younger days - for example, Boulez saying that all opera houses should be burned down, a statement that led to his being detained in an airport decades later) are participating in that venture.


----------



## Sid James

mikeh375 said:


> The answer Dave to my way of thinking might lie in the idea that personal artistry and profundity expresses only itself in a concert work and not any extraneous aspects that severely limit the reach of the expression - music for music's sake. One could also argue, depending upon one's tastes, that because film music has to have immediate appeal for commercial reasons (whilst not drawing too much attention to itself for the most part), and is therefore written as such, then this is also a limit on a composer's personal expressive reach. Also, approved film music is most likely to include the aesthetic and emotional input of a director, and/or producer and even an editor, not to mention a music producer or a supervisor, irrespective of the technical demands. It may even include 'influence' from a temp track. You very often have to 'let go' of your best moments in a cue and leave them lying on the proverbial cutting room floor.


I think that film work won't suit every composer's personality. What you say rings true for Bernstein, who wasn't happy how most of his score for _On the Waterfront_ ended up on the cutting room floor. Even though it was an acclaimed score (it got an Oscar nomination) he didn't do any more film scores again. The symphonic suite he arranged from the movie includes its themes and also much of the material that didn't make it to screen.

The need to collaborate, and basically compromise ideas, is most similar to opera, where composer and librettist in particular have to work very closely. Its no surprising that film composers tend to form close working relationships, because then the whole process of give and take becomes second nature (e.g. Herrmann-Hitchcock, Goldsmith-Schaffner, Williams-Spielberg).

There are also examples where directors have in effect exploited composers, a good example being how Kubrick used Ligeti's music in _2001: A Space Odyessy_ without telling the composer.
Ligeti had to go to court to get a flat rate and royalties, even though its true that the movie was like free publicity. Ironically, Ligeti said that when he visited the USA, people thought he was a film composer. It seems that back in that time, many in the film industry saw composers as having the same sort of second class status as they faced with opera companies centuries before. During Handel's time, star singers would dictate the content of operas. He was among the first composers to assert his own artistic vision by challenging the singers.

We've talked about composers who led somewhat of a double life, composing for film and the concert hall. One of these was Richard Rodney Bennett, who was as eclectic as you can get, studying at Darmstadt with Boulez, working as a jazz and classical pianist, and as a composer for film and the concert hall. In a 1990 interview, he admitted that while movie music didn't utilise all of this musical ability, it paid the bills and kept him continuously working in music throughout his career (unlike colleagues who had to do music on the side while their days jobs where in areas like teaching children and hospitality, which had nothing to do with creating music).


----------



## Simon Moon

I first want to point out, that the title of this thread is a bit of "poisoning the well".

The OP states in his thread title, that orchestral music composed for film, is in fact, classical music. Then they ask, why do some people not agree with his conclusion. 

Just because music is orchestral, and even if it is composed by classically trained composers, does not make it classical music. 

This 2008 article for The Guardian states my feelings pretty clearly:

Can Film Music Ever be Classical?

"Whether a piece is classical or not has nothing to do with the forces involved, but with the way in which it is intended to be listened to. Classical music is designed to be considered, contemplated and - being the most abstract of all the art forms - to provoke a truly subjective response in each of its listeners. Film music, on the other hand, is meant to accompany moving pictures, to provide an objective commentary to the on-screen action. Robbed of that on-screen imagery, it loses much of its meaning. "


----------



## HansZimmer

EvaBaron said:


> Whether a piece is classical or not has nothing to do with the forces involved, but with the way in which it is intended to be listened to. Classical music is designed to be considered, contemplated and - being the most abstract of all the art forms - to provoke a truly subjective response in each of its listeners. Film music, on the other hand, is meant to accompany moving pictures, to provide an objective commentary to the on-screen action. Robbed of that on-screen imagery, it loses much of its meaning. Found this in the guardian





Simon Moon said:


> I first want to point out, that the title of this thread is a bit of "poisoning the well".
> 
> The OP states in his thread title, that orchestral music composed for film, is in fact, classical music. Then they ask, why do some people not agree with his conclusion.
> 
> Just because music is orchestral, and even if it is composed by classically trained composers, does not make it classical music.
> 
> This 2008 article for The Guardian states my feelings pretty clearly:
> 
> Can Film Music Ever be Classical?
> 
> "Whether a piece is classical or not has nothing to do with the forces involved, but with the way in which it is intended to be listened to. Classical music is designed to be considered, contemplated and - being the most abstract of all the art forms - to provoke a truly subjective response in each of its listeners. Film music, on the other hand, is meant to accompany moving pictures, to provide an objective commentary to the on-screen action. Robbed of that on-screen imagery, it loses much of its meaning. "


It's your opinion, but an opinion must be logically coherent.

If you tell me that the music that Beethoven wrote for the Egmont play is not classical music because the play suggests the emotions that you have to feel I still don't agree with you, but at least is a coherent opinion.

My opinion, however, is that classical music can be a part of a greater artistic work, just like any other kind of music. Is jazz not jazz if it's written for a film?


----------



## Ludwig Schon

I frankly doubt John Williams or Hans Zimmer write even a small fraction of their film scores. It’s all done by algorithms and graduate minions, under contract, earning buttons…


----------



## HansZimmer

Ludwig Schon said:


> I frankly doubt John Williams or Hans Zimmer write even a small fraction of their film scores. It’s all done by algorithms and graduate minions, under contract, earning buttons…


There is a simple rule in economy.

If doing what Hans Zimmer and John Williams do was so easy, the cost of their work would be low. In reality, they are paid about 2 million dollars for one film score.

No one is so stupid to pay 2 million dollars for something that anyone is able to do. The reality is that only a few persons have the talent of Hans Zimmer and John Williams and this is why they can ask 2 million dollars.


----------



## mikeh375

Ludwig Schon said:


> I frankly doubt John Williams or Hans Zimmer write even a small fraction of their film scores. It’s all done by algorithms and graduate minions, under contract, earning buttons…


Zimmer has a team and is actually quite a creative force himself, but Williams is a trained composer and relies solely on his own substantial musical wits. Apparently even JW's short score is so detailed in its scoring (and around 12 staves deep in places), that orchestrators feel more like copyists. If you are referring to a DAW when you mention algorithms, then believe me, the DAW also needs talented musical manipulation if a composer is to have any chance of a career in of film scoring.


----------



## pianozach

Simon Moon said:


> I first want to point out, that the title of this thread is a bit of "poisoning the well".
> 
> The OP states in his thread title, that orchestral music composed for film, is in fact, classical music. Then they ask, why do some people not agree with his conclusion.
> 
> Just because music is orchestral, and even if it is composed by classically trained composers, does not make it classical music.
> 
> This 2008 article for The Guardian states my feelings pretty clearly:
> 
> Can Film Music Ever be Classical?
> 
> "Whether a piece is classical or not has nothing to do with the forces involved, but with the way in which it is intended to be listened to. Classical music is designed to be considered, contemplated and - being the most abstract of all the art forms - to provoke a truly subjective response in each of its listeners. Film music, on the other hand, is meant to accompany moving pictures, to provide an objective commentary to the on-screen action. Robbed of that on-screen imagery, it loses much of its meaning. "


Well, then, where does "programmatic" Classical Music stand with your definition? Programmatic music is meant to conjure images, and stating that film music "loses much of its meaning" when robbed "of that on-screen imagery" is an opinion; subjective to the point of being an irrelevant position. 

*Tam O'Shanter overture by Sir Malcolm Arnold*


----------



## Luchesi

I was actually taught by a music teacher that CM is the classiest (the highest level and sophisticated, highest style) music there is.


----------



## 59540

Luchesi said:


> I was actually taught by a music teacher that CM is the classiest (the highest level and sophisticated, highest style) music there is.


Well I've been assured elsewhere that if you believe it, it's true enough.


----------



## DaveM

Simon Moon said:


> I first want to point out, that the title of this thread is a bit of "poisoning the well".
> 
> The OP states in his thread title, that orchestral music composed for film, is in fact, classical music. Then they ask, why do some people not agree with his conclusion.
> 
> Just because music is orchestral, and even if it is composed by classically trained composers, does not make it classical music.
> 
> This 2008 article for The Guardian states my feelings pretty clearly:
> 
> Can Film Music Ever be Classical?
> 
> "Whether a piece is classical or not has nothing to do with the forces involved, but with the way in which it is intended to be listened to. Classical music is designed to be considered, contemplated and - being the most abstract of all the art forms - to provoke a truly subjective response in each of its listeners. Film music, on the other hand, is meant to accompany moving pictures, to provide an objective commentary to the on-screen action. *Robbed of that on-screen imagery, it loses much of its meaning. "*


That simply isn’t true of all film music. If it were, film soundtracks would lose a lot of their interest/value. The fact is that some soundtracks contain a lot of standalone quality music which is what people buy a soundtrack to hear. Watching the on-screen imagery is not necessary.

Examples:


----------



## arpeggio

It appears to me that some film scores can be considered classical and some can not. 
When I studied music as an undergrad I learned that there were certain methods employed by classical composers in order to structure their works. We studied some of these in form and analysis, and orchestration classes. I learned of many of these methods in a jazz arranging class I took in grad school.
If a composer employs the same methods in his film score it seems to me that one could consider it classical.


----------



## 59540

> *Robbed of that on-screen imagery, it loses much of its meaning.*


The same thing could be said about orchestral excerpts from Wagner's operas.


----------



## Forster

HansZimmer said:


> Is jazz not jazz if it's written for a film?


Well quite. But does that make the entirety of the soundtrack, a single coherent jazz composition? I ask because it seems those who wish to argue for film music being "classical" would like to say that a "classical soundtrack" is a single coherent composition.

Of course, I may have that wrong, but I did ask you several pages ago why this question matters, and thus far, you've chosen not to answer. Please put me right if I've got it wrong.


----------



## DaveM

Forster said:


> Well quite. But does that make the entirety of the soundtrack, a single coherent jazz composition? I ask because it seems those who wish to argue for film music being "classical" would like to say that a "classical soundtrack" is a single coherent composition.
> 
> Of course, I may have that wrong, but I did ask you several pages ago why this question matters, and thus far, you've chosen not to answer. Please put me right if I've got it wrong.


Who is saying that? I don’t know what you mean by ‘a classical soundtrack’. A quote would be helpful.


----------



## arpeggio

I am seventy-five. When I was younger in America there was a significant anima in the classical music community toward film music.
Why? I do not know. My guess was that it was snobbery.
Today that is no longer the case.


----------



## Simon Moon

DaveM said:


> That simply isn’t true of all film music. If it were, film soundtracks would lose a lot of their interest/value. The fact is that some soundtracks contain a lot of standalone quality music which is what people buy a soundtrack to hear. Watching the on-screen imagery is not necessary.
> 
> Examples:


I've seen both those movies, more than once, and from my standpoint, the music, while very effective in the context of the films, does not hold up on its own.

There are dozens of soundtracks I feel are quite brilliant in context with the films, but I have no interest in listening to them on their own.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

HansZimmer said:


> There is a simple rule in economy.
> 
> If doing what Hans Zimmer and John Williams do was so easy, the cost of their work would be low. In reality, they are paid about 2 million dollars for one film score.
> 
> No one is so stupid to pay 2 million dollars for something that anyone is able to do. The reality is that only a few persons have the talent of Hans Zimmer and John Williams and this is why they can ask 2 million dollars.


While this is true it also applies to pop songwriters like Max Martin.


----------



## Truculence

"Classical" is a misnomer of convenience, for the most part to cover various music mostly written in Europe, when it used to be the popular music of that continent. Those who latch onto classical usually latch onto features such as beauty, instrumental music, a combination of ignorance and snobbery, and the "blurring of generations" when perceiving old things. In high school, a difference of even four years is a huge deal. But people see a 70 year old and 100 year old, and most would think they were graduated the same year of high school.

Thus, music is "classical" or not due to the combination of age, locale, and the people's own self-made delusions about the music based on a combination of history, a presumption of older generations being a bunch of intellectual monks, ignorance and being a "sophistocrat".
Such a phenomena is not restricted to fans of so-called classical. Elvis, the Beatles, Michael Jackson are now in the esteemed, intellectually edifying level of respect and the more "visceral and carnal" aspects of their musical prowess are swept as mere artifacts of history, which is for the same reason everyone thinks their grandma was a prude and not some hippie living the "free love" lifestyle. 

Ignorance of history is understandable but is the leading cause of people think older composers lived in a bubble. But the likes of Beethoven did write for money; he could also "jam", aka improvise, with the best of them, and he had to fish for support through dedicating works to nobles. The "industry" was the nobility, although Archduke Rudolph was a true friend, while execs these days are far colder predators. Beethoven's most popular work amongst his contemporaries was the Septet. 

There also was not monolithic consensus in "classical music". Beethoven also hated Rossini's style. If everyone followed Beethoven in a cultish manner, then Rossini's music should be erased from history; I doubt people would want that when it is good, especially using The Barber of Seville Overture in those Merrie Melodies cartoons. 

It is a misnomer also because the "industry" changed over the course of centuries, and so did styles. As it stands, the syncopation age has never ended since Mozart's time.


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

Truculence said:


> people see a 70 year old and 100 year old, and most would think they were graduated the same year of high school.
> (...)
> If everyone followed Beethoven in a cultish manner, then Rossini's music should be erased from history; I doubt people would want that when it is good, especially using The Barber of Seville Overture in those Merrie Melodies cartoons.


I think it is a good moment to observe that people on Talk Classical tend to speak of cartoons from the 1930s-1960s as if they were a contemporary thing, especially in discussions of music popularization and presence in the broader culture.


----------



## mikeh375

Just as an aside given the OP's name, I watched 'Dune' last night. Zimmer's Oscar for the score was certainly well deserved imv. The music is absolutely not classical in the Williams sense and amid the 'Gladiator'-esque ethnicity, there was also the usual sound design approach to the scoring in places, brilliantly done and immensely effective in situ, adding real emotional wallop and power to many scenes.
Hans Zimmer is no John Williams, but then again, John Williams is no Hans Zimmer.


----------



## Fabulin

mikeh375 said:


> Hans Zimmer is no John Williams, but then again, John Williams is no Hans Zimmer.


Safe to say lumping the two together is just very unhelpful in general.

In the interviews I've heard and read, Zimmer tends to position himself on the eclectic side, closer to the late Ennio Morricone [whose prolificness and poly-stylist command over the music of his time Zimmer once compared to J.S.Bach's]. Other influences on his music involve rock, metal, and German music in general, of which classical (Bach, Beethoven, Wagner) is only a part. To me the classical influences in his music have only been noticeable in his thematic writing pre-Interstellar, and even then only when the drama asked for a more serious mode.

To Zimmer, just as to the vast majority of today's composers active in the media, Williams is 'out there' in a league and niche of his own, 'the classical guy' who has earned the world's respect for his ways with ancient tools. And truth be told, he has been working for such a status for 65 years now; 'the classical guy' is what Williams has been in the industry since the 1950s, even back when he was just a jazzman studio pianist, when his touch was still freshly influenced by his Julliard teacher Rosina Lhévinne.


----------



## Enthusiast

DaveM said:


> That simply isn’t true of all film music. If it were, film soundtracks would lose a lot of their interest/value. The fact is that some soundtracks contain a lot of standalone quality music which is what people buy a soundtrack to hear. Watching the on-screen imagery is not necessary.
> 
> Examples:


Strange how similar to each other the two are. And both could have been written some 100 years before the first cinema opened - but would probably have not survived if they had been. I've no problem with you or anyone else enjoying this as standalone music but do think an experienced listener (as you undoubtably are) would recognise the difference between these and recognised classical music.


----------



## HansZimmer

NoCoPilot said:


> "The Fabulous Baker Boys" was scored by Dave Gruisin, who is a bona fide jazz composer. Of course the soundtrack is jazz. Same deal with "I Want To Live!" by Johnny Mandel or "Bird" about Charlie Parker any number of other jazz soundtracks. You wouldn't hire a non-jazz musician to write the soundtrack for a movie about jazz.
> 
> I can't speak for the "many people [who] think that classical music composed for film scores is not classical music" -- whatever "classical music" means -- but I can speak for myself. Film cues are usually short, tied to the visuals on-screen, and intended to support the emotions displayed on-screen. Do you know of any symphonies composed for film? Keyboard sonatas? Violin concertos?
> 
> I don't. Music "composed for film scores" is music composed for film scores, nothing more. Just because it's played by an orchestra that doesn't automatically make it "classical music," any more than kittens born in your oven automatically become muffins.


Ok, but in which way is incindental music for tragedies different? Short musical pieces for different scenes.

The overture is a symphonic movement like the end credits in a film.


----------



## pianozach

HansZimmer said:


> Ok, but in which way is incindental music for tragedies different? Short musical pieces for different scenes.
> 
> The overture is a symphonic movement like the end credits in a film.


Much like ballet music. Tchaikovsky's Nutcracker, and Stravinsky's The Rite of Spring both come to mind. Short musical pieces for different scenes.


----------



## HansZimmer

EdwardBast said:


> Is it? If it were, then one should be able to name shared stylistic features common to all instances of the style that are not also common to other styles. So what does an early Baroque monody have in common with a Mozart mass, a Schnittke string quartet, a Webern piano piece, or Penderecki's Threnody Hiroshima? Give it a go. I think you'll find that classical music is not in fact a style and that the only thing uniting all classical works is their loose association with a set of ever changing, steadily evolving social institutions and industries. If you think about it a little further you will likely find that it actually has more to do with intent than style.


@EdwardBast ok, but if "classical" is the name of the intent, then what is the name of the style? 

For example, if someone writes a piece that has the style of Moonlight Sonata, but the intent is not what you call "classical music", then we will say that only Moonlight Sonata is classical music, but both pieces are X (where X is the style).
My question is simple: what is the name of X?

As I don't know any name to indicate X, I simply use the term "classical music" to refer to the style.
I know that in the encyclopedia, classical music is considered a synonim of "art music", so by this definition there is no such thing as an ordinary classical music composer: you are a classical music composer only if you are an excellent composer.
However, what I don't understand is why there is not any pop music or rock music piece in the "art music". If it is about quality, and not about the style, then even a rap music piece could be "classical music".

For example, "Lose Yourself" of Eminem could be considered "classical music". Look at this technical analysis.


----------



## arpeggio

I have a question that may have a bearing on this discussion.
Was European Concert Music the first genre to employ music notation?


----------



## EdwardBast

HansZimmer said:


> @EdwardBast ok, but if "classical" is the name of the intent, then what is the name of the style?


As I state quite clearly, there is no classical style. I never said anything remotely like classical "is the name of the intent," WTH that means, I only said intent has more to do with defining the general category of classical music than style does.

Once again, any argument that a piece of film music is classical music because it sounds stylistically like Beethoven or Bach or Webern or whomever, or because it uses similar instrumentation, harmony, etc., is misguided. It becomes classical music to the extent that it is performed by classical ensembles on concert and chamber series, is learned by conservatory students, and so on. Once again, the only viable definition of classical music is the institutional one.


----------



## EdwardBast

arpeggio said:


> I have a question that may have a bearing on this discussion.
> Was European Concert Music the first genre to employ music notation?


No. A "Hurrian love song" was notated nearly 4,000 years ago. Ancient Greece had notated music. Medieval sacred music was notated as well.


----------



## arpeggio

I remember in music history class we studied the history of music notation and the notation employed in Medieval sacred music evolved into modern notation. It took a few centuries.
I was asking if Classical Indian Music, Chinese, Japanese. _etc. _have a system of notation.


----------



## pianozach

EdwardBast said:


> No. A "Hurrian love song" was notated nearly 4,000 years ago. Ancient Greece had notated music. Medieval sacred music was notated as well.


While the Hurrians _*were*_ Middle Eastern, which sort of counts I suppose, Greece, and sacred Medieval music are decidedly European. Mostly.


----------



## Sid James

Music in the concert hall can and does rely on visuals, at least in terms of simultaneous screenings. I see the debates about absolute and programmatic music as being more relevant to the aesthetics of the 19th century (Hanslick versus Wagner and all that). Of course, that doesn't mean film music is classical. At this point, I still see it as a sort of hybrid genre.

In any case, I don't see any reason to be despondent about film music increasingly entering the concert hall. Many of the listeners who come to listen to film music in the concert hall are having their first experience of live music played by a full symphony orchestra. Many children who are learning an instrument will inevitably learn the _Harry Potter_ theme, having already seen the movie and read the books. The accounting departments of orchestras are no doubt satisfied how the simultaneous screenings virtually guarantee a full house.

I think that there's still no clear answer, but in practical terms film music has become an important part of programming for many orchestras around the world.


----------



## DaveM

Enthusiast said:


> Strange how similar to each other the two are. And both could have been written some 100 years before the first cinema opened - but would probably have not survived if they had been. I've no problem with you or anyone else enjoying this as standalone music but do think an experienced listener (as you undoubtably are) would recognise the difference between these and recognised classical music.


I do understand the difference while at the same time recognizing similarities with some, not all, film music. But, that aside, as I’ve said/inferred before, what I don’t accept is that avant-garde music gets to be under the classical music tent, but not film music. IMO, some film music is far closer to the ‘look and feel’ of CM than music that has thrown out melody and harmony.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

I've skipped most of this thread as I've been recovering from COVID these last few days, and have argued extensively in the John Williams thread on these points. But to reiterate:

1. Obviously a lot of the question depends on how one defines "classical music." I take the term, as it is commonly used (both here and off the forum) to refer to "music scored for orchestra (or chamber extractions thereof) and played by high quality professional orchestras for the enjoyment of their patrons."

2. I think people are frequently conflating the claim "film music is classical music" with the claim "film music example X is as good as/better than classical music example Y." The latter need not be true for the former to be true, and often isn't.

3. If opera overtures and incidental music played by orchestras are classical music, then so is film music played by an orchestra (regardless of its quality level).


----------



## Forster

EdwardBast said:


> As I state quite clearly, there is no classical style.


And yet, for the film goer with some acquaintance with Mozart or Bach or Beethoven or Wagner or Holst (etc), they will hear what sounds like "classical style" in many traditional film scores.

The OP may be resistant to answering my question about the _purpose _of their question, but they are asking about "*classical music composed for film scores*", and I for one know what that refers to.

Marianelli's score for Atonement





Zimmer's score for Gladiator





Desplat for King's Speech


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

I think Mussorgsky and Rimsky would have recognized Zimmer's Gladiator battle music as of the same kind as their own programmatic / stage music.


----------



## HansZimmer

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Whether film music "is" classical music is a wrong question that doesn't need to be "answered" but "dissolved."





Forster said:


> @HansZimmer
> Music composed for films draws on different musical traditions, including that which is considered "classical". To that extent, it can be called classical. I'm not clear what the purpose of the argument is for labelling "classical-for-film" as "classical".


@Eva Yojimbo @Forster

So, are you asking "why does it matter", it's only a word.

In reality, it doesn't matter for me. I have a folder in my phone called "Classical Music" and there I put all the music that I perceive as "classical": doesn't matter who is the author and what is the intent. My personal classification is about the style.
So, I have Beethoven's music, classical film music and classical videogame music mixed in the same folder.
My phone is a private property and I do what I want.

The radio Classic FM follows my same definition of "classical music". This is why in the "Classic FM Hall Of Fame" everything with a classical sound is accepted: from historic classical music, to videogame music.
Classic FM is a private property too, so they do what they want.


So, why would classification matters? Well, it matters when you argue with someone. For example, if Classic FM had two or three managers, they might have a discussion about what they should accept in the "Classic FM Hall of Fame".

In this forum I posted a piece that was accepted in the "Classic FM Hall of Fame" and that I have in the folder of my phone. A moderator told me that I shouldn't post it because it's from a videogame, so he used the "intent argument" ("it's not about the style, but about the intent/context").
So, this is an other example: a moderator of this forum must decide what is "classical music" because in the main section you can post only classical music.
This forum is a private property too and the admin does what he wants, just like Classic FM.

So, to conclude, it doesn't really matter, because everyone follows the classification he wants in his private property.
This thread is only to talk, like any other thread in this forum.
I was simply curious to hear the arguments of people who think that classical music is not about the style but about the intent/context.

I'm reading that arguments but I still think that Classic FM has the most pragmatic view on this subject: being open to novelties.


----------



## Luchesi

Why do we now teach that Pluto is not planet. For clarity and educational categories.

CM vs film music. Same thing. Is it a good analogy?


----------



## pianozach

HansZimmer said:


> @Eva Yojimbo @Forster
> 
> So, are you asking "why does it matter", it's only a word.
> 
> In reality, it doesn't matter for me. I have a folder in my phone called "Classical Music" and there I put all the music that I perceive as "classical": doesn't matter who is the author and what is the intent. My personal classification is about the style.
> So, I have Beethoven's music, classical film music and classical videogame music mixed in the same folder.
> My phone is a private property and I do what I want.
> 
> The radio Classic FM follows my same definition of "classical music". This is why in the "Classic FM Hall Of Fame" everything with a classical sound is accepted: from historic classical music, to videogame music.
> Classic FM is a private property too, so they do what they want.
> 
> 
> So, why would classification matters? Well, it matters when you argue with someone. For example, if Classic FM had two or three managers, they might have a discussion about what they should accept in the "Classic FM Hall of Fame".
> 
> In this forum I posted a piece that was accepted in the "Classic FM Hall of Fame" and that I have in the folder of my phone. A moderator told me that I shouldn't post it because it's from a videogame, so he used the "intent argument" ("it's not about the style, but about the intent/context").
> So, this is an other example: a moderator of this forum must decide what is "classical music" because in the main section you can post only classical music.
> This forum is a private property too and the admin does what he wants, just like Classic FM.
> 
> So, to conclude, it doesn't really matter, because everyone follows the classification he wants in his private property.
> This thread is only to talk, like any other thread in this forum.
> I was simply curious to hear the arguments of people who think that classical music is not about the style but about the intent/context.
> 
> I'm reading that arguments but I still think that Classic FM has the most pragmatic view on this subject: being open to novelties.


I've found that the Mods in this forum are pretty open-minded about what constitutes _*"Classical Music"*_.

There's probably a few reasons for this, likely dominated by their observation that everyone has their own opinions on the definition.

They may also collectively think that Classical Music is a rather large and vague umbrella. 

They may also take into account other educated opinions, such as the folks at *Classic FM*.

Personally, I think that classical music is about BOTH the style AND the intent/context.


----------



## HansZimmer

EdwardBast said:


> As I state quite clearly, there is no classical style. I never said anything remotely like classical "is the name of the intent," WTH that means, I only said intent has more to do with defining the general category of classical music than style does.
> 
> Once again, any argument that a piece of film music is classical music because it sounds stylistically like Beethoven or Bach or Webern or whomever, or because it uses similar instrumentation, harmony, etc., is misguided. It becomes classical music to the extent that it is performed by classical ensembles on concert and chamber series, is learned by conservatory students, and so on. Once again, the only viable definition of classical music is the institutional one.


Ok, but this post doesn't anwser my question. 

My question is simple: if we can't call "classical music" the music with a classical style that is not insitutional, then how should we call it? Every style of music has a name, so you have to tell me what is the name of the style.


----------



## pianozach

Luchesi said:


> Why do we now teach that Pluto is not planet. For clarity and educational categories.
> 
> CM vs film music. Same thing. Is it a good analogy?


No, probably not.

Pluto WAS classified as a planet, but as scientific description became less vague, it was decided that Pluto doesn't really fit the more specific description of "planet", for "clarity and educational categories".

Film Music has not been expelled or downgraded from Classical Music. It is its own broad genre that overlaps with the broad genre of Classical Music. Some film music shares characteristics considered to be "Classical". Some Classical Music has been used as film music. Some Film Music has been adapted into Suites that are regularly played by symphony orchestras in Classical Music concerts.

Nothing has "changed". 

I do, however, find it amusing that some folks will vehemently argue the topic as though the issue is an "Either/Or" thing. 

_"You're either WITH us, or you support the enemy!"_


----------



## HansZimmer

Eva Yojimbo said:


> While this is true it also applies to pop songwriters like Max Martin.


Yes, and I know what you want to say.

Despacito is junk music and the author probably earned a lot of money.

Right, but remember that the market is not about "abstract values", but to give to some people what they want.
If you tell the author of Despacito "Is this intellectual music?" he will probably answer "What the **** are you saying? This is summer music for parties, to dance while you are drunk".

The author earns money simply because he is able to produce material that works well inside a determined context. The market competion is always inside a specific context.

We can say the same thing of films as "How High". The author obviously didn't want to produce an intellectual film, but a film that was totally idiot. He earns money because he is good at producing this kind of films.


Now, a film like Schindler's List is not a comedy and is not idiot. It's a serious and drammatic film. Spielberg asked John Williams to compose the score because he knew that he has the qualities to produce the music for a great film.
When the Disney asked Hans Zimmer to compose the score of the Lion King, he thought that it would have been a relaxing work, until they didn't tell him that it was a drama about a little boy losing his father. At that moment, he realized that he had to compose a serious score. Zimmer also lost his father when he was a child, and this is probably why he put so much effort in that score: the only Oscar he won, before Dune.

What I want to say is that the music that film music composers are required to produce is not "comedy music" like Despacito. You have to be able to write music with a strong emotional impact.


Despacito.


----------



## Luchesi

pianozach said:


> No, probably not.
> 
> Pluto WAS classified as a planet, but as scientific description became less vague, it was decided that Pluto doesn't really fit the more specific description of "planet", for "clarity and educational categories".
> 
> Film Music has not been expelled or downgraded from Classical Music. It is its own broad genre that overlaps with the broad genre of Classical Music. Some film music shares characteristics considered to be "Classical". Some Classical Music has been used as film music. Some Film Music has been adapted into Suites that are regularly played by symphony orchestras in Classical Music concerts.
> 
> Nothing has "changed".
> 
> I do, however, find it amusing that some folks will vehemently argue the topic as though the issue is an "Either/Or" thing.
> 
> _"You're either WITH us, or you support the enemy!"_


Well now, consider that Pluto was never a planet, except to those who were uninformed (or overly sentimental for their own personal reasons). 
Even Clyde realized this back in the 1980s. He was a friend of mine (he was so old-school that he couldn’t accept the Big bang, he thought the universe had to be infinite and eternal because he had checked about a million stars (in the 1920s), another very human assumption). 

I think it’s the same with helpful music categories.


----------



## arpeggio

The following is an interesting interview between Sarah Willis, a hornist of the Berlin Philharmonic, and John Williams.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

HansZimmer said:


> @Eva Yojimbo @Forster
> 
> So, are you asking "why does it matter", it's only a word...
> 
> So, why would classification matters? Well, it matters when you argue with someone....
> 
> So, to conclude, it doesn't really matter, because everyone follows the classification he wants in his private property.
> This thread is only to talk, like any other thread in this forum.


If you read that article I linked to the point is subtler than "why does it matter, it's only a word." Language is basically a system for both mental categorization and the communication of that categorization to others. Reality is much more complex than our language tends to capture, so these categories, especially large ones, tend to include things with many objective similarities and differences. When that happens, asking "does X belong to Y category?" is asking a wrong question because Y category already includes disparate things with many different properties. It is only coherent to ask "does X have A, B, and C objective properties?" 

Since someone mentioned Pluto we can also use that as an example: if you know everything there is to know about Pluto--it's size, weight, orbit, what it's made of, environment, etc.--asking "is it really a planet" is basically a useless question because answering isn't going to change reality and you already know everything there is to know about Pluto. Discussions of mental categories can be useful just so that everyone is on the same page to facilitate communication, but anything beyond that is a fool's errand. This thread should've ended when everyone agreed on the ways in which film music is similar and dissimilar to other "typical" examples of "classical music."


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

HansZimmer said:


> Yes, and I know what you want to say.
> 
> Despacito is junk music and the author probably earned a lot of money.
> 
> Right, but remember that the market is not about "abstract values", but to give to some people what they want.
> If you tell the author of Despacito "Is this intellectual music?" he will probably answer "What the **** are you saying? This is summer music for parties, to dance while you are drunk".
> 
> The author earns money simply because he is able to produce material that works well inside a determined context. The market competion is always inside a specific context.
> 
> We can say the same thing of films as "How High". The author obviously didn't want to produce an intellectual film, but a film that was totally idiot. He earns money because he is good at producing this kind of films.
> 
> 
> Now, a film like Schindler's List is not a comedy and is not idiot. It's a serious and drammatic film. Spielberg asked John Williams to compose the score because he knew that he has the qualities to produce the music for a great film.
> When the Disney asked Hans Zimmer to compose the score of the Lion King, he thought that it would have been a relaxing work, until they didn't tell him that it was a drama about a little boy losing his father. At that moment, he realized that he had to compose a serious score. Zimmer also lost his father when he was a child, and this is probably why he put so much effort in that score: the only Oscar he won, before Dune.
> 
> What I want to say is that the music that film music composers are required to produce is not "comedy music" like Despacito. You have to be able to write music with a strong emotional impact.
> 
> 
> Despacito.


Though we may disagree on values I think we agree that there is different music for different purposes and for each purpose there are artists/composers/etc. that are uniquely talented for writing the kind of music that fits that purpose. Such is true of film music (and different types of music for different types of films( and such is true of mainstream popular music.


----------



## EdwardBast

HansZimmer said:


> Ok, but this post doesn't anwser my question.
> 
> My question is simple: if we can't call "classical music" the music with a classical style that is not insitutional, then how should we call it? Every style of music has a name, so you have to tell me what is the name of the style.


One could validly say that a bit of film music was written in the style of Baroque classical music (more or less competently), or in the style of Romantic Era classical music, or in imitation Classical style (The captial C indicating late 18thc classical music), but none of these statements or conditions makes any of this music classical music. It becomes classical music only when the institutions of Western art music adopt it into the canon and use it for the purposes of classical concert music.


----------



## pianozach

Luchesi said:


> Well now, consider that *Pluto was never a planet*, except to those who were uninformed (or overly sentimental for their own personal reasons).
> Even Clyde realized this back in the 1980s. He was a friend of mine (he was so old-school that he couldn’t accept the Big bang, he thought the universe had to be infinite and eternal because he had checked about a million stars (in the 1920s), another very human assumption).
> 
> I think it’s the same with helpful music categories.


By TODAY'S definition, yes, "Pluto was never a planet". 

But it was the definition that changed, not Pluto. Years ago Pluto was a planet, by definition.

Pluto was discovered on February 18th, 1930

Pluto was reclassified from a planet to a "dwarf planet" in 2006. You can safely refer to it as a "former planet". 

_[The more I write the word "*planet*" the stranger the word looks.]_

From 1930 when it was discovered up until 2006, Pluto was also considered the ninth _*planet*_ of the _solar system. _It used to be considered a planet.


----------



## DaveM

EdwardBast said:


> ..It becomes classical music only when the institutions of Western art music adopt it into the canon and use it for the purposes of classical concert music.


Who are these people who are messing with my world of classical music? Is there a phone number?


----------



## DaveM

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Since someone mentioned Pluto we can also use that as an example: if you know everything there is to know about Pluto--it's size, weight, orbit, what it's made of, environment, etc.--asking "is it really a planet" is basically a useless question because answering isn't going to change reality and you already know everything there is to know about Pluto...


’Useless question’? I suppose if your world is armchair philosophizing. For scientists (in this case, the International Astronomical Union) Pluto was voted to be an exoplanet because of characteristics of cosmological importance. To take your analogy to its inevitable conclusion, why not put classical music as a class of popular music? We know everything about it and answering the question as to whether it is really popular music isn’t going to change reality.


----------



## Forster

HansZimmer said:


> @Eva Yojimbo @Forster
> 
> So, are you asking "why does it matter", it's only a word.


Me?. No.



HansZimmer said:


> @Eva Yojimbo @Forster
> So, why would classification matters? Well, it matters when you argue with someone. For example, if Classic FM had two or three managers, they might have a discussion about what they should accept in the "Classic FM Hall of Fame".
> 
> In this forum I posted a piece that was accepted in the "Classic FM Hall of Fame" and that I have in the folder of my phone. A moderator told me that I shouldn't post it because it's from a videogame, so he used the "intent argument" ("it's not about the style, but about the intent/context").
> So, this is an other example: a moderator of this forum must decide what is "classical music" because in the main section you can post only classical music.
> This forum is a private property too and the admin does what he wants, just like Classic FM.
> 
> So, to conclude, it doesn't really matter, because everyone follows the classification he wants in his private property.
> This thread is only to talk, like any other thread in this forum.
> I was simply curious to hear the arguments of people who think that classical music is not about the style but about the intent/context.
> 
> I'm reading that arguments but I still think that Classic FM has the most pragmatic view on this subject: being open to novelties.


Thanks for trying to answer my question. You may have missed my first post where I asked it. I'm repeating it here because the post contained a reply to you (in bold):



Forster said:


> @HansZimmer
> In response to your question ("Why do many people think that classical music composed for film scores is not classical music?) I would ask,
> "Why do some people feel the need to argue that "classical" music composed for film scores IS "classical" music?"
> 
> *Music composed for films draws on different musical traditions, including that which is considered "classical". To that extent, it can be called classical. *I'm not clear what the purpose of the argument is for labelling "classical-for-film" as "classical".


I didn't see the post which you say the moderator said had to be moved because it was 'videogame music' not classical, so I can't comment on that specifically. I'm not sure I agree with the idea that music should be classified by 'intent' (certainly not 'intent' alone) and that style doesn't count. Clearly, style does count if one wishes to discuss "classical music composed for film scores " as distinct from "jazz/folk/pop/rock composed for film scores": the intent is the same, the styles are different.

As others have already pointed out, determining what may or may not be classified as "classical music" rather depends on what one's criteria are for "classical". It's a messy business and open to interpretation. Personally, I'm happy with the classification "film music" which is much less messy.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

DaveM said:


> ’Useless question’? I suppose if your world is armchair philosophizing. For scientists (in this case, the International Astronomical Union) Pluto was voted to be an exoplanet because of characteristics of cosmological importance. To take your analogy to its inevitable conclusion, why not put classical music as a class of popular music? We know everything about it and answering the question as to whether it is really popular music isn’t going to change reality.


I probably should've clarified that it's useless in regards to questions about Pluto. It's still useful in the same way all clear language is useful, which is what you're describing. Your retort about "classical music as popular music" doesn't follow anyway. What people are trying to communicate by saying "classical music" is usually very different than what they're trying to communicate by saying "popular music," but I'd wager what most non-scientist people are trying to say when they say "planet" doesn't meaningfully differ regardless of how we categorize Pluto. The film Vs classical music distinction may or may not differ depending on what, precisely, is being communicated.

Also, you're fond of leveling this accusation of "armchair philosophizing," but what in the world do you think yourself and others are doing when you discuss philosophical topics?


----------



## Sid James

VoiceFromTheEther said:


> I think Mussorgsky and Rimsky would have recognized Zimmer's Gladiator battle music as of the same kind as their own programmatic / stage music.


The Russian influence on film scores has been around for ages. When Dmitri Tiomkin accepted his Oscar for _High Noon_, his thank you speech was to dead composers like Rimsky-Korsakov, Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninov. I really like Jarre's_ Lawrence of Arabia_, the title music is straight out of _Scheherazade:_








Forster said:


> As others have already pointed out, determining what may or may not be classified as "classical music" rather depends on what one's criteria are for "classical". It's a messy business and open to interpretation. Personally, I'm happy with the classification "film music" which is much less messy.


This isn't just responding to you, but to discussion on the last two pages in particular. I think that the traditional view of it being a stand alone specialised genre still holds, but that's being challenged by it entering the outer edges of the performance canon of classical. That's why I think its a hybrid genre.

This doesn't downgrade film music, it just means that its come a long way since it began about a century ago. There's a whole body of literature on it now, some of it from the classical community. If you look on youtube, comments below film scores often show extensive knowledge of film repertoire (e.g. comparison of a composer's scores to others he's done, or to scores by others).

There's no doubt that film music is drawing listeners into the fold of classical who otherwise wouldn't listen to it. Classic FM has played a part in this, for example I've got a book written by its presenters (_Everything you ever wanted to know about classical music, but where afraid to ask_, 2012) and about a third of the composers listed in the chapter dealing with the 21st century are film composers (e.g. Shore, Williams, Horner).

Film music reflects the diversity of music, including within classical. So you do get scores by classically trained composers that don't sound like anything much from core repertoire (e.g. experimental, avante-garde, serial, etc). This has been going on for a while. Early examples include Harry Partch's _Windsong_, Giovanni Fusco's _Hiroshima Mon Amour_ and Jerry Goldsmith's _Planet of the Apes_. There are also movies which incorporate existing post-1950's classical (e.g. _Shutter Island_, which includes music by Cage, Feldman, Penderecki and so on).


----------



## DaveM

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I probably should've clarified that it's useless in regards to questions about Pluto. It's still useful in the same way all clear language is useful, which is what you're describing. Your retort about "classical music as popular music" doesn't follow anyway. What people are trying to communicate by saying "classical music" is usually very different than what they're trying to communicate by saying "popular music," but I'd wager what most non-scientist people are trying to say when they say "planet" doesn't meaningfully differ regardless of how we categorize Pluto. The film Vs classical music distinction may or may not differ depending on what, precisely, is being communicated.
> 
> Also, you're fond of leveling this accusation of "armchair philosophizing," but what in the world do you think yourself and others are doing when you discuss philosophical topics?


Using commonsense logic: short and to the point, no equivocating, no parsing, no circular reasoning, avoiding words that would better fit a philosophy class debate than a classical music forum. Less is more.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

DaveM said:


> Using commonsense logic: short and to the point, no equivocating, no parsing, no circular reasoning, avoiding words that would better fit a philosophy class debate than a classical music forum.


"Commonsense logic" may be completely irrational and frequently is, and if you think the things you describe are somehow mutually exclusive to "armchair philosophizing" then you're delusional. Also, when a classical music forum begins discussing subjects better fit for a philosophy class I'd say people are perfectly justified in using words (whatever you think they are) that are better fit for a philosophy class. The alternative would be to say people on a classical music forum have no business discussing philosophy (as most here don't).

Also, I'll literally PayPal you money if you can point to anywhere where I've used circular reasoning.


----------



## 59540

Eva Yojimbo said:


> The alternative would be to say people on a classical music forum have no business discussing philosophy (as most here don't).
> ...


Wow, that sounds kind of elitist.


----------



## ClassicalMaestro

HansZimmer said:


> @ClassicalMaestro so do you classical music as "ancient music"?


No, classical music is a period of the classical era.


----------



## ClassicalMaestro

There's a lot of Hans Zimmer fans. What about Howard Shore? Lord of the Rings was a masterpiece in my opinion.


----------



## ClassicalMaestro

dissident said:


> I don't understand the reasoning there. If it's effective it's not "high art"? Bernard Herrmann's score for Psycho is one of the most effective ever written, and I do think it's "high art". The question is whether it belongs in the same category as a Shostakovich symphony.


You can clearly hear Shostakovich in Hermann's score.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

dissident said:


> Wow, that sounds kind of elitist.


Indeed. Good thing I'm not saying that, though. I just think if we're going to discuss philosophy we shouldn't object to people using philosophical terminology. That's, of course, my subjective opinion. You are free to subjectively think it's fine to discuss philosophy where nobody should use philosophical terms... all the while being quite ignorant about philosophy... which, last I checked, was actually something the "elitists" here were against when it came to aesthetics.


----------



## arpeggio

The bottom line is that irregardless of the status of Pluto, most of us here consider many film scores to be a form of classical music.


----------



## Enthusiast

HansZimmer said:


> I'm reading that arguments but I still think that Classic FM has the most pragmatic view on this subject: being open to novelties.


Classic FM is far from being open to novelty. Witness the recent "scandal" wrt some Hendrix by Nigel Kennedy. But more importantly, naming pastiche as contemporary classical music while totally side-lining genuine contemporary classical music will end up killing classical music.


----------



## Enthusiast

We are attempting to theorise or abstract what we think (/feel/know) in this discussion. What really matters is how the music sounds, what it does to us, and the problem here is that we are experiencing the music differently. Many here feel that the orchestral music that Hollywood often uses for its big films provides an experience similar to listening to genuine classical music while many of the rest of us listen to it (examples have often been posted) only to find the experience not at all similar to the experience of listening to true classical music. And it works the same the other way: many who believe that much film music is classical experience much contemporary classical music as something very different from the older classical music and reject it. I don't think the gulf between us can be bridged as far as this matter is concerned.


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

Enthusiast said:


> more importantly, naming pastiche as contemporary classical music while totally side-lining genuine contemporary classical music will end up killing classical music.


This reminds me of those fairy tales where an imposter, who had been patiently constructing a narrative about his rights to a throne, is suddenly confronted with the obvious heir. Fear and doom-mongering ensue, but every child knows who the right one is.


----------



## 59540

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Indeed. Good thing I'm not saying that, though. I just think if we're going to discuss philosophy we shouldn't object to people using philosophical terminology. That's, of course, my subjective opinion. You are free to subjectively think it's fine to discuss philosophy where nobody should use philosophical terms... all the while being quite ignorant about philosophy... which, last I checked, was actually something the "elitists" here were against when it came to aesthetics.


No, you said "most here don't". Is philosophy an objective area of study? How much do you know about music?


----------



## Enthusiast

VoiceFromTheEther said:


> This reminds me of those fairy tales where an imposter, who had been patiently constructing a narrative about his rights to a throne, is suddenly confronted with the obvious heir. Fear and doom-mongering ensue, but every child knows who the right one is.


It makes me sad to think of people missing the absolute beauty of, say, Boulez and feeling that they are making an informed and intelligent choice instead of just being unwilling to put in the work involved in opening up to great art. They miss so much and choose to fill that gap with dreck. The vast majority of educated people these days are similarly dismissive of Beethoven and Brahms but those who have got past that celebration of ignorance really throw it all away by mirroring it when it comes to where classical music is now.


----------



## 59540

VoiceFromTheEther said:


> This reminds me of those fairy tales where an imposter, who had been patiently constructing a narrative about his rights to a throne, is suddenly confronted with the obvious heir. Fear and doom-mongering ensue, but every child knows who the right one is.


Which is which? How (exactly and precisely) is Brian Ferneyhough more the heir of Beethoven than John Williams is?


----------



## EdwardBast

ClassicalMaestro said:


> No, classical music is a period of the classical era.


Not quite correct. If one wants to write about music of the Classical Era it's capitalized. If one is using the general term for Western art music it's lower case.


----------



## HansZimmer

ClassicalMaestro said:


> No, classical music is a period of the classical era.


@ClassicalMaestro you should know that the so called "classical period" is one thing, while "classical music" an other thing. The latter is used to indicate the style of the music, and it covers everything from baroque music to modern music.


----------



## ClassicalMaestro

HansZimmer said:


> @ClassicalMaestro you should know that the so called "classical period" is one thing, while "classical music" an other thing. The latter is used to indicate the style of the music, and it covers everything from baroque music to modern music.


I don't consider film music classical music just because we add an orchestra or a string section. Call it orchestral music or just film music. Composers who actually compose for the symphony then I would agree lets call it classical music. Film music is too commercial and every composer on youtube wants to be film composer these days just because they can use plugins. John Williams doesn't use plugins he has a Baldwin piano and writes his notes on manuscript paper with a pencil.


----------



## Enthusiast

dissident said:


> Which is which? How (exactly and precisely) is Brian Ferneyhough more the heir of Beethoven than John Williams is?


I think you are agreeing with the Voice (who made a fairy tale out of the part of my post that s/he quoted). But the answer to your question largely concerns the hugeness of his ambition leading to the creation of music that few if any of us could have even imagined. Williams - for all his skill and his talent for writing music for big Hollywood films - looks backwards and repackages the ideas of the past in ways that have appeal for many people. I cannot see any meaningful way of suggesting that he is a modern day Beethoven!


----------



## 4chamberedklavier

Enthusiast said:


> I think you are agreeing with the Voice (who made a fairy tale out of the part of my post that s/he quoted). But the answer to your question largely concerns the hugeness of his ambition leading to the creation of music that few if any of us could have even imagined. Williams - for all his skill and his talent for writing music for big Hollywood films - looks backwards and repackages the ideas of the past in ways that have appeal for many people. I cannot see any meaningful way of suggesting that he is a modern day Beethoven!


This makes me wonder what looking forward means in the context of music composition. Is there a point where it just stops? If being innovative means doing something nobody else has done before, then I'd say that there's a point where everything will have already been done. If it instead means that you aim popularize sounds & techniques that aren't widely being used, then there would never be an end since everything cannot be popular at the same time.


----------



## 59540

4chamberedklavier said:


> This makes me wonder what looking forward means in the context of music composition. Is there a point where it just stops? If being innovative means doing something nobody else has done before, then I'd say that there's a point where everything will have already been done. If it instead means that you aim popularize sounds & techniques that aren't widely being used, then there would never be an end since everything cannot be popular at the same time.


Well I'm not sure. I think Ferneyhough and many other contemporary composers are heirs to Beethoven in being pretty much unconcerned with audience reception for the sake of self-expression. However there's nothing in Beethoven as initially off-putting as a lot of 20th century and contemporary music. Beethoven isn't entirely "to hell with the audience". Personally I think there's a kind of break in the early 20th century in classical music. I don't really see much connecting Bach-Mozart-Beethoven with Stockhausen-Cage-Xenakis other than a genre label. Film scores are simply more accessible generally and not self-consciously esoteric and exclusionary.


----------



## Enthusiast

dissident said:


> Well I'm not sure. I think Ferneyhough and many other contemporary composers are heirs to Beethoven in being pretty much unconcerned with audience reception for the sake of self-expression. *However there's nothing in Beethoven as initially off-putting as a lot of 20th century and contemporary music. Beethoven isn't entirely "to hell with the audience". Personally I think there's a kind of break in the early 20th century in classical music. I don't really see much connecting Bach-Mozart-Beethoven with Stockhausen-Cage-Xenakis other than a genre label. *Film scores are simply more accessible generally and not self-consciously esoteric and exclusionary.


A lot of people, the vast majority in Britain at least, find Beethoven "initially off-putting" perhaps in the same way that you may find Ferneyhough so. 

The connections I see between Bach-Mozart-Beethoven with Stockhausen-Cage-Xenakis are called hyphens! Or to put it more seriously, your grouping is part of your argument. The first grouping is made up of major (probably the most major) composers of a prolonged period while the second grouping is of three contemporaries who represent a small part of the classical music of their time. It can be answered only in relation to the three contemporary composers you name, who represent an extreme edge of the classical music of their time. The similarity of the six names - what they all have in common - is not a label so much as the reason the label is applied!


----------



## 59540

Enthusiast said:


> A lot of people, the vast majority in Britain at least, find Beethoven "initially off-putting" perhaps in the same way that you may find Ferneyhough so.
> 
> The connections I see between Bach-Mozart-Beethoven with Stockhausen-Cage-Xenakis are called hyphens! Or to put it more seriously, your grouping is part of your argument. The first grouping is made up of major (probably the most major) composers of a prolonged period while the second grouping is of three contemporaries who represent a small part of the classical music of their time. It can be answered only in relation to the three contemporary composers you name, who represent an extreme edge of the classical music of their time. The similarity of the six names - what they all have in common - is not a label so much as the reason the label is applied!


Well in any case I'm not making a value judgement. There's a lot of 20th century and even contemporary music that I love and find fascinating. I'm going to have to look into the work of the aforementioned Boulez a little more. He's always been one of my blind spots.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ He was for me, too. Then (suddenly, it seemed) he seemed easy and a joy to follow. It's always worth keeping the door a little ajar for if and when the music suddenly seems wonderful.


----------



## HansZimmer

Eva Yojimbo said:


> While I'm not terribly interested in how or whether to classify film music as classical music, these examples do bring to mind perhaps my biggest issue with much (certainly not all) film music as classical music: why does so much film sound like pastiches of romanticism and impressionism? I can't think of any artistic field that's dominated by pastiches from art that's over a century old by now. I may dislike the Ferneyhough, but at least it is undoubtedly contemporary and isn't just a regurgitation or pale imitation of sounds and styles that are ancient by now. Most all great composers wrote music that was contemporary to their own time rather than imitating sounds/styles that preceded them by a century. Maybe JS Bach comes the closest in holding onto the Renaissance's emphasis of polyphony, but it's not as if Bach didn't also incorporate contemporary influences as well like Vivaldi. I also don't know why anyone would want to listen to the latter in isolation as opposed to any number of romantic or impressionistic composers whom I think most would agree did similar things but usually better. Of course, if you do prefer the latter then don't let me stop you, but it is a point worth considering in the discussion.


@Eva Yojimbo

I don't see what is the problem. If there are people who like romantic music, why shouldn't composers write new romantic music for people who like it? It's not that we have to abandon everything of the past and replace it with new things. If romanticism is good, then we should keep the tradition alive. And this is why I like score composers. While the industry of popular music is producing trap, the composers in film and videogame industry are keeping a respectable musical tradition alive. This is the good capitalism.


----------



## DaveM

Enthusiast said:


> A lot of people, the vast majority in Britain at least, find Beethoven "initially off-putting" perhaps in the same way that you may find Ferneyhough so..


From the Daily Mail a few years ago:
_Britain has appeared immovable on the subject of its favourite composer, with Mozart being crowned king of classical music year after year. But Beethoven has taken the spoils in the Classic FM poll for the first time, with three of his works featuring in the top ten most popular pieces. The German composer had a total of 19 pieces in the top 300, with his increased popularity being linked to his music featuring in Hollywood films._


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

dissident said:


> No, you said "most here don't". Is philosophy an objective area of study? How much do you know about music?


Yes, I was articulating what the position of a philosophical elitist would be, which is something I don't actually agree with. I was giving DaveM a "taste of his own medicine" so to speak. 

Philosophy covers many subjects, some of which are subjective and others objective. Something like ontology is objective, while ethics is subjective, while meta-ethics is objective. Much philosophy is about definitions so probably strictly subjective but, a different kind of subjectivity than something like aesthetics. 

As for how much I know about music that's difficult to quantify. I haven't formally studied it. I know how to read a score and pick out chords, tonal relations, and keys if you give me enough time (ie, I may not can name them as I'm reading a long with a piece). I can hear chord/key changes but I can't name intervals and chords by ear. I understand and can follow most all classical forms (fugues, sonatas, canons, passacaglias, etc.). I'd wager I'm somewhere in the middle between a completely ignorant amateur and an expert. Honestly, though, music theory is not the most complicated thing to learn; the difficult part of music theory is ear (and eye) training so that it all becomes intuitive and automatic.


----------



## Enthusiast

DaveM said:


> From the Daily Mail a few years ago:
> _Britain has appeared immovable on the subject of its favourite composer, with Mozart being crowned king of classical music year after year. But Beethoven has taken the spoils in the Classic FM poll for the first time, with three of his works featuring in the top ten most popular pieces. The German composer had a total of 19 pieces in the top 300, with his increased popularity being linked to his music featuring in Hollywood films._


I am not sure what you are saying or what a poll of the listeners of Class FM tells us. It certainly does not represent the views of the British public who would be hard pressed to name more than one or two composers and would not recognise their music.


----------



## Forster

Enthusiast said:


> [...] Many here feel that the orchestral music that Hollywood often uses for its big films provides an experience similar to listening to genuine classical music while many of the rest of us listen to it (examples have often been posted) only to find the experience not at all similar to the experience of listening to true classical music. [...]


Some of us fit into neither of the groups you describe. Mostly, I listen to film music in context. I pay little attention to what it "sounds like" (romantic, modern, whatever). I might notice if it's particularly apt, or melodic, or energising, or if it's by Hans Zimmer or Danny Elfman. I've just been watching No Time To Die (Zimmer) and enjoyed the movie. The music, when I noticed it, seemed like typical Zimmer, for a typical Bond movie. I'm not interested in going to a concert to hear it, nor buying a CD of it, nor streaming it on Spotify. I did find the use of the song from OHMSS over the final sequence and closing credits quite moving.

In other words, I listened to "film music", not anything else.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

HansZimmer said:


> @Eva Yojimbo
> 
> I don't see what is the problem. If there are people who like romantic music, why shouldn't composers write new romantic music for people who like it? It's not that we have to abandon everything of the past and replace it with new things. If romanticism is good, then we should keep the tradition alive. And this is why I like score composers. While the industry of popular music is producing trap, the composers in film and videogame industry are keeping a respectable musical tradition alive. This is the good capitalism.


There's no "problem," per se, but it does basically treat classical music like a museum piece. It's natural for art-forms, mediums, and genres to progress and change. It's also natural that some people will like/dislike those changes, but it's really rare (again, I can't think of other examples) for there to be such a robust market for such older styles. I have no real objection to there being music catering to the tastes of those wanting such older music/styles, but it should also be easier to understand why some would just rather stick to the originals and hear new classical music that actually sounds new. That's more or less my position. I can appreciate film music in context, and there are some rare examples I do enjoy as I would most classical music (I posted THIS EXAMPLE earlier), but generally if I want to hear "new classical music" I want to hear something that sounds new; and if I want to hear romanticism/impressionism I'll put on the composers from those eras.


----------



## DaveM

Enthusiast said:


> I am not sure what you are saying or what a poll of the listeners of Class FM tells us. It certainly does not represent the views of the British public who would be hard pressed to name more than one or two composers and would not recognise their music.


I assumed we were talking about people interested in the subject. I wouldn’t ask those who have never played, watched or followed golf who the best golfers are or were.


----------



## DaveM

Commercial break.


----------



## DaveM

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Yes, I was articulating what the position of a philosophical elitist would be, which is something I don't actually agree with. I was giving DaveM a "taste of his own medicine" so to speak...


Anything to fix the alleged delusions and incoherence.


----------



## Enthusiast

DaveM said:


> I assumed we were talking about people interested in the subject. I wouldn’t ask those who have never played, watched or followed golf who the best golfers are or were.


My point has been that the vast majority of educated people (in Britain, anyway), people who have some knowledge and appreciation of literature and art, tend to know nothing about classical music. I have seen TV quizzes, the ones that get middle classed contestants, where no one can name more than three or four composers and no one can recognise the music (or the name of a major work) of any. Presenters who are seen as influencers openly say that an interest in classical music is a weird affectation. The size of even the Classic FM audience is very small in comparison with the size of the more or less educated population.


----------



## Sid James

Enthusiast said:


> We are attempting to theorise or abstract what we think (/feel/know) in this discussion. What really matters is how the music sounds, what it does to us, and the problem here is that we are experiencing the music differently. Many here feel that the orchestral music that Hollywood often uses for its big films provides an experience similar to listening to genuine classical music while many of the rest of us listen to it (examples have often been posted) only to find the experience not at all similar to the experience of listening to true classical music. And it works the same the other way: many who believe that much film music is classical experience much contemporary classical music as something very different from the older classical music and reject it. I don't think the gulf between us can be bridged as far as this matter is concerned.


I don't see it as a situation of one cancelling out the other. Film music isn't knocking contemporary classical off its perch, no more than contemporary is knocking off film music from its one.

Film music is entering a place in the concert hall alongside, or in addition to, other music mainstream orchestras play. Contemporary composers who fit well into the context of the existing core repertoire are likely to be programmed (e.g. Arvo Part, Philip Glass, John Rutter, and so on). Those looking for something more cutting edge can go elsewhere. New music ensembles - such as Ensemble Intercontemporain founded by the aforementioned Pierre Boulez - have been specialising in that aspect of classical for about fifty years.

Of course, there are other areas in classical, which are also catered for by specialised groups. Some listeners exclusively listen to one area, others divide their taste among the various options available.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ Yes, they do not need to be in competition. It was just that I have noticed over time that those posting passionately in favour of film music being a form of classical music tend to include many of the same people who feel a need to trash contemporary music. But the latter group is shrinking and far less active than they once were so maybe it matters less.

You seem to enjoy some more or less minimalist music but don't acknowledge that much of the music you call "more cutting edge" is written for orchestra (and including opera) and does get played (in Europe anyway) but probably not to the same audience that pays to sit and listen to, say, Williams.


----------



## fbjim

I happen to think that orchestral music written for film should be evaluated on the same level as electronic, pop, or rock music written for films, but there is obviously a performance practice based on playing this music. This is not to mention that a lot of electronic film music has little problem being "elevated" into the spheres of electronic music enthusiasts, while instrumental, "film-scorey" rock tracks (not including specific tracks, usually some kind of ballad, "written for a film") don't really have much uptake with rock listeners, etc


----------



## DaveM

Enthusiast said:


> ^ Yes, they do not need to be in competition. It was just that I have noticed over time that those posting passionately in favour of film music being a form of classical music tend to include many of the same people who feel a need to trash contemporary music..


Oh, I don’t think so. What I’ve seen is similar to the question I raise. If the more ‘extreme’ contemporary music such as a avante-garde is included as CM, then why wouldn’t film music? That isn’t trashing anything. At this point, I don’t much care anymore, but others do. And I’d like to have those who think film music has no business being a form of CM answer that question. Fwiw, one of the answers that it is the institutions of CM that decide these things doesn’t work for me.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

DaveM said:


> Anything to fix the alleged delusions and incoherence.


I see you still haven't recovered from your profound misunderstanding of my actual allegations, but I can't fix your misunderstandings when you just decide what I think without actually consulting me.


----------



## Sid James

Enthusiast said:


> ^ Yes, they do not need to be in competition. It was just that I have noticed over time that those posting passionately in favour of film music being a form of classical music tend to include many of the same people who feel a need to trash contemporary music. But the latter group is shrinking and far less active than they once were so maybe it matters less.


I doubt that the two are really connected in the real world.



> You seem to enjoy some more or less minimalist music but don't acknowledge that much of the music you call "more cutting edge" is written for orchestra (and including opera) and does get played (in Europe anyway) but probably not to the same audience that pays to sit and listen to, say, Williams.


Some listeners will specialise, others will be broad. 

I'm trying to relate things to reality, not talk about what is or isn't to my personal taste.

I think what matters for orchestras is that they balance the budget, even make a profit. Basically, warhorses with a smattering of new highbrow music (for want of a better term) won't pay the bills, which is why increasingly things like film, television and video game music is entering the concert hall. It doesn't matter whether the people who come to these concerts know highbrow classical or not. Its clear that there is a demand for music of this type live out there, and it pays well for orchestras to cater for it.

Of course, orchestras are playing more adventurous - or at least not so easily palatable - new music than the minimalists. Even those are basically token items by established composers (e.g. say Gubaidulina, Ades, or the recently departed Birtwistle).

I think its obvious that if a listener is in a city of any decent size, he or she will be able to find some other group than the city orchestra which plays more contemporary music (it can be a specialised ensemble, but in general, chamber groups are more likely to play this repertoire, a big reason is more favourable economies of scale). With these groups, you're also more likely to hear music by composers who aren't aged seventy or eighty. I'm not joking here. Their size can also be augmented to perform larger scale works.

I think a great thing about film music is that it exposes people to music, and they're unaware of it. When I saw the original _The Blues Brothers_ movie decades ago, I hardly knew the musicians featured - e.g. Ray Charles, James Brown, Aretha Franklin and so on. In effect, the movie introduced me to these, and I've listened to more music by them and others since.

The other thing is that movies are a great leveller. I think its good that they challenge the sort of attitude prevalent in the past in classical - that no matter what, you have to aspire to like highbrow music, because its good for you. I don't think that strategy is working anymore. Music isn't cod liver oil. Its better that people come to something from a position of enjoying it, rather than from feeling some need to conform to other people's notions of superior taste.

I'm not here to discuss opera in any depth, but the same sort of thing is happening there. Opera companies are now performing musicals as a way of making money and attracting new audiences.


----------



## EdwardBast

DaveM said:


> Oh, I don’t think so. What I’ve seen is similar to the question I raise. If the more ‘extreme’ contemporary music such as a avante-garde is included as CM, then why wouldn’t film music? That isn’t trashing anything. At this point, I don’t much care anymore, but others do. And I’d like to have those who think film music has no business being a form of CM answer that question. Fwiw, one of the answers *that it is the institutions of CM that decide these things doesn’t work for me*.


Who do you think decides then? Artistic directors and conductors make programming decisions for orchestras, chamber ensembles decide for themselves, writers of textbooks base their decisions on performance history and critical opinion (an indirect influence on canon formation) of musical works, educational institutions decide what rep is appropriate for their students. I'm sorry that reality doesn't work for you.


----------



## pianozach

Guys, guys.

*John Williams* just turned 90 years old in February.


----------



## DaveM

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I see you still haven't recovered from your profound misunderstanding of my actual allegations, but I can't fix your misunderstandings when you just decide what I think without actually consulting me.


Perhaps you should rethink the use of words such as ‘delusional’ and ‘not coherent’. Pretty hard to misunderstand their meaning.


----------



## DaveM

EdwardBast said:


> Who do you think decides then? Artistic directors and conductors make programming decisions for orchestras, chamber ensembles decide for themselves, writers of textbooks base their decisions on performance history and critical opinion (an indirect influence on canon formation) of musical works, educational institutions decide what rep is appropriate for their students. I'm sorry that reality doesn't work for you.


I understand what you’re saying and I should clarify that I would have to agree that it is an important part of the decision. But don’t the listeners, the people who buy the tickets, the sheet music and the recordings have or should have an important influence? The same programmers, conductors and musicians that provide/perform ’regular’ CM concerts will have concerts of the works of film composers in the same concert halls drawing a similar cross-section of audience.

My guess is that that happens far more frequently and with far more success than avante-garde works which have been deemed CM. I also hazard a guess that many in said audience would agree that they hear more similarity with traditional CM than avante-garde works (assuming they’ve even heard the latter). Thus, I wonder why those in the hallowed halls of academia et al would decide on what is under the CM tent without any outside influence/input.


----------



## Forster

pianozach said:


> Guys, guys.
> 
> *John Williams* just turned 90 years old in February.


So, he's old enough to be canon, surely?


----------



## Forster

Enthusiast said:


> My point has been that the vast majority of educated people (in Britain, anyway), people who have some knowledge and appreciation of literature and art, tend to know nothing about classical music. I have seen TV quizzes, the ones that get middle classed contestants, where no one can name more than three or four composers and no one can recognise the music (or the name of a major work) of any. Presenters who are seen as influencers openly say that an interest in classical music is a weird affectation. The size of even the Classic FM audience is very small in comparison with the size of the more or less educated population.


How does your point relate to the question posed by the OP?


----------



## Enthusiast

^ You need to read back to a statement I made days ago that was challenged by others. The point you are querying answers one of them.


----------



## Enthusiast

Sid James said:


> I think what matters for orchestras is that they balance the budget, even make a profit. Basically, warhorses with a smattering of new highbrow music (for want of a better term) won't pay the bills, which is why increasingly things like film, television and video game music is entering the concert hall. It doesn't matter whether the people who come to these concerts know highbrow classical or not. Its clear that there is a demand for music of this type live out there, and it pays well for orchestras to cater for it.


Orchestras can be subsidised (yes, I know that many conservatives here will be shocked by such a suggestion). It is worth investing in and making it available to all who have an interest. It enriches people's lives and this tends to have economic benefits. 



Sid James said:


> Of course, orchestras are playing more adventurous - or at least not so easily palatable - new music than the minimalists. Even those are basically token items by established composers (e.g. say Gubaidulina, Ades, or the recently departed Birtwistle).


Why "token"? You don't believe they are committed to that music? 



Sid James said:


> The other thing is that movies are a great leveller. I think its good that they challenge the sort of attitude prevalent in the past in classical - that no matter what, you have to aspire to like highbrow music, because its good for you. I don't think that strategy is working anymore. Music isn't cod liver oil. Its better that people come to something from a position of enjoying it, rather than from feeling some need to conform to other people's notions of superior taste.


The kind of levelling that you refer to is actually a dumbing down made to sound democratic. Classical music does tend to be an acquired taste and is probably only going to appeal to a small proportion of any population. But those who are wired to enjoy it should have the opportunity. They are still a substantial number. 

Your discussion likening classical music to cod liver oil says much about your experience of classical music but is a false analogy to the fact that it takes time and opportunity to enjoy classical music. To you they used to do it only to conform to some "people's notions of superior taste". But this puts people down even while claiming to represent them. It is you who wants them to only get the music that is instantly appealing. Of course, they can have that music but they should also have real opportunity to get to know classical music: that may not work for all but a significant minority (in no way a superior minority) will find it life enhancing. 



Sid James said:


> I'm not here to discuss opera in any depth, but the same sort of thing is happening there. Opera companies are now performing musicals as a way of making money and attracting new audiences.


European opera houses have been successfully performing new operas for some time. They haven't needed to dumb down to attract audiences to their shows.


----------



## EdwardBast

DaveM said:


> I understand what you’re saying and I should clarify that I would have to agree that it is an important part of the decision. But don’t the listeners, the people who buy the tickets, the sheet music and the recordings have or should have an important influence? The same programmers, conductors and musicians that provide/perform ’regular’ CM concerts will have concerts of the works of film composers in the same concert halls drawing a similar cross-section of audience.
> 
> My guess is that that happens far more frequently and with far more success than avante-garde works which have been deemed CM. I also hazard a guess that many in said audience would agree that they hear more similarity with traditional CM than avante-garde works (assuming they’ve even heard the latter). Thus, I wonder why those in the hallowed halls of academia et al would decide on what is under the CM tent without any outside influence/input.


Of course the audience influences the performance decisions. And yes, John Williams' (and others) music is more likely to be played on pops concerts or concerts in the park than Boulez. And it's more likely to be (or in fact, has been) recorded by pops orchestras in Boston, Cincinnati, etc. It's been accepted into a certain part of the "light classical" canon. The "hallowed halls of academia" would certainly acknowledge this success. You're expecting more? Why?


----------



## Enthusiast

DaveM said:


> If the more ‘extreme’ contemporary music such as a avante-garde is included as CM, then why wouldn’t film music? That isn’t trashing anything. At this point, I don’t much care anymore, but others do. And I’d like to have those who think film music has no business being a form of CM answer that question. Fwiw, one of the answers that it is the institutions of CM that decide these things doesn’t work for me.


Avant garde classical music is classical music. You can't change that. It needs to be played by classically trained musicians and is written by people who are steeped in the tradition - but the same can be said of some film music - and are trying to "say" (it's an unsuitable metaphor but the best we have) new and relevant things. You may not like all the directions that classical music has taken over the last 30 years (or even 50 years) but they are all part of classical music. Indeed, I doubt anyone enjoys all the different directions that are being taken (the diversification that started with the Romantics has accelerated greatly). There is much that I feel to be empty but there are many who disagree with me but here we are discussing the our tastes within modern classical music. 

Film music has not been considered as classical music. If you go back to the early posts of this thread you will see some reasons for how it might differ, reasons that have not been addressed by many in this thread. For example, EvaBaron quoted this (post #3):



> Whether a piece is classical or not has nothing to do with the forces involved, but with the way in which it is intended to be listened to. Classical music is designed to be considered, contemplated and - being the most abstract of all the art forms - to provoke a truly subjective response in each of its listeners. Film music, on the other hand, is meant to accompany moving pictures, to provide an objective commentary to the on-screen action. Robbed of that on-screen imagery, it loses much of its meaning.


Concert suites and other pieces, based on film music, might, then, be considered classical music. Post Walton and Prokofiev, I've not heard much of such music that I like but that's just a matter of taste.


----------



## Sid James

Enthusiast said:


> Orchestras can be subsidised (yes, I know that many conservatives here will be shocked by such a suggestion). It is worth investing in and making it available to all who have an interest. It enriches people's lives and this tends to have economic benefits.


There's nothing wrong with subsidies, and orchestras still receive a sizeable amount of these. Its obvious though that generating additional income, especially to increase viability, makes sense. Orchestras are there for the public, which includes people who might want to listen to film music rather than the standard fare.



> Why "token"? You don't believe they are committed to that music?


Its not their main game. Most of what orchestras play was composed between c. 1750 and 1950. If its new, its going to be by a big name composer whose career was established ages ago. That's hardly cutting edge. There's also the question of whether the piece will be played again. It might get recorded, but its chances of entering the repertoire are very slim. That's why I mentioned Part, Glass and Rutter. The likes of them at least have a few pieces which do get repeated airings. Otherwise, the core repertoire is a closed shop.

Classical music has become more and more specialised. This is also why more cutting edge new music has moved elsewhere. There are different groups playing different areas of the repertoire. Do you expect orchestras to perform Renaissance madrigals? String trios, quartets, octets, whatever? Music for brass band? How about electroacoustic works? Or music played on original instruments?



> The kind of levelling that you refer to is actually a dumbing down made to sound democratic. Classical music does tend to be an acquired taste and is probably only going to appeal to a small proportion of any population. But those who are wired to enjoy it should have the opportunity. They are still a substantial number.


It has potential to appeal to more people, but not in the way that you argue. Orchestras where set up in the 19th century. Mendelssohn basically set up the old format of presenting concerts - mixing old and new pieces. It is still there, but repertoire has largely remained stagnant since the 1950's. The inclusion of film music in the concert hall means that people who get to know music via films are encouraged to come to a live performance. There will also be others who encounter existing classical pieces at the movies (e.g. _Amadeus_ is a good example).

Democratic or not, ultimately its about economic necessity. "Wired" and unwired money is welcome at the box office, from both intelligent and dumb people.



> Your discussion likening classical music to cod liver oil says much about your experience of classical music but is a false analogy to the fact that it takes time and opportunity to enjoy classical music. To you they used to do it only to conform to some "people's notions of superior taste". But this puts people down even while claiming to represent them. It is you who wants them to only get the music that is instantly appealing. Of course, they can have that music but they should also have real opportunity to get to know classical music: that may not work for all but a significant minority (in no way a superior minority) will find it life enhancing.


Its not a false analogy. There's a whole lot of people who are happy to say go to a simultaneous screening event to hear the orchestra play their favourite score (e.g. _Lord of the Rings, Star Wars_, even _2001: A Space Odyessy_). To them, it might be no more than entertainment, a night out. They aren't looking for anything more than that. There's nothing wrong with that, they don't have any obligation to take their interest in classical music any further. Of course, there's nothing stopping them from taking it further if they want to.


----------



## Enthusiast

Sid James said:


> Its not their main game. Most of what orchestras play was composed between c. 1750 and 1950. If its new, its going to be by a big name composer whose career was established ages ago. That's hardly cutting edge. There's also the question of whether the piece will be played again. It might get recorded, but its chances of entering the repertoire are very slim. That's why I mentioned Part, Glass and Rutter. The likes of them at least have a few pieces which do get repeated airings. Otherwise, the core repertoire is a closed shop.
> 
> Classical music has become more and more specialised. This is also why more cutting edge new music has moved elsewhere. There are different groups playing different areas of the repertoire. Do you expect orchestras to perform Renaissance madrigals? String trios, quartets, octets, whatever? Music for brass band? How about electroacoustic works? Or music played on original instruments?
> 
> It has potential to appeal to more people, but not in the way that you argue. Orchestras where set up in the 19th century. Mendelssohn basically set up the old format of presenting concerts - mixing old and new pieces. It is still there, but repertoire has largely remained stagnant since the 1950's. The inclusion of film music in the concert hall means that people who get to know music via films are encouraged to come to a live performance. There will also be others who encounter existing classical pieces at the movies (e.g. _Amadeus_ is a good example).
> 
> Democratic or not, ultimately its about economic necessity. "Wired" and unwired money is welcome at the box office, from both intelligent and dumb people.


There is plenty of orchestral avant garde music. It is true that there are specialist ensembles catering for a lot of avant garde music (including quertets) but in Britain at least we do get quite a lot of new orchestral music. MacMillan (not a favourite of mine), Anna Clyne, Birtwistle and others (even Ferneyhough) are played quite often by British orchestras. Many British orchestras also have "composers in residence" writing music specifically for them. Yes, most orchestras programme a lot of meat and gravy music - the same pieces (some of them very great, many of them less great) and selections from the scores of popular film scores are joining this fayre. I've nothing against it or its capacity to generate income but those are not concerts that I have wanted to attend. Most orchestras of repute also programme concerts of less often played music - whether it be a less well known Haydn of Dvorak symphony, some Berlioz, Schmidt or Zemlinsky (all of these are quite rare), or something quite new. Those are the concerts that I (and, I suspect, most members here) might attend. They are also the ones more likely to be conducted by a "name".

I like a lot of music but have little time for music that, no matter how pleasant it might be, does not actually transport me. Of course, that is a matter of my taste.[/QUOTE]


----------



## DaveM

EdwardBast said:


> Of course the audience influences the performance decisions. And yes, John Williams' (and others) music is more likely to be played on pops concerts or concerts in the park than Boulez. And it's more likely to be (or in fact, has been) recorded by pops orchestras in Boston, Cincinnati, etc. It's been accepted into a certain part of the "light classical" canon. The "hallowed halls of academia" would certainly acknowledge this success. You're expecting more? Why?


I’m simply making a point. A few posters have rejected film music as CM and made it sound like it’s a no-brainer that avante-garde is. You have indicated how these decisions are made and clarified it more to my liking above. It’s interesting to me that a few here read my position as trying to eliminate avante-garde. No, I’m questioning why it gets to stay and film music has to go. (And again, I’m not all that invested in this. I decided to respond when a poster early on, without equivocation, totally rejected film music.)


----------



## pianozach

DaveM said:


> I’m simply making a point. A few posters have rejected film music as CM and made it sound like it’s a no-brainer that avante-garde is. You have indicated how these decisions are made and clarified it more to my liking above. It’s interesting to me that a few here read my position as trying to eliminate avante-garde. No, I’m questioning why it gets to stay and film music has to go. (And again, I’m not all that invested in this. I decided to respond when a poster early on, without equivocation, totally rejected film music.)


The biggest obstacle to coming to a reasonable conclusion in all of this is that there is no CONSENSUS as to the scope of the phrase CLASSICAL MUSIC . 

Of course, it all overlaps. Classical, avant-garde, experimental, pop, rock. 

Is ELEANOR RIGBY "classical". It's a string quartet with solo voice and vocal ensemble. 

Is Albrechtsberger Concertos for Jew's Harp, Mandora and Strings "classical"? Is the Jew's Harp a "Classical" instrument?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

DaveM said:


> Perhaps you should rethink the use of words such as ‘delusional’ and ‘not coherent’. Pretty hard to misunderstand their meaning.


The "delusional" was used in the context of an "if" conditional; and I already corrected you that I did not say "not coherent," I said "not _logically_ coherent." You have a pathological habit of misreading/misunderstanding me and you apparently don't believe in the principle of charity in discussion.


----------



## DaveM

Eva Yojimbo said:


> The "delusional" was used in the context of an "if" conditional; and* I already corrected you that I did not say "not coherent," I said "not logically coherent." You have a pathological habit of misreading/misunderstanding me *and you apparently don't believe in the principle of charity in discussion.


Well no, there is no ‘logically’ below. You’ve placed fast and loose with variations of ‘not coherent’. And just for the record. to say ‘_most people do not seem to have a very rationally thorough, coherent..view on the subject’_ is to suggest that you are the one who has the rational, coherent view and those who disagree have an irrational, incoherent view.



Eva Yohimbo said:


> What I've observed throughout this thread is that most people do not seem to have a very rationally thorough, coherent, and consistent view on this subject that is capable of explaining many (much less most) of all the relevant elements of artistic enjoyment and appreciation. (#442 in the ‘other’ thread)


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

DaveM said:


> Well no, there is no ‘logically’ below. You’ve placed fast and loose with variations of ‘not coherent’. And just for the record. to say ‘_most people do not seem to have a very rationally thorough, coherent..view on the subject’_ is to suggest that you are the one who has the rational, coherent view and those who disagree have an irrational, incoherent view.


You're absolutely correct, I used "rationally" instead of "logically." Pretty much the same thing (logic is one specific type of rationality). If I actually believed someone was incoherent I would say "I don't understand what you mean by X, can you explain/elaborate on X?" which I have done repeatedly. Yes, I obviously think I have a rationally coherent view and that others do not. If I thought others had a rationally coherent view then I would agree with them. That's how discussion/debate works. If you disagree with me then you must think my view is not rationally coherent... unless you just disagree with me for emotional reasons.


----------



## Sid James

Enthusiast said:


> There is plenty of orchestral avant garde music. It is true that there are specialist ensembles catering for a lot of avant garde music (including quertets) but in Britain at least we do get quite a lot of new orchestral music. MacMillan (not a favourite of mine), Anna Clyne, Birtwistle and others (even Ferneyhough) are played quite often by British orchestras. Many British orchestras also have "composers in residence" writing music specifically for them. Yes, most orchestras programme a lot of meat and gravy music - the same pieces (some of them very great, many of them less great) and selections from the scores of popular film scores are joining this fayre. I've nothing against it or its capacity to generate income but those are not concerts that I have wanted to attend. Most orchestras of repute also programme concerts of less often played music - whether it be a less well known Haydn of Dvorak symphony, some Berlioz, Schmidt or Zemlinsky (all of these are quite rare), or something quite new. Those are the concerts that I (and, I suspect, most members here) might attend. They are also the ones more likely to be conducted by a "name".
> 
> I like a lot of music but have little time for music that, no matter how pleasant it might be, does not actually transport me. Of course, that is a matter of my taste.


I think you're using avant garde in a historical sense. I don't know Clyne, but Macmillan, and Birtwistle are basically establishment. They're not cutting edge now. Ferneyhough's new complexity is like forty years old. What is cutting edge is played by specialist ensembles, or smaller ensembles. Going way back to when Boulez started conducting, he said one of his big motivations was because his own music wasn't being played properly. Later on, he founded Ensemble Intercontemporain. This trend started with Schoenberg. Those who knew contemporary music best took it over.

In any case, the people who like warhorses or contemporary classical as played by mainstream orchestras are the same old crowd who have been going to concerts for ages. Orchestras can rely on them to keep coming, but they aren't enough to ensure their viability in the medium to long term.

Classical isn't the only form of entertainment in town, and to survive it has to nourish and grow its audience. The growth, or the money, is coming from the areas orchestras have been moving into - film, video game and television music. In effect, its these new audiences that are subsidising the old warhorse/highbrow contemporary format.

Honestly, what "most members here" think about an issue like this has no bearing on what's happening in reality. Its the forces on the ground which are shaping the future of culture, including music. You might not be happy with what you call dumbing down, but the reality is that if they ignored this area of new growth, orchestras would be giving up a big part of their revenue. In the USA, the situation is already dire (but the causes there have little to do with repertoire). In other places like the UK, where the situation is better, it pays not to be complacent. What's being done now will have impact in decades to come.


----------



## Luchesi

pianozach said:


> By TODAY'S definition, yes, "Pluto was never a planet".
> 
> But it was the definition that changed, not Pluto. Years ago Pluto was a planet, by definition.
> 
> Pluto was discovered on February 18th, 1930
> 
> Pluto was reclassified from a planet to a "dwarf planet" in 2006. You can safely refer to it as a "former planet".
> 
> _[The more I write the word "*planet*" the stranger the word looks.]_
> 
> From 1930 when it was discovered up until 2006, Pluto was also considered the ninth _*planet*_ of the _solar system. _It used to be considered a planet.


The reason I thought it might be a helpful analogy is that Pluto being called a planet here would obviously not be called a planet in another solar system. And this finding if it's confirmed - who knows what how it will help the progress of science. The point is, we put Pluto in a strict category constrained by such details as, the influence of the Sun in its formation and its size among the its traveling companions. 1400 miles diameter would almost fit into the Amaerican Midwest, much smaller than our Moon. 
If we have strict categories in music (if we strive for them) it's all likewise universally applicable.


----------



## Fabulin

Sid James said:


> when Boulez started conducting, he said one of his big motivations was because his own music wasn't being played properly.


likewise, Williams has said that when he started conducting, it was 'in self defense', because his music wasn't being played properly


----------



## DaveM

Eva Yojimbo said:


> You're absolutely correct, I used "rationally" instead of "logically." Pretty much the same thing (logic is one specific type of rationality). If I actually believed someone was incoherent I would say "I don't understand what you mean by X, can you explain/elaborate on X?" which I have done repeatedly. Yes, I obviously think I have a rationally coherent view and that others do not. If I thought others had a rationally coherent view then I would agree with them. That's how discussion/debate works. If you disagree with me then you must think my view is not rationally coherent... unless you just disagree with me for emotional reasons.


You can double-speak all you want, but you’re mistaken if you think you can say people don’t have a rationally coherent view and think that it is not taken as a personal insult. But then, maybe you’re in the habit of telling your friends you don’t agree with that they are not rationally coherent and this is just your everyday form of communication.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

DaveM said:


> You can double-speak all you want, but you’re mistaken if you think you can say people don’t have a rationally coherent view and think that it is not taken as a personal insult. But then, maybe you’re in the habit of telling your friends you don’t agree with that they are not rationally coherent and this is just your everyday form of communication.


There's no "double-speak," there's just you assuming what I mean without consulting me first and then running with your misunderstanding. Hell, the quote YOU provided showed that I added the "rationally" qualifier, which you did not. 

Also, I'm not concerned about your pearl-clutching over insults given your frequent passive-aggressive insulting of myself. I have no problem telling friends they're being rationally incoherent if I feel they are, though if they're friends I might do it in a nicer way. I'm less concerned about civility after being accused of "armchair philosophizing" and being a "wandering mind" and being an "oxygen-eating subjectivist" (and I could quote more examples if I waded through 50+ pages).


----------



## DaveM

Eva Yojimbo said:


> ..I have no problem telling friends they're being rationally incoherent if I feel they are, though if they're friends I might do it in a nicer way...


Quote without comment. I rest my case.


----------



## arpeggio

There are members who believe that film music can be a form of classical music.
There are some who do not.
After all of this hot air I seriously doubt if anyone has changed his mind.
So what if Johnson does not believe film can be classical. That is his problem not mine.


----------



## Forster

arpeggio said:


> There are members who believe that film music can be a form of classical music.
> There are some who do not.


...and there are some who think it doesn't matter either way.


----------



## Enthusiast

Sid James said:


> I think you're using avant garde in a historical sense. I don't know Clyne, but Macmillan, and Birtwistle are basically establishment. They're not cutting edge now. Ferneyhough's new complexity is like forty years old. What is cutting edge is played by specialist ensembles, or smaller ensembles. Going way back to when Boulez started conducting, he said one of his big motivations was because his own music wasn't being played properly. Later on, he founded Ensemble Intercontemporain. This trend started with Schoenberg. Those who knew contemporary music best took it over.


I agree. They are yesterday's demons. No doubt today's demons will also slide into the acceptable repertoire category in time.



Sid James said:


> In any case, the people who like warhorses or contemporary classical as played by mainstream orchestras are the same old crowd who have been going to concerts for ages. Orchestras can rely on them to keep coming, but they aren't enough to ensure their viability in the medium to long term.


I'm not sure why you are saying this as if you are arguing against my position. Orchestras need financial support to survive.



Sid James said:


> Classical isn't the only form of entertainment in town, and to survive it has to nourish and grow its audience. The growth, or the money, is coming from the areas orchestras have been moving into - film, video game and television music. In effect, its these new audiences that are subsidising the old warhorse/highbrow contemporary format.


I think orchestras were making more money from films 50 years ago than they are now. Certainly, their players were.



Sid James said:


> Honestly, what "most members here" think about an issue like this has no bearing on what's happening in reality. Its the forces on the ground which are shaping the future of culture, including music. You might not be happy with what you call dumbing down, but the reality is that if they ignored this area of new growth, orchestras would be giving up a big part of their revenue. In the USA, the situation is already dire (but the causes there have little to do with repertoire). In other places like the UK, where the situation is better, it pays not to be complacent. What's being done now will have impact in decades to come.


"Most members here" represents a group of people with experience and knowledge of classical music. It may be a reality that they are a minority - I have said as much repeatedly - but do you really think that what we do here is just identify the reality? We can't suggest that changes are needed or recognise that some suggestions for changes might bring negative results? What I have been saying (in case you missed it) is that it is time for states to recognise that the arts are precious and that enriching the cultural lives of their populations has no down side. Of course, such a view is heresy in USA and is fast becoming so in Britain, which is politically in thrall to the US.


----------



## Sid James

I didn't miss anything you said.

Seriously, I've answered you as directly as I could, and now you're giving me reductio ad absurdum (its obvious I wasn't talking about orchestra members earning pocket money by recording film soundtracks) and slippery slope (as I said, music can be mere entertainment for some people, while for others it can be more than that).

I am here to talk, not to do the tired internet routine of throwing potshots, making smokescreens and trading logical fallacies. I think that would be an insult for both of us. Let's put this conversation to bed, we've talked enough about this anyway.


----------



## Enthusiast

I wonder if anyone can think of any films where the music is as popular as the actual film or more so? I know of one - Louis Malle's _Ascenseur Pour L'echafaud _- a film that drew attention because of its Miles Davis soundtrack. There must be others but for the Hollywood films the quality of the score is mostly judged by its effectiveness in following or underlining the action.


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

Enthusiast said:


> I wonder if anyone can think of any films where the music is as popular as the actual film or more so? I know of one - Louis Malle's _Ascenseur Pour L'echafaud _- a film that drew attention because of its Miles Davis soundtrack. There must be others but for the Hollywood films the quality of the score is mostly judged by its effectiveness in following or underlining the action.


One needs an excellent score written for a bad or fair-for-its-day but by now very dated film. Hence it only reliably applies to the scores by Shostakovich, Prokofiev, and Korngold... with Jerry Goldsmith it might be about even, it's hard to guess whether there are more fans of trashy B-movies of the 1960s-1990s or of his music.

Composers writing for films have little chance to exceed the popularity of the film with their work because of the order of magnitude of difference between the number of enthusiasts of cinema and of classical music. One should also consider that music bound to a film by copyright has a hard time becoming widespread through other media or platforms. 

A good way out of that are concerts. I knew nothing of_ The Godfather_ when I heard the music at a concert, and the only programmatic aid were short excerpts from Mario Puzo's book read between the pieces. I have never got to like the film.


----------



## Enthusiast

VoiceFromTheEther said:


> One needs an excellent score written for a bad or fair-for-its-day but by now very dated film. Hence it only reliably applies to the scores by Shostakovich, Prokofiev, and Korngold... with Jerry Goldsmith it might be about even, it's hard to guess whether there are more fans of trashy B-movies of the 1960s-1990s or of his music.
> 
> Composers writing for films have little chance to exceed the popularity of the film with their work because of the order of magnitude of difference between the number of enthusiasts of cinema and of classical music. One should also consider that music bound to a film by copyright has a hard time becoming widespread through other media or platforms.
> 
> A good way out of that are concerts. I knew nothing of_ The Godfather_ when I heard the music at a concert, and the only programmatic aid were short excerpts from Mario Puzo's book read between the pieces. I have never got to like the film.


Prokofiev's film music was written for truly great films and we know his music because he prepared suites from his film music. As for The Godfather: it just might be the greatest Hollywood film ever! But I am not necessarily asking for music that is more popular than the film it was written for - that would indeed be a test - but merely films where the music attracted as much interest among people with some interest in music as the film did among film lovers. There must be some but I can't think of them. It is interesting to compare this with operas and ballets which are loved at least as much for their music as for the drama.


----------



## HansZimmer

Enthusiast said:


> Prokofiev's film music was written for truly great films and we know his music because he prepared suites from his film music. As for The Godfather: it just might be the greatest Hollywood film ever! But I am not necessarily asking for music that is more popular than the film it was written for - that would indeed be a test - but merely films where the music attracted as much interest among people with some interest in music as the film did among film lovers. There must be some but I can't think of them. It is interesting to compare this with operas and ballets which are loved at least as much for their music as for the drama.


I can't speak for all people, but my favourite part of the Lion King is the score and I recently watched the film only because I wanted to hear the music inside the context.

You can't expect that the score is more popular than the film, because people today listen to rap, trap and pop music. Look at the statistics!
The famous films are created to stay within the market trend, while their music doesn't. Hans Zimmer, John Williams and so on... wouldn't be able to have a good revenue for their work if they were not paid by film producers. Their music is out of market. They are not able to compete with rappers, trappers and pop singers.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

DaveM said:


> Quote without comment. I rest my case.


So, again, you're pearl-clutching over niceness when you don't hold to that niceness yourself. OK.


----------



## 59540

Enthusiast said:


> Prokofiev's film music was written for truly great films and we know his music because he prepared suites from his film music. As for The Godfather: it just might be the greatest Hollywood film ever! But I am not necessarily asking for music that is more popular than the film it was written for - that would indeed be a test - but merely films where the music attracted as much interest among people with some interest in music as the film did among film lovers. There must be some but I can't think of them. It is interesting to compare this with operas and ballets which are loved at least as much for their music as for the drama.


Well this might be one case where your "blockbuster" observation might apply. The Godfather score is inextricably linked to the movie, and I don't think it's very interesting at all apart from that context, whether it's "classical" or not. YMMV


----------



## Sid James

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


----------



## Enthusiast

dissident said:


> Well this might be one case where your "blockbuster" observation might apply. The Godfather score is inextricably linked to the movie, and I don't think it's very interesting at all apart from that context, whether it's "classical" or not. YMMV


I think that's right. It's effective film music for a great film. It enhances the moods but doesn't get in the way.. 

Talking with a couple of people who I know and have been trained to write music for films, I understand that it is often advised that film music should not distract from the film which can leave a fine line between staying in the background and enhancing the action in some way. Perhaps the genius of John Williams is that he can push strongly in the latter direction so that his music becomes a vital feature without which the films might sometimes seem rather limp.


----------



## HansZimmer

Enthusiast said:


> Classic FM is far from being open to novelty. Witness the recent "scandal" wrt some Hendrix by Nigel Kennedy. But more importantly, naming pastiche as contemporary classical music while totally side-lining genuine contemporary classical music will end up killing classical music.


I agree, but if you think that Classic FM should be open to novelty then you shouldn't reject music from films and videogames. So, you should say that Classic FM should be open to everything of the new world.

Furthermore, If it's true that in the field of arts you can't set too many rigid rules, because this would limit the artistic expression, then also the content of the quote below must be rejected.



EdwardBast said:


> I do. It's short attention span music flitting from one idea to the next. The main heroic theme is repeated over and over with no significant development. There are cheesy arbitrary modulations all over. The orchestration is full of cliche gestures like the sweeping harp and string flourishes. I couldn't imagine this being mistaken for a movement from a symphony.


I agree that the main theme is repeated too many times in the end credits of Indiana Jones. Futhermore, I can say that I don't nether like so much the theme.
However this a matter of tastes: it doesn't have anything to do with the question of this thread.

Indeed, there are musical pieces that are universally considered classical music that are built around a main theme which is repeated many times. Some classical music pieces have too much repetition for their lenght, according to me.


So, if what you want to say is that John Williams could do a better work in this case I agree, but you can't say thata piece is not classical music because it has features that in classical music are not uncommon.
But the problem is: would it make sense to establish the rule that in classical music repetition is forbidden? And what if someone would establish the rule that is forbidden to break the rules of the harmony? If you want free artistic expression you can not establish rigid rules only to accomplish your personal tastes.

To conclude, I didn't post the end credits of Indiana Jones because I think that it's the best example of good film music, but only to make an example of a piece that it's self-contained.

Indeed, although all people are voting for Indiana Jones in Talkclassical best film score award - 1990, I'm the only one who voted for the Little Mermaid.


----------



## Chibi Ubu

We can discuss anime music in the same way, there are very strong elements of classical music in that sub-genre. My experience is that the Japanese have embraced CM in a much stronger way than we westerners can grasp. I think that because of anime sub-genres like Yu-gi-oh, Hello Kitty, SpongeBob, and Transformers with their sucessful worldwide marketing efforts has resulted in a total disrespect for the word "Anime" here at CM. Maybe some day I will use Spotify to demonstrate the point that most of you will always miss excellence because of a misunderstanding of that art form, yet you've not experienced enough of it to know. 🌞


----------



## NoCoPilot

dissident said:


> The Godfather score is inextricably linked to the movie, and I don't think it's very interesting at all apart from that context, whether it's "classical" or not.


Nino Rota "not interesting"? Quel fromage!


----------



## Varick

Some film music could absolutely be called "classical" music and some can not. I believe the greatest contemporary "classical" music written today is in movies. I believe many contemporary and modern composers and fans of "classical" music reject film music as being classified as "classical" for a variety of reasons. Not least of all because much of the film music that could be considered classical and could stand on it's own also reveals how pathetic and awful some contemporary classical music is. There is some great 20th century and modern classical music out there, but no one is convincing me that there is a good deal that is just a sham. Talentless composers who write things that no one could objectively say is a better composition than from another modern composer. There are no more rules and that's why there is so much chaos in modern art. Try writing a film score with no rules involved, no theme, no structure. See how that works.

V


----------



## 4chamberedklavier

Varick said:


> Some film music could absolutely be called "classical" music and some can not. I believe the greatest contemporary "classical" music written today is in movies. I believe many contemporary and modern composers and fans of "classical" music reject film music as being classified as "classical" for a variety of reasons. Not least of all because much of the film music that could be considered classical and could stand on it's own also reveals how pathetic and awful some contemporary classical music is. There is some great 20th century and modern classical music out there, but no one is convincing me that there is a good deal that is just a sham. Talentless composers who write things that no one could objectively say is a better composition than from another modern composer. There are no more rules and that's why there is so much chaos in modern art. Try writing a film score with no rules involved, no theme, no structure. See how that works.
> 
> V


I can understand your sentiment, 20th century music hasn't left a good impression on me either, though I'm reserving my judgment until I listen to more works. 

But I hope you're aware that a statement like that is not going to be received well. I've noticed that in older threads, someone expressing dislike of modern classical is usually ganged up on. I can understand the initial response, since opinions about modern classical are often stated as fact & it can be insensitive to people who like that style, but it often goes overboard as even posters who discuss in good faith are bullied.


----------



## mikeh375

Varick said:


> (film music)...... also reveals how pathetic and awful some contemporary classical music is. There is some great 20th century and modern classical music out there, but no one is convincing me that there is a good deal that is just a sham. Talentless composers who write things that no one could objectively say is a better composition than from another modern composer. *There are no more rules and that's why there is so much chaos in modern art*. Try writing a film score with no rules involved, no theme, no structure. See how that works.
> 
> V


There are rules (i.e. techniques), in much contemporary art/concert music, there has to be in order to impose will. Obviously they are not the kind of techniques used hundreds of years ago but they could also be adaptations and developments of past practices. Using different techniques does not imv imply inferiority in any way. Ironically I think it's fair to say that the "rules" are the root cause of alienation from the last hundred years or so of music for some listeners.

From what I know of film scoring, there are some composers I've heard about, who do not follow compositional rules because they don't actually know them, preferring to work on instinctual musical wits, employing trained professionals and and being able to deliver high end production quality. Some are rather good at it too and have influenced the genre away from any classical model of film scoring, such as Williams' more traditional approach.


----------



## Enthusiast

Varick said:


> Some film music could absolutely be called "classical" music and some can not. I believe the greatest contemporary "classical" music written today is in movies. I believe many contemporary and modern composers and fans of "classical" music reject film music as being classified as "classical" for a variety of reasons. Not least of all because much of the film music that could be considered classical and could stand on it's own also reveals how pathetic and awful some contemporary classical music is. There is some great 20th century and modern classical music out there, but no one is convincing me that there is a good deal that is just a sham. Talentless composers who write things that no one could objectively say is a better composition than from another modern composer. There are no more rules and that's why there is so much chaos in modern art. Try writing a film score with no rules involved, no theme, no structure. See how that works.
> 
> V


Using some film music as a substitute for the contemporary classical music that you are failing to find is a common reason, I think, for people wanting to term orchestral film music as "classical". I am not sure why, though, it is so difficult for you to just say "I like some orchestral film music as much as I like the classical music of the past". 

It is fair enough that you don't like much real contemporary classical music. You don't have to. You are not alone in it. But it is strange to say so when there is such a huge variety of it. Something for everyone I would have thought. But the way you go on to typify contemporary music suggests you prefer to focus your attention on music that you don't like (and possibly don't understand - hence your reference to "chaos"). Maybe you need to feel angry about something? However it is, and while I acknowledge that you are entitled to your own taste, I really don't think you should dismiss composers and their music as "talentless" and "sham", especially while claiming objectivity. Why would someone spend their life pretending and struggling for their pretences to be heard? It just doesn't ring true. Also, you must be aware that many people actually enjoy and like - and claim to be uplifted and moved by - the music you are dismissing. So you must also feel they are deluded or feigning it ... or what? You dismiss a lot of people's integrity in your need to justify a taste that is just that: a taste that is no more valid than theirs.


----------



## Enthusiast

4chamberedklavier said:


> I can understand your sentiment, 20th century music hasn't left a good impression on me either, though I'm reserving my judgment until I listen to more works.
> 
> But I hope you're aware that a statement like that is not going to be received well. I've noticed that in older threads, someone expressing dislike of modern classical is usually ganged up on. I can understand the initial response, since opinions about modern classical are often stated as fact & it can be insensitive to people who like that style, but it often goes overboard as even posters who discuss in good faith are bullied.


I wonder if you find my response to Varick to be bullying? I wonder if you can substantiate your claim that posters who "discuss (their dislike of modern music) in good faith" have often been bullied in the past. Is it a new type of defence (passive aggression?) for conservative musical tastes to say "oh, we better not say what we really think here". Personally, I welcome the expression of opinions about music (it is what this forum is for) but not when those who hold opposite opinions are dismissed as frauds or the like. I suppose also that I can find it a bit tiresome to see, as used sometimes to happen, all modern music dismissed in threads that are specifically about appreciating and enjoying modern music! 

Anyway, my point is - if you have something valid to say then spit it out but try to do it without insulting others.


----------



## EdwardBast

HansZimmer said:


> So, if what you want to say is that John Williams could do a better work in this case I agree, but you can't say thata piece is not classical music because it has features that in classical music are not uncommon.


If that was what I wanted to say I would have said it. I said nothing of the kind. I said that sharing features with classical works is irrelevant.



HansZimmer said:


> But the problem is: would it make sense to establish the rule that in classical music repetition is forbidden? And what if someone would establish the rule that is forbidden to break the rules of the harmony? If you want free artistic expression you can not establish rigid rules only to accomplish your personal tastes.


You left out the context. You wrote that you "don't see the difference between writing a symphonic movement and writing this." I argued that no one stylistically competent in classical music would mistake the end credit music you posted for a classical symphonic movement. It has nothing to do with "breaking the rules" about repetition or harmony. It's that the cheesy modulations are obviously there for expediency — Williams probably didn't want to rescore a passage so he just shoehorned it in from earlier. Nor is the repetition itself the problem, it's that there is no development or progress in the material. In short, overall it sounds like a cut and paste job. Real classical symphonic movements — the ones that get performed — don't.



HansZimmer said:


> To conclude, I didn't post the end credits of Indiana Jones because I think that it's the best example of good film music, but *only to make an example of a piece that it's self-contained*.


I wasn't addressing whether or not it's self-contained, only whether it can pass for a classical symphonic movement as you suggested.


----------



## 4chamberedklavier

Enthusiast said:


> I wonder if you find my response to Varick to be bullying? I wonder if you can substantiate your claim that posters who "discuss (their dislike of modern music) in good faith" have often been bullied in the past. Is it a new type of defence (passive aggression?) for conservative musical tastes to say "oh, we better not say what we really think here". Personally, I welcome the expression of opinions about music (it is what this forum is for) but not when those who hold opposite opinions are dismissed as frauds or the like. I suppose also that I can find it a bit tiresome to see, as used sometimes to happen, all modern music dismissed in threads that are specifically about appreciating and enjoying modern music!
> 
> Anyway, my point is - if you have something valid to say then spit it out but try to do it without insulting others.


Your reply was fine.

I didn't say I completely agree with him, I sympathize, but I also see the value in the experimentation of modern music. Am I supposed to assume that you're taking what I said as a passive aggressive slight against modern music? Why do you assume that my intent is to insult? I merely criticized the tendency of people on this forum to gang up on the more conservative posters (Although to be fair, most of the users who took part in the pile-ons don't seem to be active here anymore). I didn't say that he shouldn't share his opinions, my point was, if you're going to say something controversial, you better be ready to potentially stir up a hornet's nest, and that you should be more careful & considerate about what you say.

Granted, if your issue with my post is that my claim, that "good faith posters are bullied" is unsubstantiated, I understand. You seem to imply that it's not the case, but honestly I've been browsing old threads here for a few months and I'd rather trust what I've seen rather take your word for it that there wasn't any bullying. I'm feeling lazy and I'm not sure if it's worth the effort to dig up old posts. Anyone who is interested can simply read the numerous old threads and figure things out for themselves.

You have a right to be frustrated with the posters insulting modern music, I likewise have a right to feel frustrated at pile-ons.


----------



## arpeggio

4chamberedklavier said:


> But I hope you're aware that a statement like that is not going to be received well. I've noticed that in older threads, someone expressing dislike of modern classical is usually ganged up on.


It works both ways.
There have been many proponents of modern music that have been driven out of this forum. Two of them are Some Guy and Mahlerian. I know of many more.

In the old Amazon music forum, the anti-modernists were effective in suppressing all discussions of modern music for over a year.


----------



## fbjim

In a lot of cases one of the things that makes me feel weirdest about this whole topic is an implied elevation of orchestral film music when film music is all over the place stylistically. 

To put it another way rhe question of whether "film music" is classical music makes zero sense. Film music isn't a style at all, it's a discipline, or occupation.


----------



## 4chamberedklavier

arpeggio said:


> It works both ways.
> There have been many proponents of modern music that have been driven out of this forum. Two of them are Some Guy and Mahlerian. I know of many more.
> 
> In the old Amazon music forum, the anti-modernists were effective in suppressing all discussions of modern music for over a year.


That's unfortunate. I don't firmly consider myself part of the "anti-modernist" camp, I just feel compelled to support whichever side I notice is the "underdog", just to keep a balance. 

I will acknowledge that I may be wrong about the bullying. There were many deleted posts I did not see so I don't have the whole picture. It may also just be my confirmation bias.


----------



## Simon Moon

4chamberedklavier said:


> I can understand your sentiment, 20th century music hasn't left a good impression on me either, though I'm reserving my judgment until I listen to more works.
> 
> But I hope you're aware that a statement like that is not going to be received well. I've noticed that in older threads, *someone expressing dislike of modern classical is usually ganged up on*. I can understand the initial response, since opinions about modern classical are often stated as fact & it can be insensitive to people who like that style, but it often goes overboard as even posters who discuss in good faith are bullied.


Yeah, poor anti-modernists and strictly fans of common practice are so persecuted around here.

I see you are a recent member here, so you may not know the history of TC. But there was a time, not too long ago, that the anti-modernist sentiment was so strong around here, that one could start a thread on modern music, and many anti-modernists around here would find a way to wedge in some anti-modernist snark. In fact, it seemed they would find a way to make anti-modernist remarks even on threads that had nothing to do with modern and contemporary classical music.

I remember one particular thread started by a relative noob of classical music, who started a thread on recommendations for serialism, because he just heard some, and was intrigued. By early on the 2nd page, the anti-modernists took over the thread with snarky comments, each patting each on the back.

There have been more than just a few fans of modern classical music that have left this place.

So, you might have to excuse some of us fans of 20th century, modern, avant-garde and contemporary classical for having a bit of a knee jerk reaction to some comments around here.


----------



## Varick

4chamberedklavier said:


> I can understand your sentiment, 20th century music hasn't left a good impression on me either, though I'm reserving my judgment until I listen to more works.
> 
> But I hope you're aware that a statement like that is not going to be received well. I've noticed that in older threads, someone expressing dislike of modern classical is usually ganged up on. I can understand the initial response, since opinions about modern classical are often stated as fact & it can be insensitive to people who like that style, but it often goes overboard as even posters who discuss in good faith are bullied.


I appreciate the sentiment and looking out, but I've been here for 8 years now. Plus I am the youngest of five children with three older brothers. Not to mention, I used to hold the flashlight for my father. So, I have thick skin and am not prone to being bullied or have my feelings hurt. Especially on an internet board. Again, good looking out.

V


----------



## Enthusiast

arpeggio said:


> It works both ways.
> There have been many proponents of modern music that have been driven out of this forum. Two of them are Some Guy and Mahlerian. I know of many more.
> 
> In the old Amazon music forum, the anti-modernists were effective in suppressing all discussions of modern music for over a year.


Me too. Many of my most valued collaborators left for the same reason a couple of years ago. I remember one - a student of composition who would share interesting new music he had come across - who would get several members responding dismissively to threads he had started, threads that they actually have no interest in. He gave up but before he did I had discovered from him a number of pieces that I have listened to often and enjoy greatly. There could have been more!


----------



## Simon Moon

Enthusiast said:


> Me too. Many of my most valued collaborators left for the same reason a couple of years ago. I remember one - a student of composition who would share interesting new music he had come across - who would get several members responding dismissively to threads he had started,* threads that they actually have no interest in.* He gave up but before he did I had discovered from him a number of pieces that I have listened to often and enjoy greatly. There could have been more!


That is the strangest part.

I do not begrudge anyone their personal taste, nor their dislike for modern classical. It is the need (maybe too strong a word) to post on threads started by those looking for more modern music recommendations, that many of the anti-modernists have.

With only a few notable exceptions, I do not listen to any classical music earlier than the 1920's, and most of the music I listen to is from post WWII. But I have never once posted on a thread about someone looking for more Baroque or Classical era recommendations.


----------



## fbjim

It's significantly better now than even the days of John Cage threads so, respectfully I think relitigation of this is probably going to be more disruptive than anything


----------



## Varick

Enthusiast said:


> Using some film music as a substitute for the contemporary classical music that you are failing to find is a common reason, I think, for people wanting to term orchestral film music as "classical". I am not sure why, though, it is so difficult for you to just say "I like some orchestral film music as much as I like the classical music of the past".
> 
> It is fair enough that you don't like much real contemporary classical music. You don't have to. You are not alone in it. But it is strange to say so when there is such a huge variety of it. Something for everyone I would have thought. But the way you go on to typify contemporary music suggests you prefer to focus your attention on music that you don't like (and possibly don't understand - hence your reference to "chaos"). Maybe you need to feel angry about something?


 Never felt a "need" to feel angry about anything. It usually happens naturally. Sorry, couldn't let that one go! 


Enthusiast said:


> However it is, and while I acknowledge that you are entitled to your own taste, I really don't think you should dismiss composers and their music as "talentless" and "sham", especially while claiming objectivity. Why would someone spend their life pretending and struggling for their pretences to be heard? It just doesn't ring true. Also, you must be aware that many people actually enjoy and like - and claim to be uplifted and moved by - the music you are dismissing. So you must also feel they are deluded or feigning it ... or what? You dismiss a lot of people's integrity in your need to justify a taste that is just that: a taste that is no more valid than theirs.


Well, fair enough. I don't need to justify my taste because I know it's no more valid than anyone else's. However, there does seem a need to explain something you mentioned further. It's the age old question: Do some people actually believe some of the things coming out of their mouths or what they do? It took me decades to finally come to the realization that yes, they do. I should have come to this realization sooner having one very close family member who is a pathological liar and another who is so delusional about what's happened to her in the past (and present). Einstein is credited saying once that, "there are two things that are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, but I'm not sure about the universe." If he did say it, he got it wrong. It's not so much human stupidity rather than the human ability to self delude that seems to be infinite.

There are talentless hacks in every field and in every profession. I went to high school with a guy who is now a medical Dr. He is licensed and has his official bona fides. He's a fun guy to hang out with with a very quick wit, but I wouldn't let him give me an aspirin. I don't think some of these composers (or artists) pull the covers up to their chin at night, close their eyes, and say to themselves, "I'm a fraud." Just like Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot never said the themselves at night, "I'm an evil, monstrous, SOB." But that's exactly what they were. They were convinced they were doing "good." Hard for some people like us to believe that, but it's true. If we can't say the emperor is naked when he is, we have lost our way. Every system can be gamed. Maybe it's perhaps those who kept pushing the artistic parameters further and further out to absurdity for legitimate reasons, and then other's found a way to game the systems. No one was ever there to say wait a minute, you might want to think about the potential consequences.

I don't have the energy to go into this now (one thing I hate about discussing complex things like this on the internet is it takes too long to type all of this stuff - how I wish we could have discussions via phone or something like skype), but there is a whole other philosophy here of post modernism that has deeply infiltrated the art world (and many other worlds unfortunately - particularly as of late). It is a philosophy that is anti-beauty, anti-structure, and seeks to tear down all the old structures and institutions. To deny this is to be woefully naive and/or ignorant. That's all I'm saying. How so many people can see this happening in other areas of our world, yet not in their own is part of the self delusion. You like atonal, contemporary, avant-garde music? Great. I say rock on! Good for you. Keep listening, keep exploring, keep enjoying. There is some Bartok, Stravinsky, Frederic Rzewski, Tristan Murail, etc that I listen to when my wife's not around because she can't stand the stuff. I get it and I understand why she doesn't like it. I'm certainly not putting any of it on at a party. That's being objective: Understanding that just because I like it or enjoy it, doesn't necessarily mean it must be good.


Varick said:


> Some film music could absolutely be called "classical" music and some can not. I believe the greatest contemporary "classical" music written today is in movies. I believe many contemporary and modern composers and fans of "classical" music reject film music as being classified as "classical" for a variety of reasons. Not least of all because much of the film music that could be considered classical and could stand on it's own also reveals how pathetic and awful some contemporary classical music is. *There is some great 20th century and modern classical music out there*, .


V


----------



## Varick

Simon Moon said:


> That is the strangest part.
> 
> I do not begrudge anyone their personal taste, nor their dislike for modern classical. It is the need (maybe too strong a word) to post on threads started by those looking for more modern music recommendations, that many of the anti-modernists have.
> 
> With only a few notable exceptions, I do not listen to any classical music earlier than the 1920's, and most of the music I listen to is from post WWII. But I have never once posted on a thread about someone looking for more Baroque or Classical era recommendations.


You seem to be someone that I would enjoy sitting down and chatting with. I have read your posts for years. Your choice in music is most often polar opposites of mine. I admire the fact that it is so different from mine. I continue to explore 20th & 21st century music. There is a thread in Solo & Chamber Music section about solo piano music after 1970 that I am in the middle of now. I go into these threads and explore all the links and listen. I would say about 80-90% I do not like. Some, I have stronger opinions about. But there is that 10-20% where I discover a new composer that intrigues me at worst and enjoy at best. You have a great attitude about those who differ in taste than you do. Kudos Simon Moon!

V


----------



## fbjim

Varick said:


> Well, fair enough. I don't need to justify my taste because I know it's no more valid than anyone else's. However, there does seem a need to explain something you mentioned further. It's the age old question: Do some people actually believe some of the things coming out of their mouths or what they do?


You're kind of in two boats here.

What sinks discussions like this frequently is accusations of bad faith. Sometimes this isn't even intentional, like the horary old "emperor's new clothes" cliche - we can throw up exceptions for anything, but a general rule that I like sticking to is that people generally believe what they say. _Especially_ when talking about listeners - any argument that a listener to music is somehow lying, delusional or otherwise some kind of poser when talking about the music they like kills discussion.

If you want to say listeners are deluding themselves when they say what they like, you aren't interested in discussing music. Once you wade into the realm of explaining away the tastes of others as some kind of fault, further discussion gets more and more toxic.


----------



## Varick

fbjim said:


> You're kind of in two boats here.
> 
> What sinks discussions like this frequently is accusations of bad faith. Sometimes this isn't even intentional, like the horary old "emperor's new clothes" cliche - we can throw up exceptions for anything, but a general rule that I like sticking to is that people generally believe what they say. _Especially_ when talking about listeners - any argument that a listener to music is somehow lying, delusional or otherwise some kind of poser when talking about the music they like kills discussion.
> 
> If you want to say listeners are deluding themselves when they say what they like, you aren't interested in discussing music. Once you wade into the realm of explaining away the tastes of others as some kind of fault, further discussion gets more and more toxic.


That maybe true, but that's not what I did. I wasn't referring to the listeners. I was talking about (SOME) composers.

V


----------



## pianozach

OK, is this a good time to p!ss everyone off? 

Fine.

*There's not an awful lot of Classical music composed post-1930 that I enjoy listening to.* Sure, there's *some*, and I occasionally go out on a limb and listen to something less than a hundred years old in the genre, usually on the recommendation of someone on this site. 

I think I'm being pretty generous giving all the post-1920 Classical sub-genres a listen once in a while, when there's a good chance I won't really be captivated by it. And, I've found *some* stuff I like. Although, I'll admit it's usually some tonal throwback. 

But I find that these experimental, avant-garde, 12-tone, sound-collage, minimalism, and randomness genres to be pretentious and often irritating (and I can APPRECIATE music that is "intellectual", even if I don't listen to much of it). 

Again, there are exceptions, but here's the thing; I really enjoy Vivaldi, Bach, Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, Chopin, Schubert, Schumann, Debussey, and other composers that have similar styles. And I listen to these types of works far more often. I could pull up a random track from ANY of these composers, and be pretty certain I'll enjoy it. Not so much with Post-Modern and "Contemporary".


----------



## HansZimmer

fbjim said:


> In a lot of cases one of the things that makes me feel weirdest about this whole topic is an implied elevation of orchestral film music when film music is all over the place stylistically.
> 
> To put it another way rhe question of whether "film music" is classical music makes zero sense. Film music isn't a style at all, it's a discipline, or occupation.


Indeed if you read the title of the discussion and the text of OP is clear that I'm asking why WHEN the score of a film has a classical style many people say that it's not classical music.

I know that "film music" is not a genre of music. This is what I'm saying. There are indeed examples of film scores based on pop or jazz music and no one says that it's not pop or jazz because it was composed for a film.
However, the films nominated at the Academy Awards for "Best original score" have usually a neoromantic score, with some exceptions.


----------



## Enthusiast

HansZimmer said:


> Indeed if you read the title of the discussion and the text of OP is clear that I'm asking why WHEN the score of a film has a classical style many people say that it's not classical music.
> 
> I know that "film music" is not a genre of music. This is what I'm saying. There are indeed examples of film scores based on pop or jazz music and no one says that it's not pop or jazz because it was composed for a film.
> However, the films nominated at the Academy Awards for "Best original score" have usually a neoromantic score, with some exceptions.


Well, classical music moves forward. Some more conservative composers manage to develop a distinctive voice while following conventions that are 50 (perhaps even 100) years old but that is quite rare. Much orchestral film music seems to look back further than that and I'm not sure I discern a distinctive voice in it either. Of course, that's all fine and the best does an excellent job as film music but I'm not sure I have heard any since Walton and Prokofiev which work as standalone music for me - and even for them I feel concert suites prepared from the film music seem to work best. 

Yes, Romantic styled music (you call it neoromantic but I don't hear the neo so I'll misspell it "necroromantic") seems to appeal to the Academy and may indeed work best with the films they choose to elevate. When pop music is used, it is usually a soundtrack of already known songs (so no awards for that) but the use of jazz (i.e. improvised music) in films is usually reserved for more arty films (not the Academy's thing). Improvised music is difficult to use with a film because it is not composed and timings are far from precise - often the film we see has been prepared to fit the music rather than the other way round.


----------



## Enthusiast

Varick said:


> Never felt a "need" to feel angry about anything. It usually happens naturally. Sorry, couldn't let that one go!
> 
> 
> Well, fair enough. I don't need to justify my taste because I know it's no more valid than anyone else's. However, there does seem a need to explain something you mentioned further. It's the age old question: Do some people actually believe some of the things coming out of their mouths or what they do? It took me decades to finally come to the realization that yes, they do. I should have come to this realization sooner having one very close family member who is a pathological liar and another who is so delusional about what's happened to her in the past (and present). Einstein is credited saying once that, "there are two things that are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, but I'm not sure about the universe." If he did say it, he got it wrong. It's not so much human stupidity rather than the human ability to self delude that seems to be infinite.


It is not only what people say - although the only access we have to their inner worlds is their behaviour and words - but you can choose to deny the honesty of reports of being moved, inspired, _transported _by music that you happen to dislike. They must be lying? Yes, you say but they don't know they are. Occam's Razor suggests it might be easier to believe them (there are so many): that they really are moved by music that you happen to hate. But, of course, you may have God-like privileged access to what is going on in their heads.. 



Varick said:


> There are talentless hacks in every field and in every profession. I went to high school with a guy who is now a medical Dr. He is licensed and has his official bona fides. He's a fun guy to hang out with with a very quick wit, but I wouldn't let him give me an aspirin. I don't think some of these composers (or artists) pull the covers up to their chin at night, close their eyes, and say to themselves, "I'm a fraud." Just like Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot never said the themselves at night, "I'm an evil, monstrous, SOB." But that's exactly what they were. They were convinced they were doing "good." Hard for some people like us to believe that, but it's true. If we can't say the emperor is naked when he is, we have lost our way. Every system can be gamed. Maybe it's perhaps those who kept pushing the artistic parameters further and further out to absurdity for legitimate reasons, and then other's found a way to game the systems. No one was ever there to say wait a minute, you might want to think about the potential consequences.


Yes, there are charlatans in many fields and they are only credible because there are also effective practitioners for people to mistake them for. Also, they tend to target profitable areas of expertise. I guess you would need to be a bit stupid to choose to be a fake in a field which is so difficult to make a living from even when you are good. I'm not sure where genocidal dictators come into this nor do I think their psychology can be simplified in the way you attempt to do (did they really feel they were doing good at the height of their crimes?). Nor does it seem relevant or helpful to this debate. Although he once said (in his youth) that all opera houses should be burned down, I don't think Boulez ever killed anyone with his music.


----------



## Bulldog

HansZimmer said:


> I know that "film music" is not a genre of music.


Sure it is - issue resolved.


----------



## DaveM

Enthusiast said:


> I wonder if you find my response to Varick to be bullying? I wonder if you can substantiate your claim that posters who "discuss (their dislike of modern music) in good faith" have often been bullied in the past.


Are you expecting someone to go back and ‘sleuth-out’ evidence from thousands of posts?



> I suppose also that I can find it a bit tiresome to see, as used sometimes to happen, all modern music dismissed in threads that are specifically about appreciating and enjoying modern music!


(From above) If so, can you substantiate the above?



> Anyway, my point is - if you have something valid to say then spit it out but try to do it without insulting others.


On that subject, you know it’s easier said than done, isn’t it.


----------



## Enthusiast

I think we can all remember, those of us who were here, and I think we know how it went. 

I don't think it is hard to express an opinion respectfully. Most of us manage it regularly.


----------



## DaveM

Enthusiast said:


> I think we can all remember, those of us who were here, and I think we know how it went.
> 
> I don't think it is hard to express an opinion respectfully. Most of us manage it regularly.


Who is ‘we’? When it comes to discussing contemporary music, in my experience, it isn’t just how opinions are expressed, it is how they are received. Respectful opinions are not always received in kind.


----------



## HansZimmer

Bulldog said:


> Sure it is - issue resolved.


So, according to you, this is film music and not cuban music?


----------



## Bulldog

HansZimmer said:


> So, according to you, this is film music and not cuban music?


Assuming Grusin wrote it for the movie, yes it's film music.


----------



## DaveM

For me works like this have a place not that far away from the big tent of CP era CM and would likely be more mistaken for CM by ticket-holders as part of a Los Angeles Philharmonic concert than some of the works commissioned by said orchestra.


----------



## HansZimmer

DaveM said:


> For me works like this have a place not that far away from the big tent of CP era CM and would likely be more mistaken for CM by ticket-holders as part of a Los Angeles Philharmonic concert than some of the works commissioned by said orchestra.


Thi score is good. Did it get a Oscar nomination?


----------



## Forster

HansZimmer said:


> Thi score is good. Did it get a Oscar nomination?


Yes, but John Barry won for Dances with Wolves.


----------



## fbjim

Bulldog said:


> Sure it is - issue resolved.


I don't know if this is true, but that's a little besides the point. I think it's more that "film music" is more like "popular music" or "sacred music" in that it's a description of the music's purpose and doesn't really describe the music aesthetically.

This can still be a valid genre but I think the point is that it encompasses a huge variety of styles and aesthetics which don't necessarily have anything to do with each other beyond having a shared utilitarian purpose.

(to that point, I think asking "is film music classical music?" is like asking "is sacred music classical music" - clearly some film music is in the style of classical music, but it doesn't make much sense to say it _all_ is, no more than saying that since Western liturgical music is part of the tradition of classical music, that non-Western sacred music is therefore classical)


----------



## HansZimmer

Forster said:


> Yes, but John Barry won for Dances with Wolves.


Dances with Wolves won in 1991. The other nominated films for "Best original score" were:

Home Alone
Havana
Havaloc
Ghost

So, what does the movie "sense and sensibility" have to do with Dances with Wolves?

P.S. according to me, the best nominated score of 1991 is the one of Home Alone by John Williams.


----------



## HansZimmer

Bulldog said:


> Assuming Grusin wrote it for the movie, yes it's film music.


The word "film music" only says that a piece of music was written for a film. It doesn't tell you anything about the style of the music.

These four pieces were all composed by Dave Grusin for a film.
The style of each one is different, so you should give a different name to each style.

Jazz?






Instrumental pop?






Spanish/Cuban music?






Neo-romantic?







We can make a discussion about the what is the correct name of each style, but there is no such thing as "film music" if we speak about styles.


----------



## Forster

"So, what does the movie "sense and sensibility" have to do with Dances with Wolves?"

No idea...why do you ask?


----------



## HansZimmer

Forster said:


> "So, what does the movie "sense and sensibility" have to do with Dances with Wolves?"
> 
> No idea...why do you ask?


You wrote.

"Yes, but John Barry won for Dances with Wolves. "

It's like to say that the score of "Sense and sensibility" lost because Dances with Wolves won.


----------



## Forster

HansZimmer said:


> You wrote.
> 
> "Yes, but John Barry won for Dances with Wolves. "
> 
> It's like to say that the score of "Sense and sensibility" lost because Dances with Wolves won.


No, it's not. You asked if Dave Grusin got an Oscar nom for Havana. I said yes, it did, but he lost to John Barry.


----------



## HansZimmer

Forster said:


> No, it's not. You asked if Dave Grusin got an Oscar nom for Havana. I said yes, it did, but he lost to John Barry.


I quoted this message in my post: Why do many people think that classical music composed for film scores is not classical music?

I was speaking about the score of the film "Sense and sensibility".


----------



## justekaia

film music is composed to accompany images; classical music, mainly excerpts, can be used in films (mozart, schubert pärt, ligeti, marshall); some classical composers contributed excellent film music (prokofiev, takemitsu, schnittke) and sometimes the music is so good that they created a special version for the concert hall.you notice that then the intention is to create music that is adapted to the concert hall and becomes classical. if takemitsu composes the score for ran which is exceptional it remains film music because kurosawa has requested him to compose mahler-like music to accompany the images of the film. so it remains film music. the quality of the music produced by john williams and hans zimmer for film is very high but the intention is to compose film music and therefore it is not classical music. moreover these two composers borrow too heavily from classical composers, to put it mildly.
like some rock compositions john williams' film scores are sometimes played by an orchestra in a concert hall which does not make them classical music; classical music is made by people who are taught by classical masters or are self-taught but intend to compose for the concert hall. it is just a matter of category and i love film music as much as classical music. maybe it is even more emotional because it is meant to be so.


----------



## DaveM

justekaia said:


> ..the quality of the music produced by john williams and hans zimmer for film is very high but the intention is to compose film music and therefore it is not classical music. moreover these two composers borrow too heavily from classical composers, to put it mildly..


That‘s too simplistic. On that basis, let’s exclude church/religious-related music: masses, requiems, choruses. Not to mention that the last sentence above, if true, rather than supporting your argument, is a giveaway as to why _some_ film music can be easily confused with CM. It is evident to me that some composers of film music go through a similar process in composing such music as a composer dedicated to CM would, regardless of whether it is for a film or not.


----------



## justekaia

DaveM said:


> That‘s too simplistic. On that basis, let’s exclude church/religious-related music: masses, requiems, choruses. Not to mention that the last sentence above, if true, rather than supporting your argument, is a giveaway as to why _some_ film music can be easily confused with CM. It is evident to me that some composers of film music go through a similar process in composing such music as a composer dedicated to CM would, regardless of whether it is for a film or not.


i doubt that a classical composer dedicated to his art would rip off other composers.


----------



## fbjim

justekaia said:


> i doubt that a classical composer dedicated to his art would rip off other composers.


see, you say that, but....


----------



## justekaia

fbjim said:


> see, you say that, but....


when i interviewed takemitsu he was not so proud of his ran score because there was not enough takemitsu in it; so you should get the picture by now


----------



## DaveM

justekaia said:


> i doubt that a classical composer dedicated to his art would rip off other composers.


When I think of those 2 composers borrowing from classical composers I’m not thinking of it as plagiarizing so much as using a similar style.


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

Calling John Williams's music "a rip-off" is amusingly arrogant.

*Edit:* to put it mildly


----------



## Enthusiast

DaveM said:


> That‘s too simplistic. On that basis, let’s exclude church/religious-related music: masses, requiems, choruses. Not to mention that the last sentence above, if true, rather than supporting your argument, is a giveaway as to why _some_ film music can be easily confused with CM. It is evident to me that some composers of film music go through a similar process in composing such music as a composer dedicated to CM would, regardless of whether it is for a film or not.


Well, church music is written to the glory of God. Fil music is written to accompany and perhaps accentuate film.


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

Enthusiast said:


> Well, church music is written to the glory of God. Fil music is written to accompany and perhaps accentuate film.


So?


----------



## Enthusiast

VoiceFromTheEther said:


> So?


So Dave's comparison is not helpful for a criticism of an earlier post that he was making! Do keep up!


----------



## DaveM

Enthusiast said:


> So Dave's comparison is not helpful for a criticism of an earlier post that he was making! Do keep up!


Well yes it was. If film music is written specifically for films and thus is not CM, why is music that was specifically written for the church and, for that matter, often written for, or representing, specific occasions such as Masses and Requiems, considered to be CM?


----------



## fbjim

Liturgical music is part of the direct lineage of classical music, which is probably why there's less controversy (notably religious music traditions that developed later, or outside the classical "lineage" like Western/American hymns are less associated with being considered "classical music"). 

"Film music" as a general term is clearly not classical music but the practice of playing orchestral film music in concert/recording can easily be considered so.


----------



## Enthusiast

DaveM said:


> Well yes it was. If film music is written specifically for films and thus is not CM, why is music that was specifically written for the church and, for that matter, often written for, or representing, specific occasions such as Masses and Requiems, considered to be CM?


What a strange perspective. I am not religious at all but great religious music was not just written for the church (even if the church commissioned it) or events in the church calendar. And I supdo not suppose it was merely expected to emphasise the message of the mass or whatever: rather, it _represented _it and behind all that was the aim of glorifying God, albeit usually a God as described by the Church. For the same to be said of film music is to elevate Jaws - of some aspect of it - to deity and the music of Jaw to being a _representation _of the film.


----------



## DaveM

Enthusiast said:


> What a strange perspective. I am not religious at all but great religious music was not just written for the church (even if the church commissioned it) or events in the church calendar. And I supdo not suppose it was merely expected to emphasise the message of the mass or whatever: rather, it _represented _it and behind all that was the aim of glorifying God, albeit usually a God as described by the Church. For the same to be said of film music is to elevate Jaws - of some aspect of it - to deity and the music of Jaw to being a _representation _of the film.


You’re missing the point completely.


----------



## fluteman

HansZimmer said:


> In the "Movie Corner" I opened a poll about the film scores which got the nomination "Best original score" in the Academy Awards (Oscars) of 1990: Talkclassical best film score award - 1990
> 
> This is for the first part of the competition Talkclassical best film score award.
> 
> Now, the score of the film "The Fabulous Baker Boys" (one of the film nominated in 1990) could be probably classified as Jazz (see for example the first theme) and Intrumental pop (see for example the second theme).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that no one would say that this is not jazz music because it was composed for a film. No one would say "this is not jazz but film music". Indeed, film music is not a genre of music: it only means that the music was composed for a film.
> 
> However, the other four nominated film scores, I think that can be classified as "romantic music".
> Usually, the film scores which get a nomination for the "Best original scores" are more or less classical music.
> 
> That's why the radio Classic FM started to insert some film scores in the competition Classic FM Hall of Fame.
> Their decision is criticized by many people. Read for example this article of the journal "The Guardian": Can film music ever be classical?
> 
> The argument of the writer of this article is that film scores can never be classified as "classical music" because they are composed for images and not for concerts (so, it is not standalone music, but a part of the movie).
> If this argument is valid, then we must conclude that the score of "The Fabulous Baker Boys" is not jazz because it was composed for images and not for concerts.
> 
> However, I agree that pure "motion music" is not extractable from it's context, but the best film scores (the one who win at The Academy Awards) are not simply "motion music": it's music that can be extracted as standalone music. Indeed, the best score composers sell tickets for concerts.
> 
> 
> Maybe the real reason of these people is that they think that John Williams is not as good as Beethoven, Mozart, Bach and so on and they see classical music as a "closed enclosure" where you can enter only if you have a special permission.
> If it is so, still I don't see the logic: you don't have to be Roger Federer for being a tennis player. So, you could simply say "Peter is a tennis player but not the number one" and "John Williams is a classical music composer but not the number one".
> 
> You might say that Bach is the number one and John Williams only an ordinary composer, if you think this, but I don't see the logic of "the closed enclosure".
> Someone could for example say that the composer of "The Fabulous Baker Boys" is a poor jazz composer, but it's still jazz.
> 
> 
> To conclude, my opinion is that much of the music composed for film scores is good classical music: "good" is my personal judgement, but every one can have his own.
> If you ask me "Don't you hear the difference between classical music and film scores?", my anwser is that usually film scores are built around one or more powerful themes, while some pieces in classical music are not so melody focused.
> I won't say that film scores don't have their distinticive rules, but that those rules are compatible with classical music, because there are many pieces that are considered "classical" that are built around a main theme.
> "Spring" of Vivaldi is a good example.
> The idea that classical music must be "chaotic" is only a personal preference of some people and not a rule that every composer must respect.


In another recent thread, I explained my reasoning as to the distinction between classical and popular music, though the distinction is not an absolute, "bright line" boundary, as few things in the arts are. Movie music generally is very much a popular music genre, which does not mean it is not deserving of the utmost respect. John Williams in particular is an excellent composer even though I would classify most of his work as popular music. He probably is one of the last living standard bearers of a wonderful popular music tradition, one that peaked in the "golden age" of Hollywood movies from the 1930s to the 1960s.


----------



## Enthusiast

DaveM said:


> You’re missing the point completely.


Perhaps it is that you can't see it?


----------



## 59540

I've been listening to a lot of Wagner lately. I get the feeling that a lot of film score techniques up until around 1960 or so were heavily influenced by him. Wagner seems to have been laying the groundwork for cinematic techniques before there was a cinema.


----------



## DaveM

fluteman said:


> ..Movie music generally is very much a popular music genre, which does not mean it is not deserving of the utmost respect..


So will we find these works on popular music radio stations everywhere?


----------



## 59540

Or this, before "Rosebud" goes up in smoke:


----------



## EdwardBast

dissident said:


> I've been listening to a lot of Wagner lately. I get the feeling that a lot of film score techniques up until around 1960 or so were heavily influenced by him. Wagner seems to have been laying the groundwork for cinematic techniques before there was a cinema.


So were Berlioz, Strauss, Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninoff, Rimsky-Korsakoff, Debussy, Stravinsky, Mussorgsky, Brahms, and many others.


----------



## 59540

EdwardBast said:


> So were Berlioz, Strauss, Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninoff, Rimsky-Korsakoff, Debussy, Stravinsky, Mussorgsky, Brahms, and many others.


I don't sense it as much with them. I get the feeling Wagner was trying to achieve the cinematic before its time. (Brahms?!)


----------



## HansZimmer

fluteman said:


> In another recent thread, I explained my reasoning as to the distinction between classical and popular music


Could you please expose your reasoning here?

"Popular music" is not a style of music, but a big container of styles. It's like to say "animals". An animal is a human, a shark, a cat, a dog,...
A popular music piece is pop, rap, dance, rock,...

From the start of this thread I'm asking how it's called exactly the style of music of John Williams and many others film score composers and no one was able to give it a name. Even the people who say that it's not classical music admitted that the style is classical (someone called it a pastiche of romantic music, other persons wrote that Hans Zimmer and John Williams borrow too much from classical music, and so on...) although they then deny that can be classified as classical music.



> John Williams in particular is an excellent composer even though I would classify most of his work as popular music. He probably is one of the last living standard bearers of a wonderful popular music tradition, one that peaked in the "golden age" of Hollywood movies from the 1930s to the 1960s.


No! Not at all! There are many good composers who write contemporary classical music for films like John Williams.

John Williams is great, but often his melodies are looped themes. Very good themes however.

There are other composers, like for example Alan Menken, who write nice tunes with more progression.
So no, this "music tradition" will not die with John Williams.

I've just posted a work of Alan Menken.

Beauty and the Beast - Score - Exposition for TC best film score award 1992


----------



## HansZimmer

justekaia said:


> the quality of the music produced by john williams and hans zimmer for film is very high but the intention is to compose film music and therefore it is not classical music


I still don't understand which definition of the word "classical music" tells that it must not be composed to accompany images. If the definition doesn't say so, then it's only a personal opinion of some people.


----------



## HansZimmer

However, speaking about film music, some days ago I opened a poll for the Talkclassical best film score award - 1991, if you want to vote. You simply have to vote your favourite score between the five nominated for "Best original score" in 1991.


----------



## fluteman

HansZimmer said:


> I still don't understand which definition of the word "classical music" tells that it must not be composed to accompany images. If the definition doesn't say so, then it's only a personal opinion of some people.


My working description of the distinction between popular and classical music is that popular music is written to capture the zeitgeist and appeal to the fashion of a certain place and time and attract the largest possible audience as quickly as possible. Classical music attempts to express more universal themes and be more meaningful in the long run and outside of its original context, even if its immediate audience is smaller.
Movie music IN GENERAL, WITH SIGNIFICANT EXCEPTIONS is written to help movies be popular hits with the largest possible immediate audience. That is why, to me, it GENERALLY falls within the popular music category.


----------



## justekaia

HansZimmer said:


> I still don't understand which definition of the word "classical music" tells that it must not be composed to accompany images. If the definition doesn't say so, then it's only a personal opinion of some people.


 anyone;
classical music was never composed to accompany images; there is a long history to prove that as classical music exists since the 9th century; if you can tell me a point in time when it was composed to accompany images you are the greatest genius on this planet; you can argue that there is no definition of classical music, but there is also no definition of a human being; classical music to most people is composed to be played before an audience and is taught in academic schools; even electronic classical music is researched and taught in dedicated institutions; tell me in which institution film music is being taught as music to be played outside of the cinema; in which places is it played to a live audience; classical music existed more than 10 centuries without film music; so give me a break and do not try to consider it now as classical music; that being said great film music is sometimes as good as classical music


----------



## fluteman

justekaia said:


> tell me in which institution film music is being taught as music to be played outside of the cinema;


This is the key point. Film music is made to accompany and enhance movies, which are not entirely, but are almost entirely, a popular art genre. Some film music can be taken out of that context, rearranged, and made to stand alone effectively. But that is a case of the exception proving the rule.
Some of the exceptions are favorites of mine: Prokofiev's Alexander Nevsky cantata and Lieutenant Kije Suite, Bernstein's On The Waterfront Suite, and Corigliano's The Red Violin Concerto all are adaptations of their film music. But still, these are exceptions. Most film music is not as effective outside its original context.


----------



## mikeh375

HansZimmer said:


> I still don't understand which definition of the word "classical music" tells that it must not be composed to accompany images. If the definition doesn't say so, then it's only a personal opinion of some people.


I can say from a composer's point of view, the mental and technical approach to film score writing is not the same as classical or concert music writing unless there's a classical temp track to be gotten rid of from the film during post production. I could go on but already have in post no.5 of this thread and given examples, so I shant...


----------



## DaveM

I very much doubt that the Avant-garde contemporary music without harmony, without a melody, without development of that melody is composed with the same approach as music of the CP era and yet it seems to be automatically included as CM.

The problem here is that all film music is not alike. The other problem is that some people here are making specific comments without apparently knowing anything about film music (am not including mikeh375 above). One giveaway is the repeated mention of the same 2 or 3 film music composers as if they represent the core of film music.


----------



## hammeredklavier

DaveM said:


> The problem here is that all film music is not alike.


For instance;
"It makes sense that we're experiencing a horror renaissance. The genre took off during the Great Depression and has been there for us in difficult times to accentuate and provide some semblance of shelter from our biggest fears. Since the dawn of the medium, music has proven just as important to film as visuals are; film scores complete the illusion of movement and help to further remove us from reality. But more so than any other genre of film music, horror is distinct and modern.
Cliff Martinez explained this to me perfectly when I interviewed him about his score for Nicolas Winding Refn's The Neon Demon (2016). "I hear some of the most adventurous, sound designer-ly music that seems to be happening a lot more in horror scores," he offered. "Also horror is the stuff that sounds more like modern 20th century symphonic music - it's the only stuff that references Stockhausen or Penderecki or Ligeti. That stuff doesn't go a long way in your romantic comedies or anyplace else, but it has a home in horror movies." Modern music, often composed in response to an increasingly terrifying reality, has become the perfect accompaniment to the nightmares we put up on the silver screen."
31 Essential Horror Soundtrack Songs


----------



## HansZimmer

justekaia said:


> if you can tell me a point in time when it was composed to accompany images you are the greatest genius on this planet







If you say that theatre is not the same thing because the images are not on a screen... well, it is obvious that in 1800 no composer wrote music to accompany images on a screen. How can I make examples of classical music produced for cinema/tv before it's existence?

What I'm saying is that to compose music to accompany a movie is not different than composing music to accompany a play.


----------



## HansZimmer

fluteman said:


> This is the key point. Film music is made to accompany and enhance movies, which are not entirely, but are almost entirely, a popular art genre. Some film music can be taken out of that context, rearranged, and made to stand alone effectively. But that is a case of the exception proving the rule.


It's not an exception. All nominated scores at the Academy Awards can be extracted from films.

Live concert of the score of Lion King (by Hans Zimmer).






Born on Fourth of July, John Williams.






Field of Dreams, James Horner.







The best score composers are able to sell tickets for concerts.


----------



## justekaia

HansZimmer said:


> If you say that theatre is not the same thing because the images are not on a screen... well, it is obvious that in 1800 no composer wrote music to accompany images on a screen. How can I make examples of classical music produced for cinema/tv before it's existence?
> 
> What I'm saying is that to compose music to accompany a movie is not different than composing music to accompany a play.


why not a greek ballet while you are at it; we are talking about film music here


----------



## DaveM

Not all film music was composed to accompany images to the point that without the images it has no value or relevance. There is a lot of film music that is composed to convey a feeling which happens to be similar to what classical music often does.


----------



## 59540

justekaia said:


> why not a greek ballet while you are at it; we are talking about film music here


Because it's the same principle. Why can or should this music be separated from its dramatic context?


----------



## HansZimmer

fluteman said:


> My working description of the distinction between popular and classical music is that popular music is written to capture the zeitgeist and appeal to the fashion of a certain place and time and attract the largest possible audience as quickly as possible. Classical music attempts to express more universal themes and be more meaningful in the long run and outside of its original context, even if its immediate audience is smaller.


To be honest, I don't know if Mozart and Beethoven were concerned with this distinction between popular and art music: it looks more like an other modern empty/useless definition, like many others.

The music of both was not experimental. It was very melodic and appealing and it was composed in a style that was popular in the classical period.
I'm not saying that they were not trying to put their fingerprint in their music and that they were not innovative, but they didn't break the basic rules of music: it was melodic music composed to give pleasure to their ears and to the one of the persons who paid for their service.

Their goal was simply to compose the best possible music.


I don't know if your distinction works for classical music in general, but it probably works for the distinction between experimental music and already accepted music. It's true that composers of experimental music know that many people will criticize their music and that they would have a larger audience if they composed music which follows the rules.

Furthermore, the distinction doesn't work for popular music. Indeed it's not true that popular music is conservative: it's full of innovation. Rap music for example is the most popular style of music today, but it used to be "new/experimenal music some decades ago". Even today there are still people who say that it's not music.


So, I wonder if this distinction between popular and art music makes any sense. I think thare are simply different styles of music and that in each style there is more serious music and less serious music.
So, there is good pop and junk pop, good rock and junk rock, good rap and junk rap, and so on..
It would make sense to say that the best music of each style is art music.

Classical music for me is only a style of music like pop, rock, rap, and so on...
If you tell me that, in average, it is a more serious style of music than others I agree, because in the classical music concerts are concerts and not shows, because people who work in the field are technically trained, because the evident trash from an artistic perspective is not tolerated.


That said, I simply think that some film composers follow the classical style.
If movies producers would want music that is appealing for most people they would use pop and rap songs as scores, don't you think?
In reality there's a quite conservative approach with film music: it was decided that music in classical style is effective for movies and while popular music changed during the last decades, the film music of today is similar to the one of 1900.


----------



## fluteman

HansZimmer said:


> To be honest, I don't know if Mozart and Beethoven were concerned with this distinction between popular and art music: it looks more like an other modern empty/useless definition, like many others.
> 
> The music of both was not experimental. It was very melodic and appealing and it was composed in a style that was popular in the classical period.
> I'm not saying that they were not trying to put their fingerprint in their music and that they were not innovative, but they didn't break the basic rules of music: it was melodic music composed to give pleasure to their ears and to the one of the persons who paid for their service.
> 
> Their goal was simply to compose the best possible music.
> 
> 
> I don't know if your distinction works for classical music in general, but it probably works for the distinction between experimental music and already accepted music. It's true that composers of experimental music know that many people will criticize their music and that they would have a larger audience if they composed music which follows the rules.
> 
> Furthermore, the distinction doesn't work for popular music. Indeed it's not true that popular music is conservative: it's full of innovation. Rap music for example is the most popular style of music today, but it used to be "new/experimenal music some decades ago". Even today there are still people who say that it's not music.
> 
> 
> So, I wonder if this distinction between popular and art music makes any sense. I think thare are simply different styles of music and that in each style there is more serious music and less serious music.
> So, there is good pop and junk pop, good rock and junk rock, good rap and junk rap, and so on..
> It would make sense to say that the best music of each style is art music.
> 
> Classical music for me is only a style of music like pop, rock, rap, and so on...
> If you tell me that, in average, it is a more serious style of music than others I agree, because in the classical music concerts are concerts and not shows, because people who work in the field are technically trained, because the evident trash from an artistic perspective is not tolerated.
> 
> 
> That said, I simply think that some film composers follow the classical style.
> If movies producers would want music that is appealing for most people they would use pop and rap songs as scores, don't you think?
> In reality there's a quite conservative approach with film music: it was decided that music in classical style is effective for movies and while popular music changed during the last decades, the film music of today is similar to the one of 1900.


Alas, your post is factually inaccurate in a large number of ways. I'll only briefly address your final paragraph, all of which is factually inaccurate. Movie producers do routinely use pop and rap songs as scores for movies these days. Overall there is not a conservative approach to movie music. Remember that movies are multi-million dollar gambles and will always tend to stay with proven formulas, and that includes music. The "classical style" you refer to probably refers to a stye most common from the 1930s to the 1960s, exemplified by Korngold, Waxman, Steiner, Hermann, et al., many of whom were trained in the 19th century central European classical music tradition. Their scores certainly reflect that tradition but are a great remove from the Mahler symphonies and Strauss tone poems that they echo. Remember that John Williams was a student of Waxman and Hermann and is now 90 years old. He continues that tradition in many ways but many of today's successful young movie composers are very different. Check out Mica Levi, for example.


----------



## Forster

^ I'd be interested to know what movies released recently you've surveyed to be able to generalise about movie soundtracks of the 2020s. From what I've been seeing, "classical" continues to feature strongly, as well as "modernist", and "popular".


----------



## pianozach

justekaia said:


> anyone;
> classical music was never composed to accompany images; there is a long history to prove that as classical music exists since the 9th century; if you can tell me a point in time when it was composed to accompany images you are the greatest genius on this planet; you can argue that there is no definition of classical music, but there is also no definition of a human being; classical music to most people is composed to be played before an audience and is taught in academic schools; even electronic classical music is researched and taught in dedicated institutions; tell me in which institution film music is being taught as music to be played outside of the cinema; in which places is it played to a live audience; classical music existed more than 10 centuries without film music; so give me a break and do not try to consider it now as classical music; that being said great film music is sometimes as good as classical music


And THIS is where that argument breaks down. Some Classical music _was_ composed to accompany images, even evoke images. 

You can go all the way back to pre-baroque Masses, or music for Fireworks, Opera, Ballet, and programmatic music meant to evoke images of Italy, the mountains, the ocean, battles, or planets.

Film music is regularly played in concerts, often with the music condensed into Suites.


----------



## justekaia

pianozach said:


> And THIS is where that argument breaks down. Some Classical music _was_ composed to accompany images, even evoke images.
> 
> You can go all the way back to pre-baroque Masses, or music for Fireworks, Opera, Ballet, and programmatic music meant to evoke images of Italy, the mountains, the ocean, battles, or planets.
> 
> Film music is regularly played in concerts, often with the music condensed into Suites.


the stabat maters were composed to evoke the virgin mary which obviously proves that film music is classical music


----------



## HansZimmer

justekaia said:


> the stabat maters were composed to evoke the virgin mary which obviously proves that film music is classical music


The argument of music which evokes images might not be valid, but my example of incidental music for the Egmont play is valid: it's music composed to accompany a theatrical work.

It seems that you would only accept an example of music composed by Beethoven for screen images, which obviously can not exist.
And if you're argument is that music composed to accompany screen images is NEVER classical music (doesn't matter what is the style of music) then it is a circular argument and no one will ever be able to prove you're wrong.


----------



## HansZimmer

fluteman said:


> Alas, your post is factually inaccurate in a large number of ways. I'll only briefly address your final paragraph, all of which is factually inaccurate. Movie producers do routinely use pop and rap songs as scores for movies these days. Overall there is not a conservative approach to movie music. Remember that movies are multi-million dollar gambles and will always tend to stay with proven formulas, and that includes music. The "classical style" you refer to probably refers to a stye most common from the 1930s to the 1960s, exemplified by Korngold, Waxman, Steiner, Hermann, et al., many of whom were trained in the 19th century central European classical music tradition. Their scores certainly reflect that tradition but are a great remove from the Mahler symphonies and Strauss tone poems that they echo. Remember that John Williams was a student of Waxman and Hermann and is now 90 years old. He continues that tradition in many ways but many of today's successful young movie composers are very different. Check out Mica Levi, for example.


You're right, but I'm speaking about the GOOD film scores. If you check the film scores nominated at the Academy Awards, most of the times they have more or less a classical style.

However this is not the point. The point of this discussion is: why do many people think that WHEN a film score has a classical style, the music can not be considered classical?


----------



## fluteman

HansZimmer said:


> You're right, but I'm speaking about the GOOD film scores. If you check the film scores nominated at the Academy Awards, most of the times they have more or less a classical style.


Maybe the Academy has become too conservative and stuck in the past. That tends to be a problem with Academies.


----------



## pianozach

justekaia said:


> the stabat maters were composed to evoke the virgin mary which obviously proves that film music is classical music


Touché


----------



## Simon Moon

HansZimmer said:


> You're right, but I'm speaking about the GOOD film scores. If you check the film scores nominated at the Academy Awards, most of the times they have more or less a classical style.
> 
> However this is not the point. The point of this discussion is: why do many people think that WHEN a film score has a classical style, the music can not be considered classical?


Film music being orchestral, does not mean it is in a classical style.


----------



## HansZimmer

Simon Moon said:


> Film music being orchestral, does not mean it is in a classical style.


I never said that it's classical ONLY because is orchestral. It's because of the aesthetic in general. The type of instruments used certainly contribute in creating the aesthetic, but it's not the only factor.


----------



## justekaia

HansZimmer said:


> The argument of music which evokes images might not be valid, but my example of incidental music for the Egmont play is valid: it's music composed to accompany a theatrical work.
> 
> It seems that you would only accept an example of music composed by Beethoven for screen images, which obviously can not exist.
> And if you're argument is that music composed to accompany screen images is NEVER classical music (doesn't matter what is the style of music) then it is a circular argument and no one will ever be able to prove you're wrong.


look hans you have all my sympathy because i probably love film music as much as you do; but let me put it simply; when the classical composer takemitsu writes the film score on precise instructions of kurosawa to accompany the moving images of ran it is a filmscore; if takemitsu had composed a classical piece and kurosawa would have used it for his film Ran it would have been classical music used in a film.


----------



## Bwv 1080

is the funk music composed for old porn films still funk?


----------



## DaveM

fluteman said:


> Alas, your post is factually inaccurate in a large number of ways. I'll only briefly address your final paragraph, all of which is factually inaccurate. Movie producers do routinely use pop and rap songs as scores for movies these days. Overall there is not a conservative approach to movie music. Remember that movies are multi-million dollar gambles and will always tend to stay with proven formulas, and that includes music. The "classical style" you refer to probably refers to a stye most common from the 1930s to the 1960s, exemplified by Korngold, Waxman, Steiner, Hermann, et al., many of whom were trained in the 19th century central European classical music tradition. Their scores certainly reflect that tradition but are a great remove from the Mahler symphonies and Strauss tone poems that they echo. Remember that John Williams was a student of Waxman and Hermann and is now 90 years old. He continues that tradition in many ways but many of today's successful young movie composers are very different. Check out Mica Levi, for example.


Are you not familiar with any film composers that composed with a classical style after the 1960s? Are you not familiar with any movies with multi-million budgets that have soundtracks that remind more of classical music than popular music?


----------



## DaveM

justekaia said:


> look hans you have all my sympathy because i probably love film music as much as you do; but let me put it simply; when the classical composer takemitsu writes the film score on precise instructions of kurosawa to accompany the moving images of ran it is a filmscore; if takemitsu had composed a classical piece and kurosawa would have used it for his film Ran it would have been classical music used in a film.


If you think all film music is composed just to accompany moving images and that’s where it’s value ends then you don’t know very much about the subject.


----------



## Bulldog

HansZimmer said:


> You're right, but I'm speaking about the GOOD film scores. If you check the film scores nominated at the Academy Awards, most of the times they have more or less a classical style.


And who decides what constitutes a good film score? I've noticed that most of the scores you promote do nothing for me. Of course, neither of us has the market cornered on what's good or not. It's all subjective.


----------



## DaveM

Bulldog said:


> And who decides what constitutes a good film score? I've noticed that most of the scores you promote do nothing for me. Of course, neither of us has the market cornered on what's good or not. _It's all subjective_.


What has that got to do with the OP? You’re in the wrong thread.


----------



## fbjim

pianozach said:


> Film music is regularly played in concerts, often with the music condensed into Suites.


i'm not sure anyone has seriously contested that film scores arranged as suites for classical performance are classical music


----------



## fbjim

HansZimmer said:


> In reality there's a quite conservative approach with film music: it was decided that music in classical style is effective for movies and while popular music changed during the last decades, the film music of today is similar to the one of 1900.


this is positively not true. Korngold scores and Korngold-like scores (more or less the "institutional" style of Hollywood through about the 50s) sound absolutely nothing like Hans Zimmer/Jonny Greenwood/etc.


----------



## Bulldog

DaveM said:


> What has that got to do with the OP? You’re in the wrong thread.


I was responding to a comment made by the person who started this thread. I'm in the right place, so stop blowing smoke.


----------



## DaveM

Bulldog said:


> I was responding to a comment made by the person who started this thread. I'm in the right place, so stop blowing smoke.


Blowing smoke is trying to inject the topic of ‘subjectivity vs objectivity’.


----------



## fbjim

also the weird dichotomy between "film music" and "the avant garde" is a more than a little bit strange

like come on


----------



## HansZimmer

Bulldog said:


> And who decides what constitutes a good film score? I've noticed that most of the scores you promote do nothing for me. Of course, neither of us has the market cornered on what's good or not. It's all subjective.


The emotions that a determined melody causes are very subjective. There is no composer that makes everyone happy. There are however composers that make many people happy.

You wrote that you don't like the score of "Beauty and the Beast", but you just have to read youtube comments to know how many people get very strong feelings with the tunes of Alan Menken.






This explains why Alan won 8 academy awards for "Best original score" (only Alfred Newman has won more Oscars than him).

Somewhere you wrote that you don't like emotional melodies and this could explain why you don't like the top rated film scores. Film scores have emotional tunes because they are intended to give strong emotions.
Many (most?) people like strong melodies. The fact that you get the opposite reaction can explain why you are not able to appreciate film scores.


----------



## justekaia

DaveM said:


> If you think all film music is composed just to accompany moving images and that’s where it’s value ends then you don’t know very much about the subject.


you are once more off-topic. i never said anything about the value of film which i rate very highly in some cases and listen to on cd.


----------



## Bulldog

HansZimmer said:


> Many (most?) people like strong melodies. The fact that you get the opposite reaction can explain why you are not able to appreciate film scores.


Nonsense. Just because I don't care for the film scores you like doesn't mean that I can't appreciate music for the film. There are plenty of scores I love, and it's likely you would not appreciate most of them.


----------



## DaveM

justekaia said:


> you are once more off-topic. i never said anything about the value of film which i rate very highly in some cases and listen to on cd.


If you listen to film music on cd then, apparently, the music doesn’t require images.


----------



## fbjim

DaveM said:


> Blowing smoke is trying to inject the topic of ‘subjectivity vs objectivity’.


"Film music is in the classical style"
"Not all film music is neo-romantic or neoclassical in style"
"Sorry, I meant the GOOD film music is neo-romantic/neoclassical"


----------



## fbjim

Also the Academy Awards are not any sort of independent arbiter for quality. They have their biases like any institution.

We could conclude, for instance that since the award for Costume Design is pretty much biased for period films, that means that period films have "the GOOD costume design", except that would be silly.


----------



## julide

If you choose to associate your music with a movie no one will remember after viewing once thats on you.


----------



## pianozach

That's a lot to unpack there.



HansZimmer said:


> To be honest, I don't know if Mozart and Beethoven were concerned with this distinction between popular and art music: it looks more like an other modern empty/useless definition, like many others.
> The music of both was not experimental. It was very melodic and appealing and it was composed in a style that was popular in the classical period.
> I'm not saying that they were not trying to put their fingerprint in their music and that they were not innovative, but they didn't break the basic rules of music: it was melodic music composed to give pleasure to their ears and to the one of the persons who paid for their service.
> 
> Their goal was simply to compose the best possible music.


To be fair, film didn't exist back then.  It was theatre, ballet, and masses/oratorios. I don't even really think there was a category of "Popular" music back then, as there was no means of distribution. There was "folk" music, I guess, and the "Classical" composers did appropriate those tunes and timbers for their own uses.

Mozart and Beethoven, in their own eras, WERE pretty experimental, or, as you put it, "innovative". They DID "break the basic rules of music", in many ways. It's difficult to contextualize it now, a couple of centuries later. For instance, Beethoven's publisher threw a fit over what is now the "Grosse Fugue". 

But there are a myriad of different ways in which they broke rules. Their melodies were innovative. Sure, they were melodic, but they broke melodic rules of the day. 




HansZimmer said:


> I don't know if your distinction works for classical music in general, but it probably works for the distinction between experimental music and already accepted music. It's true that composers of experimental music know that many people will criticize their music and that they would have a larger audience if they composed music which follows the rules.


See above. Grosse Fugue.

To his contemporaries, Mozart was difficult, overly complex, uncomfortably rich in dissonance and chromaticism, and too virtuosic. It was an age that preferred simplicity and “charm.” Music by composers that seems insipid to us now was held in higher esteem than Mozart’s, except by people who were really experts. Mozart was actually quite shocking in his day, as Beethoven was in his. I imagine Beethoven was as hard to understand in his time as Wagner in his.



HansZimmer said:


> Furthermore, the distinction doesn't work for popular music. Indeed it's not true that popular music is conservative: it's full of innovation. Rap music for example is the most popular style of music today, but it used to be "new/experimenal music some decades ago". Even today there are still people who say that it's not music.


Irrelevant. For centuries parents hated the music their children loved.

The art of composition, at least until the 20th century, was a continual progression, slowly evolving new forms and methods based on the traditions of the immediate past, breaking rules bit by bit.




HansZimmer said:


> So, I wonder if this distinction between popular and art music makes any sense. I think thare are simply different styles of music and that in each style there is more serious music and less serious music.
> So, there is good pop and junk pop, good rock and junk rock, good rap and junk rap, and so on..
> It would make sense to say that the best music of each style is art music.


That actually makes sense. 

Sometimes we cannot tell which contemporary art is art, and which is junk. We're too close to it. But when it comes to popular music, we can actually look back on the Billboard Hot 100 charts of last decade, or 25 years ago, or 50 years ago, and assess individual works in hindsight, both in composition, innovation, influence, and how that compares with its continued popularity. Some artists were huge, but are largely forgotten while others have had ongoing popularity



HansZimmer said:


> Classical music for me is only a style of music like pop, rock, rap, and so on...
> If you tell me that, in average, it is a more serious style of music than others I agree, because in the classical music concerts are concerts and not shows, because people who work in the field are technically trained, because the evident trash from an artistic perspective is not tolerated.


I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I THINK I'm in agreement here, but . . . well . . . 

I guess I'm confused at making a real distinction between the technical skills of musicians in "Classical" music and "Popular" music. There are absolute virtuosos in Pop, Rock, Jazz, Country, and Rap. Yes, it's far more likely for a talentless musician to be popular in Popular music than in Classical music (I'm lookin' at YOU, Dave Clark). 

This alone doesn't really have any bearing on the actual music you're comparing.




HansZimmer said:


> That said, I simply think that some film composers follow the classical style.
> If movies producers would want music that is appealing for most people they would use pop and rap songs as scores, don't you think?


Um . . . they do

American Grafitti
Three Mile
Guardians of the Galaxy
Barbershop
42nd Street
Singin' In the Rain
2 Fast 2 Furious 



HansZimmer said:


> In reality there's a quite conservative approach with film music: it was decided that music in classical style is effective for movies and while popular music changed during the last decades, the film music of today is similar to the one of 1900.


Oh no. Oh no. Oh no no no no no.

Let's start with the fact that films didn't even have dedicated scores until the advent of sound films in 1929 (Yes, there were a handful of exceptions, but aren't there always exceptions?)

Scores from the 1930s do not resemble scores from the 1960s, or the 1990s, or the 2010s. Even when Max Steiner championed the use of leitfmotifs in 1933, it is far different when, forty years later John Williams uses the same tool for a score. The "Romantic" style which practically "dead-ended" decades earlier, evolved in the hands of film composers. One wouldn't mistake the music of John Williams for that of Max Steiner, except when Williams is stealing from him, much like he did with Holst and Wagner.

You're certainly CORRECT in your assessment of "popular" music in film, that its use is markedly different from decade to decade, as popular music changed so drastically constantly. But film music also changed . . . the changes may have been more subtle, but they changed. Morricone doesn't sound like Miklós Rózsa or Korngold. Jerry Goldsmith doesn't sound like Franz Waxman.


----------



## Enthusiast

We get bogged down in trying to define (film music, popular music, classical music) and go round and round so that I am unclear what the "much film music is classical" fans are saying about the music in question. I would like someone who believes some contemporary film music to be truly classical to post a list of their three favourite and, for them, most classical such composers and then to compare their value (to them as listener) with some less than top flight but certainly very noted classical composers - say, Weber, Berlioz, Nielsen, Myaskovsky and Chausson. Do the film composers rank for them with such ranked classical composers or are they feeling merely that they all belong in the same category ("classical music")? Are they arguing that their favourite film music is as great as the classics to them?


----------



## fbjim

julide said:


> If you choose to associate your music with a movie no one will remember after viewing once thats on you.


A job is a job.

This is entirely personal but one thing I always liked about Morricone was his willingness to work on total trash, versus someone like Williams being the establishment "big guns" composer who you only bring out for big money films. Totally personal comparison but something about the latter always rubbed me the wrong way.


----------



## fbjim

Enthusiast said:


> We get bogged down in trying to define (film music, popular music, classical music) and go round and round so that I am unclear what the "much film music is classical" fans are saying about the music in question. I would like someone who believes some contemporary film music to be truly classical to post a list of their three favourite and, for them, most classical such composers and then to compare their value (to them as listener) with some less than top flight but certainly very noted classical composers - say, Weber, Berlioz, Nielsen, Myaskovsky and Chausson. Do the film composers rank for them with such ranked classical composers or are they feeling merely that they all belong in the same category ("classical music")? Are they arguing that their favourite film music is as great as the classics to them?


It's also a bit confusing, one thing I kinda take is that a lot of film music is less considered "not classical" and more considered adjacent to the pops repitoire, which "Very Serious Listeners" tend to consider at least mildly pejorative.


----------



## Prodromides

Enthusiast said:


> I would like someone who believes some contemporary film music to be truly classical to post a list of their three favourite and, for them, most classical such composers and then to compare their value (to them as listener) with some less than top flight but certainly very noted classical composers - say, Weber, Berlioz, Nielsen, Myaskovsky and Chausson. Do the film composers rank for them with such ranked classical composers or are they feeling merely that they all belong in the same category ("classical music")? Are they arguing that their favourite film music is as great as the classics to them?


My 3 favo(u)rite composers for cinema & TV are Richard Rodney Bennett, Alex North + Piero Piccioni.
However, when I rank these 3 along with my other faves from contemporary classical, they get interspersed within my Top 20 as such:

1. Charles Koechlin
2. Giacinto Scelsi
3. André Jolivet
4. Richard Rodney Bennett
5. Aarre Merikanto
6. Alex North
7. Karol Szymanowski
8. Maurice Ohana
9. Arne Nordheim
10. Jón Leifs

11. Piero Piccioni
12. Meyer Kupferman
13. Tōru Takemitsu
14. Heitor Villa-Lobos
15. André Caplet
16. Roberto Gerhard
17. Jean Prodromidès
18. Luigi Dallapiccola
19. Pierre Jansen
20. Jerry Goldsmith

Whilst both Bennett & North (as well as Takemitsu & Prodromidès) have concert works besides their music for films, Piccioni, Jansen & Goldsmith are on my list mainly for their film work.

The three examples below, though, are not written by anybody within my Top 20; I select them because I feel they represent various musical vocabularies from the 20th century.

Antinea, l’amante della città sepolta (Original motion picture soundtrack) - YouTube
This "B" movie (released in 1961) in the adventure/fantasy mould has music by Carlo Rustichelli.
Its orchestral & choral idioms are not modernistic and the album plays rather like an opera by Puccini without lyrics.
The harmonic territory of *Antinea, l'amante della città sepolta* is no further advanced than WWI-era romanticism.





Imagine a Hammer horror flick with a musical backing by one of the 'Manchester' blokes such as Maxwell Davies or Birtwistle. Witness *The House That Dripped Blood* and its avant-garde percussion/keyboard ensemble score by Michael Dress. A rare specimen of film music up-to-date with compositional trends from within its own decade.

La Guerre Du Feu OST - YouTube
Director Jean-Jacques Annaud wished Penderecki would've scored *Quest for Fire*, but Penderecki was 'booked' with many commissions and unable to oblige. Philippe Sarde's resultant soundtrack resembles late-'70s Penderecki and represents middle-of-the-road modernism - nothing too _outré_, but abrasive enough to afflict comfort.
Performed by Les Percussions De Strasbourg, The Ambrosian Singers, + both London's Philharmonic & Symphony Orchestras.


----------



## Forster

Enthusiast said:


> We get bogged down in trying to define (film music, popular music, classical music) and go round and round so that I am unclear what the "much film music is classical" fans are saying about the music in question. I would like someone who believes some contemporary film music to be truly classical to post a list of their three favourite and, for them, most classical such composers and then to compare their value (to them as listener) with some less than top flight but certainly very noted classical composers - say, Weber, Berlioz, Nielsen, Myaskovsky and Chausson. Do the film composers rank for them with such ranked classical composers or are they feeling merely that they all belong in the same category ("classical music")? Are they arguing that their favourite film music is as great as the classics to them?


I'm not sure your suggestion will resolve the confusion - except for those who wish to assert that "classical" film scores (ie those scores that are not obviously jazz or pop or any other distinct genres) must not only belong within the classical repertoire (itself with porous boundaries) but be deemed as of the same quality as a symphony as Beethoven or Mahler.


----------



## Enthusiast

Forster said:


> I'm not sure your suggestion will resolve the confusion - except for those who wish to assert that "classical" film scores (ie those scores that are not obviously jazz or pop or any other distinct genres) must not only belong within the classical repertoire (itself with porous boundaries) but be deemed as of the same quality as a symphony as Beethoven or Mahler.


It won't resolve it, I know. Everyone's taste is different and right for them. But at least it can help me to clarify what people are saying and how the film music they feel is classical fits within their wider classical taste.


----------



## DaveM

Forster said:


> I'm not sure your suggestion will resolve the confusion - except for those who wish to assert that "classical" film scores (ie those scores that are not obviously jazz or pop or any other distinct genres) must not only belong within the classical repertoire (itself with porous boundaries) but be deemed as of the same quality as a symphony as Beethoven or Mahler.


Nobody has taken that position here. And there shouldn’t be a lot of confusion. At most, the position is that _some film music_ has similarities to classical music and could be considered a sub-set of the genre.


----------



## Forster

Enthusiast said:


> It won't resolve it, I know. Everyone's taste is different and right for them. But at least it can help me to clarify what people are saying and how the film music they feel is classical fits within their wider classical taste.


Tbh, I don't know how many, if any such members as I described are here in this thread and contributing.


----------



## fbjim

_Some film music is listened to, and appreciated within the same contexts as classical music_ is a fairly valid argument, I think. We could probably say the same thing with any genre in the latter field, be it electronic music, pop music, jazz, etc.


----------



## fbjim

Just to expand on that - _Some film music shares stylistic traits with some classical music _is pretty clearly valid too.

One problem I have with these kinds of debates is that the concept of "genre" isn't really a big chart where each piece of music ever written fits into - it's more an aesthetic context of listening that the music is framed by. Music can obviously fit into multiple genres (not including subgenres, where say, "late-romantic music" is a subset of Classical music, so it's obvious that a piece of late-romantic music is generally considered to be classical music). A lot of avant-garde classical music may also be considered as electronic music - some electronic music is listened to as pop music. There are even rare cases of classical music being listened to in a pop music context*.

Like I said though, a lot of the objections seem to be less about genre classifications and more about "serious" listeners occasionally having poor/pejorative views on what might be called the Pops repertoire - and much film music, especially popular film music does share stylistic similarities with pops classical, resulting in a relative lack of "expert" acclaim.


*Is the Canon in D pop music? It was, after all, popular within a pop-music context- it gained popularity from radio play among general audiences, and like pop music, the acclaim was mostly accorded to a specific recording of it (the Paillard recording).


----------



## pianozach

Amusing that adaptations of Classical music have made the Pop Music Charts

First one that comes to mind is Deodato's somewhat Disco version of Also Sprach Zarathustra, although it was released under the 2001 A Space Odyssey title.

There's other hits directly inspired by Classical Music:


*Lady Gaga – Alejandro / Vittorio Monti – Csárdás*
*Eric Carmen – All by Myself / Rachmaninov – Piano Concerto No.2 in C minor
Billy Joel – This Night / Beethoven – Pathétique Sonata
Maroon 5 – Memories / Pachelbel – Canon in D
Elvis Presley – It’s Now or Never / Eduardo di Capua – O Sole Mio*
*Barry Manilow - Could It Be Magic / Chopin - Prelude in C Minor No. 20*

I'm missing so many I'll bet.


----------



## DaveM

pianozach said:


> Amusing that adaptations of Classical music have made the Pop Music Charts
> 
> First one that comes to mind is Deodato's somewhat Disco version of Also Sprach Zarathustra, although it was released under the 2001 A Space Odyssey title.
> 
> There's other hits directly inspired by Classical Music:
> 
> 
> *Lady Gaga – Alejandro / Vittorio Monti – Csárdás*
> *Eric Carmen – All by Myself / Rachmaninov – Piano Concerto No.2 in C minor
> Billy Joel – This Night / Beethoven – Pathétique Sonata
> Maroon 5 – Memories / Pachelbel – Canon in D
> Elvis Presley – It’s Now or Never / Eduardo di Capua – O Sole Mio*
> *Barry Manilow - Could It Be Magic / Chopin - Prelude in C Minor No. 20*
> 
> I'm missing so many I'll bet.


Eric Carmen went to the Rach Well more than once: ‘Never Gonna Fall in Love Again’ used a melody from Rachmaninoff’s 2nd Symphony.


----------



## HansZimmer

Bulldog said:


> Nonsense. Just because I don't care for the film scores you like doesn't mean that I can't appreciate music for the film. There are plenty of scores I love, and it's likely you would not appreciate most of them.


The point is the following...

You wrote "I don't like the film scores you promote", but in reality in the movie corner I'm not promoting anything. I'm doing a competition for the film scores which were nominated at the Academy Awards for "Best original score".

In this discussion, I was using the adjective "good" for the film scores that are nominated at the Oscars, which is the most important film award.
So, I was not speaking about my personal tastes.
To use the adjective "good" to refer to awarded film scores is not eccentric, while saying "I don't like the awarded film scores and so you must not call them 'good'" is a bit eccentric. It's like to say that your personal tastes are more relevant than the tastes of many persons.


----------



## HansZimmer

Enthusiast said:


> We get bogged down in trying to define (film music, popular music, classical music) and go round and round so that I am unclear what the "much film music is classical" fans are saying about the music in question. I would like someone who believes some contemporary film music to be truly classical to post a list of their three favourite and, for them, most classical such composers and then to compare their value (to them as listener) with some less than top flight but certainly very noted classical composers - say, Weber, Berlioz, Nielsen, Myaskovsky and Chausson. Do the film composers rank for them with such ranked classical composers or are they feeling merely that they all belong in the same category ("classical music")? Are they arguing that their favourite film music is as great as the classics to them?


As I already wrote in the OP, this is not a discussion about quality, but about the style.

-----------------

_Maybe the real reason of these people is that they think that John Williams is not as good as Beethoven, Mozart, Bach and so on and they see classical music as a "closed enclosure" where you can enter only if you have a special permission.
If it is so, still I don't see the logic: you don't have to be Roger Federer for being a tennis player. So, you could simply say "Peter is a tennis player but not the number one" and "John Williams is a classical music composer but not the number one".

-----------------_

To ask if the composers of film scores are as good as the famous classical music composers is a different question than asking if some film scores are (more or less) classical music.

By reading my nickname someone could think that I'm an expert of film scores, but in reality I'm not. I'm increasing my culture about them with the Talkclassical best film score award.

I'm not even an expert of Hans Zimmer. I registered in the forum with this nickname only because in that period I was in love with the score of the Lion King, which is considered the best work of Hans Zimmer (now there is also the score of Dune).

Now, if you ask me to rank composers, then I consider Mozart a genius and Hans Zimmer a great composer.
However to ask what's better between the best film scores and the best concert music is like to ask what's better between gold and gold.
I rate the score of Lion King as "excellent" as well as the symphonies of Mozart. There is nothing above "excellent". You can not say what's better between two excellent works.


----------



## Xisten267

HansZimmer said:


> I rate the score of Lion King as "excellent" as well as the symphonies of Mozart. There is nothing above "excellent". You can not say what's better between two excellent works.


Maybe this is meaningless, but there's plenty of music above "excellent" in my opinion. Lion King may be _excellent_, as you put it, but I think that the Mass in B minor for example is _magnificent, astonishing, hors concours_.


----------



## Bulldog

HansZimmer said:


> The point is the following...
> 
> 
> To use the adjective "good" to refer to awarded film scores is not eccentric, while saying "I don't like the awarded film scores and so you must not call them 'good'" is a bit eccentric.


I never said what you assigned to me through your quotation. That's dishonest on your part.


----------



## fbjim

what about "Super Excellent"


anyway regarding the style, one issue I do have is that a lot of the talk about film scores necessarily talks about them extracted from their actual contexts. There's a difference between being a great film music composer and a composer of classical music that originated as film music.

Generally when I hear film music talked about _as film music_, it's less about what plays well at Tanglewood and more about whether the music is fitting for the movie it's in. One could play the finest classical piece ever written in a film, but if it failed to accentuate, or if it undercut the emotions of a scene, a critic would simply call it "bad scoring". When you play film music in a classical music context, listeners will start to apply the critical standards of classical music to it.

In other words, you can't really ask for film music to be listened to in the context of classical music, but then insist that the critical standards of classical music don't apply. If you want to say a certain composer is a great film music composer, it's somewhat necessary to view their work in the context of film, and not extracted from it.


----------



## pianozach

Yes, but the score for *Gone with the Wind* is the excellentest


----------



## DaveM

fbjim said:


> ..In other words, you can't really ask for film music to be listened to in the context of classical music, but then insist that the critical standards of classical music don't apply. If you want to say a certain composer is a great film music composer, it's somewhat necessary to view their work in the context of film, and not extracted from it.


So what are the ‘critical standards of classical music’?


----------



## 59540

DaveM said:


> So what are the ‘critical standards of classical music’?


This oughta be good.


----------



## Ethereality

Luckily Classical music does not get imprinted under an inescapable image, like I'm sure Star Wars reminds everyone of scenes from the movie, and it's so hard not to hear Star Wars. I've tried, unlike with other soundtracks like Final Fantasy I personally never had the luxury of playing the games, so I was attracted to the music by itself. But if Classical pieces had their own film scenes, what might they be? I'm for one certainly happy with this pairing:


----------



## EdwardBast

HansZimmer said:


> As I already wrote in the OP, this is not a discussion about quality, but about the style.


And that's where you went wrong. Style has little to do with whether film music is classical music.


----------



## fbjim

DaveM said:


> So what are the ‘critical standards of classical music’?


there's some crossover with composers who excel at both (e.g. Williams, Goldsmith, Glass) but usually when _film people_ talk about film music, it's in the context of how well a composer's work fits in the context of a film. "Crossover" stuff by necessity is going to need to sound appealing to listeners out of that context, due to the realities of performance/concerts. in other words the critical standards of film music tend toward evaluating it as a part of a film, while the critical standards of classical music are for evaluating music as music.

this means that when film music is played _as classical music_, listeners aren't concerned anymore with whether or not the score was appropriate for the film it was in - that critical context no longer applies. 

something like this probably isn't ever going to get played in the same way as Zimmer or Williams might get played but that doesn't matter in the context of film composition


----------



## hammeredklavier

DaveM said:


> So what are the ‘critical standards of classical music’?


Do the line about "the CP era of music history..."


----------



## DaveM

fbjim said:


> ..In other words, *you can't really ask for film music to be listened to in the context of classical music, but then insist that the critical standards of classical music don't apply. If you want to say a certain composer is a great film music composer, it's somewhat necessary to view their work in the context of film, and not extracted from it.*





fbjim said:


> there's some crossover with composers who excel at both (e.g. Williams, Goldsmith, Glass) but usually when _film people_ talk about film music, it's in the context of how well a composer's work fits in the context of a film. "Crossover" stuff by necessity is going to need to sound appealing to listeners out of that context, due to the realities of performance/concerts. *in other words the critical standards of film music tend toward evaluating it as a part of a film, while the critical standards of classical music are for evaluating music as music.*
> 
> this means that when film music is played _as classical music_, listeners aren't concerned anymore with whether or not the score was appropriate for the film it was in - that critical context no longer applies.


Well, you didn’t define what the ‘_critical standards of classical music’_ are. Some music composed for film can be listened to in the context of classical music. The premise that one would do so and ‘_insist that critical standards of classical music don’t apply’_ makes absolutely no sense. If the music reminds of classical music then it reminds of classical music, full stop.

What is most important here is that there is substantial film music which reminds of classical music and which can be played as stand alone works. And if played alone, one doesn’t need to know what movie it originated with to enjoy it. I still don’t know what your ‘_critical standards of classical music‘_ are, but I do know that there is a lot of film music that reminds me more of ‘traditional classical music’ than a lot of contemporary classical music. Case in point (which I’ve already presented):


----------



## fbjim

DaveM said:


> Well, you didn’t define what the ‘_critical standards of classical music’_ are. Some music composed for film can be listened to in the context of classical music. The premise that one would do so and ‘_insist that critical standards of classical music don’t apply’_ makes absolutely no sense. If the music reminds of classical music then it reminds of classical music, full stop.


What I mean is that one can't raise the point that great film composers and great classical music composers are working in different fields and can't directly be compared against each other, if the context is the performance of film music _as classical music_.


----------



## DaveM

fbjim said:


> What I mean is that one can't raise the point that great film composers and great classical music composers are working in different fields and can't directly be compared against each other, if the context is the performance of film music _as classical music_.


If given film music reminds of classical music then the composer and the music can be judged accordingly. Since film music was not known during the CP era, a comparison of film composers with composers of that era is not relevant so neither are your above ‘rules’.

On the other hand, if you are applying your ‘rules’ to the present, then who are the ‘great classical music composers’ that ‘great film composers’ would be compared to?


----------



## fbjim

DaveM said:


> If given film music reminds of classical music then the composer and the music can be judged accordingly. Since film music was not known during the CP era, a comparison of film composers with composers of that era is not relevant so neither are your above ‘rules’.


I think you're arguing against a position that I'm not stating.


----------



## DaveM

fbjim said:


> I think you're arguing against a position that I'm not stating.


That’s because your position is obscure and sounds like a rule you made up.


----------



## DaveM

Duplicate


----------



## fbjim

The "rule" is that judging a film score in the context of a film is different than judging it as classical music in the context of like, a classical music performance or on your headphones. I really don't think this is very complicated.

It also has nothing to do with "contemporary classical music".


----------



## DaveM

fbjim said:


> The "rule" is that judging a film score in the context of a film is different than judging it as classical music in the context of like, a classical music performance or on your headphones. I really don't think this is very complicated.


Go back and read your own posts. The inconsistency and obscurity is rampant. Fr’instance, I’m still waiting for the ’critical standards of classical music’.


----------



## fbjim

DaveM said:


> Go back and read your own posts. The inconsistency and obscurity is rampant. I’m still waiting for the ’critical standards of classical music’.


Film music in some cases can, and is, evaluated as classical music. When listeners do this, they are going to be listening to it with the same aesthetic context as they would any other piece of classical music (in fact, this is practically the _definition_ of evaluating film music as classical music).

When film critics/enthusiasts evaluate film scoring, this is typically in an entirely different context where scoring is necessarily considered as part of the film, and evaluated as such. A piece of film music can be great as a standalone piece, yet poor scoring, because it fails to work in the film.

If this wasn't clear to you, I apologize, but it seems like you think I'm saying something completely different.

The OP's statement was this - 



> Now, if you ask me to rank composers, then I consider Mozart a genius and Hans Zimmer a great composer.
> However to ask what's better between the best film scores and the best concert music is like to ask what's better between gold and gold.


It's possible I'm misunderstanding, but it seems like the argument is that great film music, and great classical music are both exemplary in their separate disciplines and so aren't necessary to compare. I agree. The problem is that this position doesn't really apply when the argument is that film music _is classical music_.


----------



## DaveM

fbjim said:


> Film music in some cases can, and is, evaluated as classical music. When listeners do this, they are going to be listening to it with the same aesthetic context as they would any other piece of classical music (in fact, this is practically the _definition_ of evaluating film music as classical music).
> 
> When film critics/enthusiasts evaluate film scoring, this is typically in an entirely different context where scoring is necessarily considered as part of the film, and evaluated as such. A piece of film music can be great as a standalone piece, yet poor scoring, because it fails to work in the film.
> 
> If this wasn't clear to you, I apologize, but it seems like you think I'm saying something completely different.
> 
> It's possible I'm misunderstanding, but it seems like the argument is that great film music, and great classical music are both exemplary in their separate disciplines and so aren't necessary to compare. I agree. The problem is that this position doesn't really apply when the argument is that film music _is classical music_.


The OP was specifically this:


HansZimmer said:


> To conclude, my opinion is that much of the music composed for film scores is good classical music: "good" is my personal judgement, but every one can have his own.
> If you ask me "Don't you hear the difference between classical music and film scores?", my anwser is that usually film scores are built around one or more powerful themes, while some pieces in classical music are not so melody focused. I won't say that film scores don't have their distinticive rules, but that those rules are compatible with classical music, because there are many pieces that are considered "classical" that are built around a main theme.


I would say that you aren’t addressing the OP at all. In fact, you’re creating new rules that I’m not familiar with. For instance, ‘_When film critics/enthusiasts evaluate film scoring, this is typically in an entirely different context where scoring is necessarily considered as part of the film, and evaluated as such.’ _In my experience, critics/enthusiasts don’t differentiate, _qualitatively as film music,_ whether the film music sounds some what like classical music and whether or not it can stand alone outside the film.

And I have no idea what, ‘_A piece of film music can be great as a standalone piece, yet poor scoring, because it fails to work in the film.’ _has to do with anything. Do you know of such an instance?

When I hear the following I am reminded of classical music and my guess is that many other people are too. It worked well as film music and it works well as a standalone work. I don’t think critics/enthusiasts evaluate it using any particular context as you describe. (And btw, It is far more like traditional classical music than some contemporary music.) There is a lot of film music like this that was composed between 1990 and 2010, a particularly golden age of film music, composed by composers other than the ones prior to that that have been continually mentioned in this thread.


----------



## fbjim

I really don't know how to make it clearer than that, I'm sorry. I think you're under the impression that I'm saying something completely different - this has nothing to do with whether film music "sounds like" classical music.


----------



## Forbes

fbjim said:


> It's possible I'm misunderstanding, but it seems like the argument is that great film music, and great classical music are both exemplary in their separate disciplines and so aren't necessary to compare. I agree. The problem is that this position doesn't really apply when the argument is that film music _is classical music_.


Is the approach not to say that classical music and film music are two distinct genres, but that nether can be precisely defined so that some overlapping cannot be ruled out.

Classical music is a genre where the music is paramount. It is composed to be listened to. Film music is an add on. Obviously it gets heard but its purpose is to supplement what you see. You may get some memorable themes (_Lawrence of Arabia_, _Doctor Zhivago_, _The Magnificent Seven_) but they rarely get a chance to develop. Most of it is literally just background music. Listened to on its own it goes nowhere. Unless you are a real film buff a concert of film music is deadly. That does not mean it is bad, just that it does not work out of the context it was designed for.

Up to a point one can say the same thing about ballet music. One can distinguish between great music written for the ballet and great ballet music. Great music written for the ballet (_The Rite of Spring_, _Prelude à l'aprés midi d'un faune_, _Daphnis et Chloë, The Miraculous Mandarin_) usually fails as ballet music simply because the music is too good. On the other hand, Tchaikovsky and Prokofiev knew what they were doing. You may want to sit and listen to the suites of their ballet music, but probably not to a whole ballet.


----------



## DaveM

Forbes said:


> Classical music is a genre where the music is paramount. It is composed to be listened to. Film music is an add on. Obviously it gets heard but its purpose is to supplement what you see. You may get some memorable themes (_Lawrence of Arabia_, _Doctor Zhivago_, _The Magnificent Seven_) but they rarely get a chance to develop. Most of it is literally just background music. Listened to on its own it goes nowhere. Unless you are a real film buff a concert of film music is deadly. That does not mean it is bad, just that it does not work out of the context it was designed for.


That wasn’t true of the Doctor Zhivago theme. According to the Wiki ‘_the theme became an instant success and gained fame throughout the world._’ I remember that well.


----------



## fbjim

Forbes said:


> Is the approach not to say that classical music and film music are two distinct genres, but that nether can be precisely defined so that some overlapping cannot be ruled out.
> 
> Classical music is a genre where the music is paramount. It is composed to be listened to. Film music is an add on. Obviously it gets heard but its purpose is to supplement what you see. You may get some memorable themes (_Lawrence of Arabia_, _Doctor Zhivago_, _The Magnificent Seven_) but they rarely get a chance to develop. Most of it is literally just background music. Listened to on its own it goes nowhere. Unless you are a real film buff a concert of film music is deadly. That does not mean it is bad, just that it does not work out of the context it was designed for.


To an extent, that's what I'm getting at, yeah. This isn't to discount the idea that some music can work as both standalone music _and_ film music, but in terms of the craft of film music, "how well it stands on its own" is kind of incidental. The prime criterion is the effect is has on a film viewer, in the context of the film.


----------



## JB Henson

This must be a real surprise for fans of Lieutenant Kije.


----------



## HansZimmer

Xisten267 said:


> I think that the Mass in B minor for example is _magnificent, astonishing, hors concours_.


This is exactly what I felt the first time I've heard the concert version of the Lion King score, especially the part after 4:56.






I was feeling like it was a melody written by god and played by angels. When I read that the author is Hans Zimmer, I didn't believe to what I read. "The author of this piece can not be a human".


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

J.S. Bach sneered at people's interest in pretty opera tunes in his time. He would probably not be impressed by those from _The Lion King_ either.


----------



## HansZimmer

Xisten267 said:


> Maybe this is meaningless, but there's plenty of music above "excellent" in my opinion. Lion King may be _excellent_, as you put it, but I think that the Mass in B minor for example is _magnificent, astonishing, hors concours_.


However, speaking about vocal music, I don't have many examples to provide for film music: only two of John Williams.

Star of Betlehem.






Somehwere in My Memory






The melody of the second one is more predictable than the first, but I like it and it's professionaly orchestrated. I love the part after 2:04, when the orchestra kicks out the chorus: it feels like an explosion.

Now, the color of Star of Betlehem is quite similar to the music of Bach, but I've never heard a piece of Bach with the color of "Somewhere in Memory". 

So the point is that Bach might be the best composer, but he can not replace John Williams.

That's why it makes sense to listen to the music of both.


----------



## Bulldog

HansZimmer said:


> So the point is that Bach might be the best composer, but he can not replace John Williams.


That's because Bach didn't write film music.


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

If Bach wrote operas, would he replace Wagner?


----------



## Bulldog

VoiceFromTheEther said:


> If Bach wrote operas, would he replace Wagner?


No, I don't think that would happen.


----------



## Ethereality

_"So the point is that Bach might be the best composer, but he can not replace John Williams.
That's because Bach didn't write film music."_

I don't know if 'best composer' is a thing outside the given school the opinion is held in. This forum doesn't have forums for the most converging different schools, so we more often hear the pop Classical opinion that Bach/Beethoven are the best. Could Bach write great film or operatic soundtracks? It's unlikely he could even understand them or their value in any meaningful capacity, why would he be on the same level as John Williams or Joe Hisaishi? I do feel that I'm pushing buttons that I'd rather push amongst my own school who understands the context I'm writing under. Bach and Wagnerian opera are the greatest under a certain context that some people understand, just like The Beach Boys or whatever popular musician is the greatest under another common group. They're the popular group opinions, but that Lion King Zimmer melody you linked---is absolutely visionary and beautiful. Honestly my favorite part of _The Lion King_ score is Hakuna Matata, in the last half of its orchestration, but the rest are pretty close for me. Imagine a better musical in 100 years.


----------



## fbjim

VoiceFromTheEther said:


> If Bach wrote operas, would he replace Wagner?


This makes it sound like they're competing for a job!


----------



## Ethereality

By the way HansZimmer, check out Enigma Variations if you haven't recently. It's a complication of a similar style as that.


----------



## Prodromides

Refreshing the debate from a different angle, I'm submitting a half-dozen works below that have more than a dozen movements. The core concept of each opus is such that its composer elected not to shoehorn the music into commonly-accepted forms (no 3-movement concerti or 4-movement symphonies here).
Not just composers, either ... album producers have issued recordings of these wherein each musical movement is a recepiant of its own track #.
The resultant albums resemble soundtrack albums, like it or lump it. [most soundtracks have 12 or more cues]
Imagine! Music which has no connection to cinema or TV ... but nonetheless _plays_ like a film score because it is based upon extra-muscial narratives and creates its own mould instead of being pegged into a pre-determined (and pre-approved) pigeonhole.

13 cues: *Baldr* (by Leifs) A choreographic drama based upon Norse mythology about the creation of 'Man' on Earth. Primordial pre-Christian paganism in 2 Acts, with 13 tracks, across 2 CDs.

15 cues: *Office des Oracles* (by Ohana) Ancient religious rituals & prophecies vocalized in 12 sections, a couple of suites + a coda. The Alpha & the Omega ... with the Minotaur, a dragon, tarot cards, horoscopes, etc. in between.

16 cues: *Les heures persanes* (by Koechlin) 16 piano minatures - subsequently orchestrated - based upon traveller Pierre Loti's novel depicting a multi-day journey across Persia. Each movement is rather like a musical snapshot focused upon a specific time of day at a certain location. A musical photo album, if you will.

17 cues:
*The Kairn of Koridwen* (C.T. Griffes) A Dance-Drama based upon Druid legend, arranged for 8 musicians in 2 Acts.

*Zodiac* (by Bennett) The 12 zodiac signs, along with 5 _Ritornello_s, yield a 17-movement work with 17 minutes duration (each track is between 44 seconds & one minute 9 seconds in length). Hhmmm ... seems not unlike those brief cues typically utilized in music for a television series, eh?

18 cues: *Le miroir de Jésus* (by Caplet) "poèmes d'Henri Ghéon" are set to music (vocal & instrumental) and serve as musical prayers according to the "Mystères du Rosaire".


----------



## EdwardBast

HansZimmer said:


> This is exactly what I felt the first time I've heard the concert version of the Lion King score, especially the part after 4:56.
> 
> *I was feeling like it was a melody written by god and played by angels.* When I read that the author is Hans Zimmer, I didn't believe to what I read. "*The author of this piece can not be a human*".


I felt like I was being drowned in the musical equivalent of cheez-whiz extruded by a corporate machine, so I guess I half agree with you?


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

EdwardBast said:


> I felt like I was being drowned in the musical equivalent of cheez-whiz extruded by a corporate machine, so I guess I half agree with you?


Pardon the clinical nature of my question, but could you name specific techniques, chord progressions, or other dramatic means that in your view might have caused this impression?


----------



## Forster

Prodromides said:


> Refreshing the debate from a different angle, I'm submitting a half-dozen works below that have more than a dozen movements. The core concept of each opus is such that its composer elected not to shoehorn the music into commonly-accepted forms (no 3-movement concerti or 4-movement symphonies here).
> Not just composers, either ... album producers have issued recordings of these wherein each musical movement is a recepiant of its own track #.
> The resultant albums resemble soundtrack albums, like it or lump it. [most soundtracks have 12 or more cues]
> Imagine! Music which has no connection to cinema or TV ... but nonetheless _plays_ like a film score because it is based upon extra-muscial narratives and creates its own mould instead of being pegged into a pre-determined (and pre-approved) pigeonhole.
> 
> 13 cues: *Baldr* (by Leifs) A choreographic drama based upon Norse mythology about the creation of 'Man' on Earth. Primordial pre-Christian paganism in 2 Acts, with 13 tracks, across 2 CDs.
> 
> 15 cues: *Office des Oracles* (by Ohana) Ancient religious rituals & prophecies vocalized in 12 sections, a couple of suites + a coda. The Alpha & the Omega ... with the Minotaur, a dragon, tarot cards, horoscopes, etc. in between.
> 
> 16 cues: *Les heures persanes* (by Koechlin) 16 piano minatures - subsequently orchestrated - based upon traveller Pierre Loti's novel depicting a multi-day journey across Persia. Each movement is rather like a musical snapshot focused upon a specific time of day at a certain location. A musical photo album, if you will.
> 
> 17 cues:
> *The Kairn of Koridwen* (C.T. Griffes) A Dance-Drama based upon Druid legend, arranged for 8 musicians in 2 Acts.
> 
> *Zodiac* (by Bennett) The 12 zodiac signs, along with 5 _Ritornello_s, yield a 17-movement work with 17 minutes duration (each track is between 44 seconds & one minute 9 seconds in length). Hhmmm ... seems not unlike those brief cues typically utilized in music for a television series, eh?
> 
> 18 cues: *Le miroir de Jésus* (by Caplet) "poèmes d'Henri Ghéon" are set to music (vocal & instrumental) and serve as musical prayers according to the "Mystères du Rosaire".


An interesting thought, but it seems to me that it offers nothing to "answer" the "problem". These are just numbers of short pieces with a superficial resemblance to a list of soundtrack "cues". Holst's _The Planets_ belongs here too, as well as much by Satie (eg _Trois morceaux en forme de poire_ )


----------



## fbjim

It's an interesting question that's probably been raised as to what makes a piece sound specifically "film-y". 

Especially since it applies to like, a very narrow range of film music when like, this is a score that got nominated for the academy award this year


----------



## fbjim

I guess this is less about "film music isn't classical music" and more about the idea (raised in this thread, and past John Williams etc) threads is that film composers wrote the "real" 20th century classical music unlike the avant garde guys, which is silly when a bunch of film music sounds like the latter style too. Film music is omnivorous, composers will use whatever techniques they think fit a scene and film, even if they do have a personal style.


----------



## pianozach

Forbes said:


> Is the approach not to say that classical music and film music are two distinct genres, but that nether can be precisely defined so that some overlapping cannot be ruled out.
> 
> Classical music is a genre where the music is paramount. It is composed to be listened to. Film music is an add on. Obviously it gets heard but its purpose is to supplement what you see. You may get some memorable themes (_Lawrence of Arabia_, _Doctor Zhivago_, _The Magnificent Seven_) but they rarely get a chance to develop. Most of it is literally just background music. Listened to on its own it goes nowhere. *Unless you are a real film buff a concert of film music is deadly. That does not mean it is bad, just that it does not work out of the context it was designed for.*
> 
> Up to a point one can say the same thing about ballet music. One can distinguish between great music written for the ballet and great ballet music. Great music written for the ballet (_The Rite of Spring_, _Prelude à l'aprés midi d'un faune_, _Daphnis et Chloë, The Miraculous Mandarin_) usually fails as ballet music simply because the music is too good. On the other hand, Tchaikovsky and Prokofiev knew what they were doing. You may want to sit and listen to the suites of their ballet music, but probably not to a whole ballet.


*"Unless you are a real film buff a concert of film music is deadly. That does not mean it is bad, just that it does not work out of the context it was designed for."*

Symphony orchestras program evenings of film music regularly. I'd venture to say that _rarely_ is it "Deadly", unless the choices are deadly. It also works _"out of context"_. 

That's like saying an evening of Classical Music is "deadly". That would also be rare. Sure, it's possible, if you programmed an evening of Delius, or Vaughan Williams. You could program an evening of Beethoven Sonata 2nd movements, and it might be a bit of a snoozefest.

No, when a Symphony Orchestra programs an evening of Film Music it is usually quite good, if not great. A quick Google brings up plenty of examples:

2015: *USC Symphony Orchestra presents an evening of film scores*
*Award-winning John Williams, composer for Star Wars, Harry Potter, Jurassic Park and more*

9/27/2022: *Los Angeles Philharmonic: Gala John Williams Celebration*, Dudamel and Williams conducting. The program includes Williams' Violin Concerto No. 2.

2022-2023*: The SF Symphony Orchestra (*Music Director* Esa-Pekka Salonen) *has a *series* of film music scheduled:
9/16/2022: Star Wars: A New Hope
11/25/2022: The Godfather Live
1/26/2023: Jurassic Park
3/24/2023: Black Panther


----------



## SanAntone

Music written for a film is made up of mostly shortish "cues" for scenes. These are usually no more than a minute, or two. I would guess the longest segments of music are at the beginning and end of a film, or for an extended montage sequence. 

If one were to take all of these cues and put them on a CD, it would be made up of disjointed short pieces, with a significant amount of repetition. And since the composer did not conceive of them as a unified long work, there would be no formal plan, or thematic development within a larger structure.

This is not how a Classical music composer approaches writing a concert work. Film music is what accompanies the movie and is subordinate to the director's film, and it doesn't matter if it "sounds" like Classical music it hasn't been written in the manner of a Classical work.

However, if the music from a film has been arranged into a suite, or other kind of concert work it is no longer film music, but a concert work, which could be considered Classical in nature.


----------



## fbjim

I do wonder how many people listen to actual film score records rather than concert recordings or compilations. I've gotten a few that I like but apart from films which are highly musical in nature (like, uh, musicals), you're going to listen to a lot of short cues/background music - frequently with a lot of stylistic variety. 

This is a big part of the discipline of film music, and isn't the stuff that'd ever get played in concert except perhaps as part of a suite. The focus on John Williams-esque stuff is an extremely narrow slice on what the discipline of film music actually is.


----------



## Forster

^ Given the number of film composers currently at work, I agree that the narrow focus on John Williams is tiresome, no matter how marvellous his scores.


----------



## Simon Moon

SanAntone said:


> Music written for a film is made up of mostly shortish "cues" for scenes. These are usually no more than a minute, or two. I would guess the longest segments of music are at the beginning and end of a film, or for an extended montage sequence.
> 
> If one were to take all of these cues and put them on a CD, it would be made up of disjointed short pieces, with a significant amount of repetition. And since the composer did not conceive of them as a unified long work, there would be no formal plan, or thematic development within a larger structure.
> 
> This is not how a Classical music composer approaches writing a concert work. Film music is what accompanies the movie and is subordinate to the director's film, and it doesn't matter if it "sounds" like Classical music it hasn't been written in the manner of a Classical work.
> 
> However, if the music from a film has been arranged into a suite, or other kind of concert work it is no longer film music, but a concert work, which could be considered Classical in nature.


This is what John Corigliano, composer of the music for "Red Violin", has said himself. 

"When you see a film, the music reflects what’s happening on the screen. The music comes out and in, for one minute in one sequence, or maybe six minutes and 22 seconds somewhere else. When you’re sitting in a concert hall on a wooden chair watching a bunch of people saw away at instruments, your entire concentration is only on the sound and that’s the difference. For example, I took themes from _The Red Violin_ and used them for my Violin Concerto. There’s also the Suite for Violin and Strings, and those are about 25 minutes of music cues for the film sequenced together. To me, the suite is not as satisfying, because a lot of them are short cues, and they don’t build a structure abstractly that one can sit and listen to in the concert hall in the same way that the concerto does. "

"When I’m writing for the concert hall I’m thinking about shaping long arches or sustaining a 15- or 20-minute movement. When we’re writing film cues, we don’t think that way, because we have to work within much shorter time limits that are given to us. "


----------



## DaveM

fbjim said:


> I guess this is less about "film music isn't classical music" and more about the idea (raised in this thread, and past John Williams etc) threads is that film composers wrote the "real" 20th century classical music unlike the avant garde guys, which is silly when a bunch of film music sounds like the latter style too..


Where was that framed that way in this thread? Do you think you’re the first one to know and point out that highly dissonant music is used in movies?


----------



## EdwardBast

VoiceFromTheEther said:


> Pardon the clinical nature of my question, but could you name specific techniques, chord progressions, or other dramatic means that in your view might have caused this impression?


Why yes, yes I can. Like cheez-whiz, this music was a glob of polyunsaturates, artificial colors, and artificial flavors with minimal nutritional value. That is: simplistic repetitive substance (simple harmonic progression and texture, nondescript, undistinguished melodic material) pumped up to would-be substantiality by dollops of orchestral fat (over-orchestrated). And, of course, it was outrageously cheesy in the sense of being overtly tasteless.


----------



## pianozach

SanAntone said:


> Music written for a film is made up of mostly shortish "cues" for scenes. These are usually no more than a minute, or two. I would guess the longest segments of music are at the beginning and end of a film, or for an extended montage sequence.
> 
> [edit]
> 
> This is not how a Classical music composer approaches writing a concert work. Film music is what accompanies the movie and is subordinate to the director's film, and it doesn't matter if it "sounds" like Classical music it hasn't been written in the manner of a Classical work.
> 
> However, if the music from a film has been arranged into a suite, or other kind of concert work it is no longer film music, but a concert work, which could be considered Classical in nature.





Simon Moon said:


> This is what John Corigliano, composer of the music for "Red Violin", has said himself.
> 
> "When you see a film, the music reflects what’s happening on the screen. The music comes out and in, for one minute in one sequence, or maybe six minutes and 22 seconds somewhere else. When you’re sitting in a concert hall on a wooden chair watching a bunch of people saw away at instruments, your entire concentration is only on the sound and that’s the difference. For example, I took themes from _The Red Violin_ and used them for my Violin Concerto. There’s also the Suite for Violin and Strings, and those are about 25 minutes of music cues for the film sequenced together. To me, the suite is not as satisfying, because a lot of them are short cues, and they don’t build a structure abstractly that one can sit and listen to in the concert hall in the same way that the concerto does. "
> 
> "When I’m writing for the concert hall I’m thinking about shaping long arches or sustaining a 15- or 20-minute movement. When we’re writing film cues, we don’t think that way, because we have to work within much shorter time limits that are given to us. "


While the music for a score IS broken up into smaller "cues", AND while Corigliano has let us know how HE personally treats composing scores vs. concert hall pieces, not all score music is composed in that manner.

Some soundtrack composers may (often?) have larger themes in mind, and THEN break them up into one to six minute snippets of his larger work, adapting them along the way . . . 

Composing is a rather multi-dimensional endeavor in which many things are considered.


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

EdwardBast said:


> Why yes, yes I can. Like cheez-whiz, this music was a glob of polyunsaturates, artificial colors, and artificial flavors with no nutritional value. That is: simplistic substance (simple harmonic progression, nondescript melodic material) pumped up to would-be substantiality by globs of orchestral fat (over-orchestrated). And, of course, it was outrageously cheesy in the sense of being overtly tasteless.


Thank you for this bouquet of pejoratives, but I'm afraid not everything is clear to me. What exactly are "artificial colours / flavours", and how do they differ from normal orchestral colour? How is the melodic material nondescript if most kindergardeners with no musical training could tell you what it communicates? 

The subtraction of which instruments would have, in your view, made this track better?


----------



## Forster

The soundtrack to _The Lion King_ serves its purpose well. It's a movie aimed at a family audience, with a tale that is not meant to be complex or sophisticated (though it's similar to many old tales - eg _Hamlet _- that are). Zimmer's score does what it needs to do, pointing up the emotional highs and lows and blending well with the songs. Like all good movie composers, Zimmer knows what strings to pull (or buttons to press) so the music inevitably sounds conventional to more sophisticated ears.


----------



## mikeh375

Simon Moon said:


> ..................."When I’m writing for the concert hall I’m thinking about shaping long arches or sustaining a 15- or 20-minute movement. When we’re writing film cues, we don’t think that way, because we have to work within much shorter time limits that are given to us. "


good to see Corigliano (along with John Williams) has backed up my posts nos 5 and 53 in this thread .... ...
There is no real debate about this thread's title so far as a composer is concerned, especially regarding approach, application and end result of film music. There is aesthetic and technical compromise in film scoring and that adversely affects the expressive freedom one might expect from concert/art music.
This debate is more a distinction or categorisation issue for listeners only imv.


----------



## EdwardBast

VoiceFromTheEther said:


> Thank you for this bouquet of pejoratives, but I'm afraid not everything is clear to me. What exactly are "artificial colours / flavours", and how do they differ from normal orchestral colour? How is the melodic material nondescript if most kindergardeners with no musical training could tell you what it communicates?
> 
> The subtraction of which instruments would have, in your view, made this track better?


"Bouquet of pejoratives:" I like that! I was thinking primarily of the wordless choir (formulaic bogus profundity) that flute, and the light show. Just as removing fat from cheez-whiz wouldn't make it more nutritious, the subtraction of instruments wouldn't help.

You remember the point of the thread, right? As I understand it, this thread was intended to explore the viability of film music as classical concert music. Toddler comprehension based on associations with a movie plot is not a standard I recognize for classical music. Were this in a forum for film music, I would not have commented at all, and perhaps there toddler comprehension might be relevant.


----------



## fbjim

DaveM said:


> Where was that framed that way in this thread? Do you think you’re the first one to know and point out that highly dissonant music is used in movies?


"I believe the greatest contemporary "classical" music written today is in movies. I believe many contemporary and modern composers and fans of "classical" music reject film music as being classified as "classical" for a variety of reasons. Not least of all because much of the film music that could be considered classical and could stand on it's own also reveals how pathetic and awful some contemporary classical music is. There is some great 20th century and modern classical music out there, but no one is convincing me that there is a good deal that is just a sham. Talentless composers who write things that no one could objectively say is a better composition than from another modern composer. There are no more rules and that's why there is so much chaos in modern art. Try writing a film score with no rules involved, no theme, no structure. See how that works."

This was more commonly brought up as subtext or explicit text in earlier threads where John Williams was used as a weird ideological football. 

There is also the fact that you keep bringing up, unprompted, that film scores "sound more like classical music than the avant garde" despite nobody really bringing avant-garde music up much at all.


----------



## DaveM

fbjim said:


> "I believe the greatest contemporary "classical" music written today is in movies. I believe many contemporary and modern composers and fans of "classical" music reject film music as being classified as "classical" for a variety of reasons. Not least of all because much of the film music that could be considered classical and could stand on it's own also reveals how pathetic and awful some contemporary classical music is. There is some great 20th century and modern classical music out there, but no one is convincing me that there is a good deal that is just a sham. Talentless composers who write things that no one could objectively say is a better composition than from another modern composer. There are no more rules and that's why there is so much chaos in modern art. Try writing a film score with no rules involved, no theme, no structure. See how that works."
> 
> This was more commonly brought up as subtext or explicit text in earlier threads where John Williams was used as a weird ideological football.
> 
> There is also the fact that you keep bringing up, unprompted, that film scores "sound more like classical music than the avant garde" despite nobody really bringing avant-garde music up much at all.


This was your post:


fbjim said:


> I guess this is less about "film music isn't classical music" and more about the idea (raised in this thread, and past John Williams etc) threads is that film composers wrote the "real" 20th century classical music unlike the avant garde guys, which is silly when a bunch of film music sounds like the latter style too.


If you’re going to make a point, why not base it on what was said instead of making one up that isn’t. No where in the first post you quote is the point being made that film music is the ’real 20th century classical music’. The point being made is that people reject film music as classical music when some of it sounds better than some contemporary classical music.

My point is that some classical music could be a subset of classical music and if people are going to totally reject that premise then they might reconsider a avant-garde music as classical music. And what does the fact that I make that point ‘despite nobody really bringing avant-garde music up much at all.‘ have to do with anything? Speaking of ‘silliness’, either you consider yourself the prose police or you don’t comprehend the point.


----------



## hammeredklavier

EdwardBast said:


> Why yes, yes I can. Like cheez-whiz, this music was a glob of polyunsaturates, artificial colors, and artificial flavors with minimal nutritional value. That is: simplistic repetitive substance (simple harmonic progression and texture, nondescript, undistinguished melodic material) pumped up to would-be substantiality by dollops of orchestral fat (over-orchestrated). And, of course, it was outrageously cheesy in the sense of being overtly tasteless.


Taken out of context, you seem to be describing (your view on) Bruckner.


----------



## CatchARisingStar

I'm a film score buff. In fact, have have quite a few recordings by 94 different composers. A lot of soundtracks I've listened to over the years weren't keepers, though, because I prefer scores that are 100% orchestral, and its why, for the longest time, the only Hans Zimmer recording I used to have was "The World Of Hans Zimmer: A Symphonic Celebration."


----------



## Enthusiast

CatchARisingStar said:


> I'm a film score buff. In fact, have have quite a few recordings by 94 different composers. A lot of soundtracks I've listened to over the years weren't keepers, though, because I prefer scores that are 100% orchestral, and its why, for the longest time, the only Hans Zimmer recording I used to have was "The World Of Hans Zimmer: A Symphonic Celebration."


That's OK. Do you also like classical music?


----------



## HansZimmer

EdwardBast said:


> Why yes, yes I can. Like cheez-whiz, this music was a glob of polyunsaturates, artificial colors, and artificial flavors with minimal nutritional value. That is: simplistic repetitive substance (simple harmonic progression and texture, nondescript, undistinguished melodic material) pumped up to would-be substantiality by dollops of orchestral fat (over-orchestrated). And, of course, it was outrageously cheesy in the sense of being overtly tasteless.


It seems that you simply don't like the music and you are trying to justify your personal tastes with theoretical analysis.

I don't know what to say. Each movement of the Moonlight Sonata is highly repetitive (could someone please count how many times the main themes are repeated in the third movement?) and it's considered a masterpiece of classical music.
A piece of the suite of the Lion King is probably less repetitive than a movement of Moonlight Sonata.

Hans Zimmer, John Williams, Alan Menken, Thomas Newman, Ennio Morricone and so on... they can ask 2 milions for a suite because they are able to write excellent melodies with a strong emotional impact and arrange them professionally for symphonic orchestras.
There is a simple rule in the market: if someone is paid so much for his work, it means that it's hard to replace him.

If the great experts of music think that they can evaluate the quality of a melody by writing it on the paper and counting how many different keys there are and so on, Hans Zimmer can smile and be sure that he will able to cash his 2 milions for a very long time, because those experts don't understand what is art in music and so they are not a danger for him.
The effectiveness of a melody must be indeed measured by his ability to "speak" to the public and giving emotions, and Hans Zimmer, like many film music composers, is considered by many people a great melodist.

It's quite obvious however that not all people can connect with the music of a composer. I'm quite sure that if I played a Mozart's symphony in the presence of my friends they would ask me to turn off the music.
So, I have no problems with the fact that you are not able to connect with the score of the Lion King. I never though that it can be appreciated by all people.
What I don't like, however, is that you are trying to elevate your PERSONAL TASTES to UNIVERSAL VALUES and that you compare the music I like to junk food. The former is arrogant, the latter is quite offensive.

By the way the chorus doesn't sing words because the piece is not intended to be lyrical. Human voices are simply used as instruments just like the others in the orchestra. I don't see what's the problem.


----------



## Highwayman

HansZimmer said:


> ... you are trying to elevate your PERSONAL TASTES to UNIVERSAL VALUES ...


I wonder where exactly did you get this bit from.


----------



## HansZimmer

SanAntone said:


> Music written for a film is made up of mostly shortish "cues" for scenes. These are usually no more than a minute, or two. I would guess the longest segments of music are at the beginning and end of a film, or for an extended montage sequence.
> 
> If one were to take all of these cues and put them on a CD, it would be made up of disjointed short pieces, with a significant amount of repetition. And since the composer did not conceive of them as a unified long work, there would be no formal plan, or thematic development within a larger structure.
> 
> This is not how a Classical music composer approaches writing a concert work. Film music is what accompanies the movie and is subordinate to the director's film, and it doesn't matter if it "sounds" like Classical music it hasn't been written in the manner of a Classical work.
> 
> However, if the music from a film has been arranged into a suite, or other kind of concert work it is no longer film music, but a concert work, which could be considered Classical in nature.


The average length of a piece in a suite of film music is probably 2-3 minutes, which is higher than the average length of a piece of this orchestral suite of Mozart...






.... and similar to the average lenght of a piece of the Egmont suite of Beethoven.


----------



## HansZimmer

Highwayman said:


> I wonder where exactly did you get this bit from.


Well, to say that a machine could compose this piece it's like to say that Hans Zimmer didn't work hard to compose this wonderful melody full of emotions.

Hans Zimmer wrote that he sometimes spend days only to adjust a little pathetic sound and I believe that he put much emotions in the Lion King score, because he lost his father when he was 6 years old and so it was like to write music for his personal story (he admitted that this score was very personal for him).
If you can connect with Hans Zimmer (not all people can, but many do) you understand the emotional depth of the Lion King score and you understand why the music has won so many awards (not only the academy award "best original score", but other seven music awards).

This score has clearily not been composed by a machine.


----------



## HansZimmer

However, I want to add an other input to this discussion.

When it comes to good film scores, not only it's not necessary to listen to them with images, but I prefer to listen to them alone. Indeed in the film they are covered by dialogues, noises and other distracting elements that don't allow you to fully enjoy the music.

Before to submit my vote in the Talkclassical best film score award I always watch all films to know the story, but then I listen to the scores alone without the films.

I think that somtimes the score is even better than the film.
Do I really have to watch Home Alone an other time to listen to the music of John Williams?







I think the same about the film Pirates of Caribbeans.

After I watched the first two films, I decided to not watch the other films of the serie, but I occasionaly listen to this live concert, so I enjoy the music but not the film.


----------



## Fabulin

"We now have the opportunity to hear the music without the distraction of the film".---John Williams, before a concert


----------



## pianozach

CatchARisingStar said:


> I'm a film score buff. In fact, have have quite a few recordings by 94 different composers. A lot of soundtracks I've listened to over the years weren't keepers, though, because I prefer scores that are 100% orchestral, and its why, for the longest time, the only Hans Zimmer recording I used to have was "The World Of Hans Zimmer: A Symphonic Celebration."


My *iTunes* digital music library has 54 days of music in it, and I have *4 days of soundtracks*, and 9.4 days of "Classical".

Of course, not all of those soundtracks are orchestral, like those from *A Hard Day's Night*, or *Guardians of the Galaxy* (although that one is a CD of songs, and a CD of orchestral scores).

The quirkiest thing is that I have three different versions of *110 In The Shade*.


----------



## EdwardBast

HansZimmer said:


> It seems that you simply don't like the music and you are trying to justify your personal tastes with theoretical analysis.


I was specifically asked by a voice form the either for theoretical details that would explain my comparison of the Lion King score to cheez-whiz. That's what I did. I don't need to justify my tastes. I'm not the one who apparently can't hear the aesthetic gulf between a piece of film music that isn't even particularly good by the standards of that genre and Beethoven.


----------



## arpeggio

In post 127 I stated:



arpeggio said:


> It appears to me that some film scores can be considered classical and some can not.
> When I studied music as an undergrad I learned that there were certain methods employed by classical composers in order to structure their works. We studied some of these in form and analysis, and orchestration classes. I learned of many of these methods in a jazz arranging class I took in grad school.
> If a composer employs the same methods in his film score it seems to me that one could consider it classical.


I have seen nothing in the succeeding posts to change my mind.


----------



## Forster

EdwardBast said:


> I'm not the one who apparently can't hear the aesthetic gulf between a piece of film music that isn't even particularly good by the standards of that genre and Beethoven.


Is that what our Hans Zimmer thinks? I didn't read him that way. Very enthusiastic about The Lion King, but not that he puts it on a par with LvB. Or did I miss something explicit in this vein?


----------



## DaveM

I am always troubled by these discussions of soundtrack music because most people commenting have relatively little familiarity with the subject other than a few composers, some going back many years. As I said previously, some of the best movie themes were composed between 1985 and around 2010 when the movie studios were willing to pay for original music with fully fleshed out highly melodic themes designed to help ‘sell’ the movie. That does not occur as frequently these days. Original movie themes now tend to be shorter and less developed.

In any event during that 25 year period, there were several composers who are rarely mentioned here and if they are, it’s just in passing. Also, some of their soundtracks have significant substantial standalone tracks that are not necessarily listed as the main themes. You have to do a little searching to find them.

Here are 2 examples. The first is by Randy Edelman, a very accomplished soundtrack composer, as is Alan Silvestri, composer of the second. In the first one, after a beautiful opening melody, note the main theme starting at about 2:00.


----------



## mikeh375

^^^ I've been a fan of Silvestri ever since I heard this beauty...







He's got some gut wrenching musical moves too......


----------



## DaveM

^^^^ Excellent examples of Silvestri’s broad skills. Here’s another one of my Silvestri favorites:


----------



## pianozach

I was sampling some of *Mark Knopler*'s soundtrack works (*The Princess Bride* and *Wag the Dog*), and actually wasn't impressed. My expectations were actually high.

I guess if I want a rock guitarist writing soundtracks it'll have to be *Pete Townshend* or *Trevor Rabin*. I suppose it helps that Rabin was actually a classical pianist before he picked up the guitar, as well as a singer. He's written for well over 40 films and a few TV series.


----------



## DaveM

^^^^ One of my favorite Knopfler soundtracks is Irish Boy from the lesser-known movie Cal (1984]. It is, yet again, a good example of a work that stands alone well outside the movie.


----------



## Red Terror

Film music is mood music and it works well if one simply wishes to sit and not think about what one is listening to. Nothing wrong with mindless listening of course but it does get boring after a while—at least for me. The pleasure of film music is often shallow and superficial—by design.


----------



## DaveM

Red Terror said:


> ..The pleasure of film music is often shallow and superficial—by design.


Oh yeah, nothing like shallow and superficial music to help sell a movie.


----------



## Red Terror

DaveM said:


> Oh yeah, nothing like shallow and superficial music to help sell a movie.


Indeed. Music shouldn't detract from the film itself. It can enhance and suggest but never be the focus.


----------



## pianozach

DaveM said:


> ^^^^ One of my favorite Knopfler soundtracks is Irish Boy from the lesser-known movie Cal (1984]. It is, yet again, a good example of a work that stands alone well outside the movie.


Nice save. 

Yeah, when I was sampling I included to *Irish Love* from *Cal*. Very nice track, but seems more like _solo album_ material than _soundtrack_. But I haven't seen the film, nor heard any more of the soundtrack. I'd guess it works nicely in the film, and that since you recommend it, probably one of his better soundtracks.

I _was_ surprised by the *Princess Bride* soundtrack. I love the film (as well as the book, before the film was even planned), and don't recall thinking the soundtrack being poor at the time, but, well, you know, some soundtracks don't stand up well on their own.


----------



## pianozach

DaveM said:


> Oh yeah, nothing like shallow and superficial music to help sell a movie.


That's amusing.

Rarely is a film marketed using a soundtrack composer as its selling point, even when it's a well respected one. 

Imagine it: 

*Coming Soon: 

Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker
featuring the music of John Williams

Hear the plaintive french horn melodies, the crashing cymbals, and diabolic trombones!

Opens December 16​*


----------



## DaveM

pianozach said:


> That's amusing.
> 
> Rarely is a film marketed using a soundtrack composer as its selling point, even when it's a well respected one...


A movie will not be marketed as The Da Vinci Code starring Tom Hanks with music by Hans Zimmer, but some of the most successful movies have had soundtracks that contributed to the success. I was at the May 25, 1977 premiere of Star Wars. We had been in line around the block outside the Hollywood Chinese Theatre and were responding to what had been a relatively small ad in the newspaper. Nobody knew what it was about except that it was Sci-Fi.

The opening of the movie with that iconic John Williams music is a moment I’ll never forget and there’s no doubt in my mind that it added a sort of ‘gravitas’ to all the fantasy. Immediately, we had the feeling we were in for something magical. Imagine the Star Wars movies without that theme and instead some ‘shallow and superficial’ music.


----------



## BBSVK

pianozach said:


> That's amusing.
> 
> Rarely is a film marketed using a soundtrack composer as its selling point, even when it's a well respected one.
> 
> Imagine it:
> 
> 
> *Coming Soon:
> 
> 
> 
> Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker
> 
> featuring the music of John Williams
> 
> 
> 
> Hear the plaintive french horn melodies, the crashing cymbals, and diabolic trombones!
> 
> 
> 
> Opens December 16*​


Opera started that way. It was the libretto that was important, not the music. It reversed with time. EDIT: Wikipedia proves me wrong and I cannot locate where from I got the idea about the importance of the libretto, so please disregard it.


----------



## Enthusiast

DaveM said:


> A movie will not be marketed as The Da Vinci Code starring Tom Hanks with music by Hans Zimmer, but some of the most successful movies have had soundtracks that contributed to the success.


This is definitely true. But if the music was so good on a standalone basis you would have people filling cinemas for the music rather than the film. To the best of my knowledge (and I did post the question earlier in this thread) this has only happened a few times - all of them for jazz scores which no-one needed to pretend were classical music.

This is one of many threads that ask, as this one does, why "many people think that classical music composed for film scores is not classical music". That particular question, of course, tells us that we are only talking about classical music that was composed for films (not quite the same things as music by music by classical composers or music that has subsequently had classical concert suites prepared from it) but I am not sure a single example of such has been posted in the 23 pages of this thread so far. OK, I know most people here disagree with me and I've read the posts and respectfully disagree with most. No need for anyone to repeat themselves. But what I do wonder is why it matters so much to some people what the film music they love can be categorised as. As has been pointed out it is not about the quality of the music, it is just a matter of categorisation. Who cares? And why?


----------



## Enthusiast

BBSVK said:


> Opera started that way. It was the libretto that was important, not the music. It reversed with time.


I am not sure that that is true, is it? I am open to any evidence - presumably from before Monteverdi's time? 

I do know that the music became more important as time progressed - perhaps firstly for the voices of famous singers? - and that the spectacle was perhaps the most important thing in the early days of opera. But this doesn't mean that the music was not important. It may have been rather like our hit musicals of today - a few good songs were an essential ingredient.


----------



## BBSVK

Deleted, not sure about the info.


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

Enthusiast said:


> That particular question, of course, tells us that we are only talking about classical music that was composed for films (not quite the same things as music by music by classical composers or music that has subsequently had classical concert suites prepared from it) but I am not sure a single example of such has been posted in the 23 pages of this thread so far.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ You are wanting to say that that is an example of classical music that was composed for a film? It sounds only like film music composed for a film.


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

Enthusiast said:


> ^ You are wanting to say that that is an example of classical music that was composed for a film? It sounds only like film music composed for a film.


I am starting to think you are just here to troll.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you with your post of something that has already been posted in this thread. Anyway, I don't think you answered my questions like why it matters to you what it is called?

But perhaps I am trolling as I never really expected a proper answer and I am, I confess, getting tired of seeing these threads all the time. Some people used to post examples of proper contemporary music (post-Boulez etc) to convince the gainsayers of that music that unarguably belongs in the classical tradition but they were bright enough to know that it would never work with the doubters.


----------



## Enthusiast

BBSVK said:


> Deleted, not sure about the info.


But the post that you have deleted had already said you weren't sure where you got the idea that the music didn't matter (I paraphrase) for early operas. You also said you may be wrong. And it was clear what post you were replying to. That was an honest reply and I respected it. Deleting that and leaving no reply at all seems less so but was perhaps just bashful?


----------



## DaveM

Enthusiast said:


> ‘This is one of many threads that ask, as this one does, why "many people think that classical music composed for film scores is not classical music".


That is not what the OP asks. It asks why some music composed for film scores can not be classed as classical music.



> No need for anyone to repeat themselves. But what I do wonder is why it matters so much to some people what the film music they love can be categorised as. As has been pointed out it is not about the quality of the music, it is just a matter of categorisation. Who cares? And why?


Because, like most threads on this forum, it’s may be a subject of interest for some even if not for you. Plus some people make a big deal out of the fact that film music can’t possibly be classical music.


> But perhaps I am trolling as I never really expected a proper answer and I am, I confess, getting tired of seeing these threads all the time.


We feel bad that you’re not being entertained. We’ll try to do better.


----------



## Enthusiast

DaveM said:


> That is not what the OP asks. It asks why some music composed for film scores can not be classed as classical music.


I was going by the title. The text (which is quite long and discursive) seemed also to be about why some people don't consider some "classical film music" to be classical music. 



DaveM said:


> Because, like most threads on this forum, it’s may be a subject of interest for some even if not for you. Plus some people make a big deal out of the fact that film music can’t possibly be classical music.


But why the repetition of the same stuff?



DaveM said:


> We feel bad that you’re not being entertained. We’ll try to do better.


Kind of you. Engaging seriously with the questions I have asked through this thread could also work for me.


----------



## pianozach

There’s a difference between _listening_ to those around you and just _hearing_ those around you.


----------



## HansZimmer

Enthusiast said:


> ^ You are wanting to say that that is an example of classical music that was composed for a film? It sounds only like film music composed for a film.


What about this one?


----------



## HansZimmer

EdwardBast said:


> I was specifically asked by a voice form the either for theoretical details that would explain my comparison of the Lion King score to cheez-whiz. That's what I did. I don't need to justify my tastes. I'm not the one who apparently can't hear the aesthetic gulf between a piece of film music that isn't even particularly good by the standards of that genre and Beethoven.


I'm not the one who doesn't know that there is no such thing as objectity in aesthetic and that, consequently, the emotions that a determined melody creates in the brain of a person are very subjective.

I repeat that in my brain the melody and orchestration of Lion King score are excellent. Not simply good, but excellent. I know that in the brain of other persons a melody that I like can cause different emotions, so I have no problems with the fact that you don't like the piece, unless you tell me that your tastes are superior than mine.


----------



## HansZimmer

Forster said:


> Is that what our Hans Zimmer thinks? I didn't read him that way. Very enthusiastic about The Lion King, but not that he puts it on a par with LvB. Or did I miss something explicit in this vein?


This thread is about styles, not about quality. Someone, however, asked about quality of film music.

I wrote that to ask what's better between the best film music and the best standalone music is like to ask what's better between gold and gold.
I add an other concept in this post: to ask what's better between the best modern music and best music of classical period is like to ask what's better between gold and gold.

I don't have a subscription to a period of music (baroque, classical, romantic, modern), to a field of music (standalone/film) or to a composer. I simply like orchestral music and I'm free to explore and appreciate everything, without discrimination.


That said, what I think of Lion King score is quite simple: it's gold of modern/film music. 

I have to admit that I'm not an expert of soundtracks like pianozach, who has 4 days of soundtracks in his iTunes profile, but my top 5 is the following.


*Composer - Film - Title*

Alan Menken - Little Mermaid - Happy Ending







Alan Menken - Beauty and the Beast - Transformation







John Williams - Star Wars: Attack of the Clones - Across the Stars







John Williams - Home Alone - Somewhere in my Memory







Hans Zimmer - Lion King - Suite







If 3 of 5 are from Disney animated films is not because I'm a fan of the genre (I'm not the kind of adult who like products for children, I'm watching the "Viking" serie on Netflix... just to explicit my tastes in cinema), but because during the so called "Disney Reinassance", the Disney was trying to relaunch his animated films with some new ideas, wich included music as an important part of the product.
So, the producers had high expectations from music composer and they discovered Alan Menken, who is a very skilled composer in my point of view.


----------



## DaveM

I watched the Tom Hanks movie Cast Away (2000) for the 4th time last nite. The theme above doesn’t appear until 3/4 through the movie. In fact, there is no orchestral soundtrack in the movie until it appears. It is an example of the impact a good soundtrack can have on a movie which would be lesser-than without it. The orchestrated theme first appears as the Tom Hanks character is finally ‘escaping’ from the island he was stranded on for over 4 years.

It is a moving moment, but what is even more moving and poignant is when a short time after, he loses his ‘companion’, the volleyball ‘Wilson’ and is devastated. At this point, a solo oboe restates the theme and that scene has more of an impact with the music. I have great admiration for the ability of a composer to create this kind music, particularly when it comes to composing an original melody that is so appropriate for the moment and which is not a reminder of anything that has preceded it.


----------



## pianozach

HansZimmer said:


> I have to admit that I'm not an expert of soundtracks like pianozach, who has 4 days of soundtracks in his iTunes profile, but my top 5 is the following.


I am horrifically amused. 

I am absolutely NOT a soundtrack expert, nor do I play one on TV.

My "soundtrack" library doesn't delineate between soundtracks, songtracks, Broadway musicals, and film musicals. I just noticed that one (Trevor Rabin's Jacaranda) is misfiled as 'soundtrack', although Rabin IS a soundtrack composer.

Of those four days worth of music, only the following 15 CDs are orchestral/instrumental scores:

Williams - A.I.
Young - Around the World in 80 Days
Thenewno2 - Beautiful Creatures
Jarre - Doctor Zhivago
Bates - Guardians of the Galaxy
Williams - Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
Chopin - Immortal Beloved
Jones - The Last of the Mohicans
Portman - The Legend of Bagger Vance
Shore - The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
Elfman - The Nightmare Before Christmas
Corigliano - The Red Violin
Preisner - The Secret Garden (1993)
Williams - Star Wars: The Return of the Jedi
Giacchino - The Incredibles

. . . and . . . 4 CDs of Babylon 5 episodes by Christopher Franke
. . . and . . . 65 tracks of TV show themes. 

Frankly, most of these were either downloaded after being checked out of the local library, or bought for a dollar or less at garage sales. Go into a garage sale or estate sale 10 minutes prior to them packing up, and offer them $5 for a box of 60 random CDs. I've got some really wacky stuff. Often people are trying to unload their collection of "Praise" and "Worship" music, which I absolutely don't bother uploading, regardless of quality. 

The rest of those "soundtracks" are musicals (film and stage), film songtracks, and random compilations of film music.


----------



## Red Terror

BBSVK said:


> Opera started that way. It was the libretto that was important, not the music. It reversed with time.


If the soundtrack to a film becomes the focus, the film ceases to be a film and becomes a music video.

As for Hans Zimmer—one of the worst soundtrack composers _ever_. Bernard Herrmann would puke.


----------



## DaveM

Red Terror said:


> If the soundtrack to a film becomes the focus, the film ceases to be a film and becomes a music video.
> 
> As for Hans Zimmer—one of the worst soundtrack composers _ever_. Bernard Herrmann would puke.


Please give an example of a movie where the soundtrack became the focus to the point of the movie being a music video.

Bernard Herrman died in 1975. Is that the extent of your movie soundtrack music experience and what you measure it by?


----------



## fbjim

Red Terror said:


> If the soundtrack to a film becomes the focus, the film ceases to be a film and becomes a music video.
> 
> As for Hans Zimmer—one of the worst soundtrack composers _ever_. Bernard Herrmann would puke.


I get that it sounds good in trailers but the BWHHHHHHHHH is one of the great crimes against movie music.


----------



## EdwardBast

HansZimmer said:


> I'm not the one who doesn't know that there is no such thing as objectity in aesthetic and that, consequently, the emotions that a determined melody creates in the brain of a person are very subjective.
> 
> I repeat that in my brain the melody and orchestration of Lion King score are excellent. Not simply good, but excellent. I know that in the brain of other persons a melody that I like can cause different emotions, so I have no problems with the fact that you don't like the piece, unless you tell me that your tastes are superior than mine.


Perhaps you were not in on recent discussions of objective vs. subjective aesthetic judgments? My position has always been that aesthetic judgments are subjective, but some subjecive aesthetic judgments are better, that is, more informed and thoughtful, than others.



Forster said:


> Is that what our Hans Zimmer thinks? I didn't read him that way. Very enthusiastic about The Lion King, but not that he puts it on a par with LvB. Or did I miss something explicit in this vein?


Hans said that the Lion King excerpt was less repetitive than the "Moonlight" Sonata, meaning Zimmer one, Beethoven zero. I think making the qualitative comparison at all is absurd.


----------



## pianozach

fbjim said:


> I get that it sounds good in trailers but the BWHHHHHHHHH is one of the great crimes against movie music.


LOL. "Trailers music". That's actually an entirely different category (although there certainly is a lot of overlap).

I find it amusing that music found in _some_ trailers aren't actually part of the actual film's soundtrack. Sometimes _scenes_ in a trailer end up being cut from the final version of the film.


----------



## fbjim

In all fairness to Zimmer the infamous "Inception Horns" was really effective for its purpose but it being adapted by basically every composer for film trailers afterwards was not a development I enjoyed.


----------



## BBSVK

Enthusiast said:


> But the post that you have deleted had already said you weren't sure where you got the idea that the music didn't matter (I paraphrase) for early operas. You also said you may be wrong. And it was clear what post you were replying to. That was an honest reply and I respected it. Deleting that and leaving no reply at all seems less so but was perhaps just bashful?


I appologise, maybe there was a second mistake even in that post recalling my memory, and the music composer was possibly always payed better.

OK, what I believe I have seen on another forum, is, that by Italian tradition, the librettist is the formal author of the opera, not composer. Unfortunately I cannot locate it now, I tried. It might have been Stack Exchange Italian language forum or MET opera live on HD forum. I will still not bet my life on this, though.


----------



## mikeh375

pianozach said:


> LOL. "Trailers music". That's actually an entirely different category (although there certainly is a lot of overlap).
> 
> I find it amusing that music found in _some_ trailers aren't actually part of the actual film's soundtrack. Sometimes _scenes_ in a trailer end up being cut from the final version of the film.


You are probably aware that there is a whole industry based on composers supplying trailer music to music libraries and the film industry. These are generally not A or even B listers nor even the composer who has been commissioned to do a score.

Trailer music is also where a form of composing for film known as 'Epic' is often used. The music is designed to sell the film and as such is often derivative and the production and emotion is hyped up way over the top i.e. epic, even for film. So called 'Epic' genres are used especially in sci-fi and fast paced action film trailers and are often characterised by heavy percussion, full on and loud orchestration and a somewhat bombastic mood. I'm guessing but from my experiences, I bet some trailer music has at least made it as temp tracks for editing and some have probably gone all the way and ended up as part of the final score.
In a way, you can think of trailer music in the same way one might think of advertising music, in that the aims of both are the same - to sell a product.


----------



## HansZimmer

EdwardBast said:


> Hans said that the Lion King excerpt was less repetitive than the "Moonlight" Sonata, meaning Zimmer one, Beethoven zero. I think making the qualitative comparison at all is absurd.


I was not attacking the Moonlight Sonata. You were using theoretical analysis to objectify your personal tastes and after my observation you wrote that you prefer the Moonlight Sonata for aesthetic reasons.
You finally admitted that the evaluation of a melody is subjective and not objective. So, it's not Hans Zimmer 1 and Beethoven 0, but HansZimmer 1 and EdwardBast 0.


----------



## Enthusiast

HansZimmer said:


> What about this one?


Thank you. It is quite atmospheric music and even though I can't remember it from the film (which I have seen a couple of times) it does conjure cinematic pictures for me. The thing is I just can't hear it as classical music although I recognise that it draws from a mix of classical influences. I don't hear it as trying to say something new or personal to me. Nor do I hear it developing its ideas, attractive though these may or may not be. So I don't think it is classical music and I don't think it would work for me as a standalone piece to sit and listen to. It doesn't really transport me.


----------



## HansZimmer

Enthusiast said:


> Thank you. It is quite atmospheric music and even though I can't remember it from the film (which I have seen a couple of times) it does conjure cinematic pictures for me. The thing is I just can't hear it as classical music although I recognise that it draws from a mix of classical influences. I don't hear it as trying to say something new or personal to me. Nor do I hear it developing its ideas, attractive though these may or may not be. So I don't think it is classical music and I don't think it would work for me as a standalone piece to sit and listen to. It doesn't really transport me.


In reality this piece doesn't come from a film score, but it's a movement of a classical music concerto of John Williams.
I'm sorry for the deceit, but it's a method used in psychology to test.

This test proved that you perceive the style of a piece according to the information you have about it.

In my opinion, if this piece was really a film score, it would be a quite bad film score if compared to many film scores that John Williams composed. So, it's also not true that the quality of standalone music is necessarily higher than film music.

What you heard is the third movement of this Concerto for Oboe.


----------



## Enthusiast

HansZimmer said:


> In reality this piece doesn't come from a film score, but it's a movement of a classical music concerto of John Williams.
> I'm sorry for the deceit, but it's a method used in psychology to test.
> 
> *This test proved *that you perceive the style of a piece according to the information you have about it.
> 
> In my opinion, if this piece was really a film score, it would be a quite bad film score if compared to many film scores that John Williams composed. So, it's also not true that the quality of standalone music is necessarily higher than film music.
> 
> What you heard is the third movement of this Concerto for Oboe.


You are talking to a scientist here and I have to tell you that the test proves no such thing however much you wish it does. The piece sounded to me like film music and lacked the coherence, content and development of content that I would expect from classical music. 

The only learning that comes from your experiment is that I am now more convinced than ever that Williams is not a capable classical composer (obviously, this is IMO). I had been willing to believe that he did compose some classical music - a violin concerto is currently being hyped, I believe - but am now feeling that his main skill (writing film music) swamped any ability he might have had to produce credible classical music that can stand alone. The music seems good for nothing if it can't be used for a film! It makes me feel for the first time ever that he actually is a charlatan.

You may come back and say that some people are convinced and buy tickets and so on. I can't explain that but there are many such mysteries when human tastes are being explored. I very much doubt people will be buying tickets for it in 50 years time.


----------



## EvaBaron

Enthusiast said:


> You are talking to a scientist here and I have to tell you that the test proves no such thing however much you wish it does. The piece sounded to me like film music and lacked the coherence, content and development of content that I would expect from classical music.
> 
> The only learning that comes from your experiment is that I am now more convinced than ever that Williams is not a capable classical composer (obviously, this is IMO). I had been willing to believe that he did compose some classical music - a violin concerto is currently being hyped, I believe - but am now feeling that his main skill (writing film music) swamped any ability he might have had to produce credible classical music that can stand alone. The music seems good for nothing if it can't be used for a film! It makes me feel for the first time ever that he actually is a charlatan.
> 
> You may come back and say that some people are convinced and buy tickets and so on. I can't explain that but there are many such mysteries when human tastes are being explored. I very much doubt people will be buying tickets for it in 50 years time.


I don’t know if you have ever heard Schinder’s list main theme, but that’s a piece of music that can definitely stand alone


----------



## Enthusiast

^ A "theme" standing alone? As a miniature? Or does he develop it?


----------



## pianozach

Enthusiast said:


> [edit]
> 
> The music seems good for nothing if it can't be used for a film! It makes me feel for the first time ever that he actually is a charlatan.
> 
> You may come back and say that some people are convinced and buy tickets and so on. I can't explain that but there are many such mysteries when human tastes are being explored. *I very much doubt people will be buying tickets for it in 50 years time.*


I'd take that bet. I predict that 50 years from now music from *John Williams* will still be very much featured in the schedules of symphony orchestras, as it will still sell well, and likely even _better_ than it does _now_. 

I'd also bet that the amount of film music will actually _increase_, and feature music from *Shore, Goldsmith, Morricone, Steiner*, and *Zimmer* (and others) as well, as people will not be buying tickets in the same quantities for Contemporary Classical Music from the first half of the 21st Century. They'll buy tickets to _film suites_ though, as well as for programs of war horse composers from 1750-1950. _AND_, I'll bet that music suites from _Video Games_ will see programming as well.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ I'm unlikely to survive to collect from you. But I can't think of an example of music with a similar aesthetic from 50 years ago that anyone listens to now. An awful lot of music that people raved about at the time some 50, 60 or 70 years ago has disappeared now and is experienced as embarrassing if it does resurface.


----------



## HansZimmer

Enthusiast said:


> You are talking to a scientist here and I have to tell you that the test proves no such thing however much you wish it does. The piece sounded to me like film music and lacked the coherence, content and development of content that I would expect from classical music.
> 
> The only learning that comes from your experiment is that I am now more convinced than ever that Williams is not a capable classical composer (obviously, this is IMO). I had been willing to believe that he did compose some classical music - a violin concerto is currently being hyped, I believe - but am now feeling that his main skill (writing film music) swamped any ability he might have had to produce credible classical music that can stand alone. The music seems good for nothing if it can't be used for a film! It makes me feel for the first time ever that he actually is a charlatan.
> 
> You may come back and say that some people are convinced and buy tickets and so on. I can't explain that but there are many such mysteries when human tastes are being explored. I very much doubt people will be buying tickets for it in 50 years time.


The standalone music of John Williams is strange because his purpose is to compose contemporary classical music. The music he composes for films is different because it follows the rules of older classical music: melody, harmony and coherence.

I agree with your judgement about the piece: it's not so pleasant for my ears, but after I've heard this piece of contemporary music, the standalone music of John Williams doesn't sound so bad.







However, when it comes to film music, the pieces of John Williams can stay alone. Explain why the real score of "Born on the Fourth of July" shouldn't be suited for a concert?


----------



## mikeh375

HansZimmer said:


> The standalone music of John Williams is strange because his purpose is to compose contemporary classical music. The music he composes for films is different because it follows the rules of older classical music: melody, harmony and coherence.


That is not the real reason his concert work is different. His concert work also has internal coherent logic - melodic and harmonic and utilises classical techniques. But his concert music is a different composing paradigm and aesthetic altogether, a freer and more personal one, which explains the differences between that and film work. It's also the reason I for one don't see film music as exclusively classical, apart from trivial and obvious superficialities.


----------



## Forster

We're still going on about the elderly, passed or soon to be passed soundtrack composers. Doesn't anyone have any regard for any of the younger generation?


----------



## pianozach

BBSVK said:


> I appologise, maybe there was a second mistake even in that post recalling my memory, and the music composer was possibly always payed better.
> 
> OK, what I believe I have seen on another forum, is, that by Italian tradition, *the librettist is the formal author of the opera*, not composer. Unfortunately I cannot locate it now, I tried. It might have been Stack Exchange Italian language forum or MET opera live on HD forum. I will still not bet my life on this, though.


"*the librettist is the formal author of the opera"*

I think that tradition has been over for a long, long time. And it OUGHT to be attributed to the author. But rarely is it that way.

People remember operas be the name of the composer of the music: Puccini, Beethoven, Mozart, Verdi, Rossini, Bizet, Purcell, etc. 

Rarely do you casually hear the names of the librettists of some of the most popular operas of all time: 

Nahum Tate, 
Nicola Haym, 
Ranieri de' Calzabigi, 
Giambattista Varesco, 
Lorenzo Da Ponte, 
Emanuel Schikaneder, 
Cesare Sterbini, 
Victor-Joseph Étienne de Jouy and Hippolyte Bis, or 
Felice Romani.

I'm reminded of an old joke: Mrs. Rogers and Mrs. Hammerstein are at a dinner party, and are discussing which of their husbands is the more important of the famous duo. Mrs. Rogers delivers the bombshell, *"MY husband wrote 'Some Enchanted Evening'"*.

Mrs. Hammerstein counters, *"Oh, no no no. YOUR husband wrote 'La la, la la, lah lah'. MY husband wrote 'Some Enchanted Evening'".*


----------



## mikeh375

Forster said:


> We're still going on about the elderly, passed or soon to be passed soundtrack composers. Doesn't anyone have any regard for any of the younger generation?


yep, I do but my take on this does not change.


----------



## HansZimmer

mikeh375 said:


> That is not the real reason his concert work is different. His concert work also has internal coherent logic - melodic and harmonic and utilises classical techniques. But his concert music is a different composing paradigm and aesthetic altogether, a freer and more personal one, which explains the differences between that and film work. It's also the reason I for one don't see film music as exclusively classical, apart from trivial and obvious superficialities.


The standalone music of John Williams is intended to sound different from old classical music, that's why some (many?) people won't probably like it so much.

When it comes to film music, the fact that John Williams is inspired by old classical music is made evident by the fact that he sometimes shamelessly copies from pieces of classical music.






I didn't put this piece of the suite of Home Alone in the video for Talkclassical best film score award - 1991 because I don't consider it "original score".

As someone in this discussion suggests, some film music might be seen as an other modern evolution of classical music, that looks more like old classical music than some contemporary music.


----------



## Simon Moon

HansZimmer said:


> The standalone music of John Williams is strange because his purpose is to compose contemporary classical music. The music he composes for films is different because it follows the rules of older classical music: melody, harmony and coherence.
> 
> I agree with your judgement about the piece: it's not so pleasant for my ears, but after I've heard this piece of contemporary music, the standalone music of John Williams doesn't sound so bad.


I would much rather listen to a failed, or inferior avant-garde or modernist piece, than the Pablum that is that Williams oboe piece.


----------



## DaveM

Simon Moon said:


> I would much rather listen to a failed, or inferior avant-garde or modernist piece, than the Pablum that is that Williams oboe piece.


You’d rather listen to failed, inferior stuff? Interesting taste/standards. Still, since you brought the subject up, how does one identify a ‘failed or inferior avante-garde‘ work?


----------



## hammeredklavier

EdwardBast said:


> Perhaps you were not in on recent discussions of objective vs. subjective aesthetic judgments? My position has always been that aesthetic judgments are subjective, but some subjecive aesthetic judgments are better, that is, more informed and thoughtful, than others.


You did explain that they are accepted CP ways of writing a fugue, but you haven't explained why it's objectively sacrilegious to subjectively view the F minor from WTC II (for example) as "corny"


----------



## Luchesi

Prodromides said:


> Refreshing the debate from a different angle, I'm submitting a half-dozen works below that have more than a dozen movements. The core concept of each opus is such that its composer elected not to shoehorn the music into commonly-accepted forms (no 3-movement concerti or 4-movement symphonies here).
> Not just composers, either ... album producers have issued recordings of these wherein each musical movement is a recepiant of its own track #.
> The resultant albums resemble soundtrack albums, like it or lump it. [most soundtracks have 12 or more cues]
> Imagine! Music which has no connection to cinema or TV ... but nonetheless _plays_ like a film score because it is based upon extra-muscial narratives and creates its own mould instead of being pegged into a pre-determined (and pre-approved) pigeonhole.
> 
> 13 cues: *Baldr* (by Leifs) A choreographic drama based upon Norse mythology about the creation of 'Man' on Earth. Primordial pre-Christian paganism in 2 Acts, with 13 tracks, across 2 CDs.
> 
> 15 cues: *Office des Oracles* (by Ohana) Ancient religious rituals & prophecies vocalized in 12 sections, a couple of suites + a coda. The Alpha & the Omega ... with the Minotaur, a dragon, tarot cards, horoscopes, etc. in between.
> 
> 16 cues: *Les heures persanes* (by Koechlin) 16 piano minatures - subsequently orchestrated - based upon traveller Pierre Loti's novel depicting a multi-day journey across Persia. Each movement is rather like a musical snapshot focused upon a specific time of day at a certain location. A musical photo album, if you will.
> 
> 17 cues:
> *The Kairn of Koridwen* (C.T. Griffes) A Dance-Drama based upon Druid legend, arranged for 8 musicians in 2 Acts.
> 
> *Zodiac* (by Bennett) The 12 zodiac signs, along with 5 _Ritornello_s, yield a 17-movement work with 17 minutes duration (each track is between 44 seconds & one minute 9 seconds in length). Hhmmm ... seems not unlike those brief cues typically utilized in music for a television series, eh?
> 
> 18 cues: *Le miroir de Jésus* (by Caplet) "poèmes d'Henri Ghéon" are set to music (vocal & instrumental) and serve as musical prayers according to the "Mystères du Rosaire".


You've changed your name. Cool.


----------



## Luchesi

hammeredklavier said:


> You did explain that they are accepted CP ways of writing a fugue, but you haven't explained why it's objectively sacrilegious to subjectively view the F minor from WTC II (for example) as "corny"


You reminded me that Glenn Gould asserted that many of the preludes in the WTC are quite silly. I think I know what he meant, but why be that critical, when they have teaching functions..
But then again, he was just giving his opinion when asked (according to a script, for a TV airing). Keep it short and titillating and somewhat surprising/shocking, I guess. Would we watch it 60 years later, 40 years after he died?


----------



## Forster

fbjim said:


> I get that it sounds good in trailers but the BWHHHHHHHHH is one of the great crimes against movie music.


Since the pandemic, and having moved house, I go to the cinema less often, but trailers did go through a period where even the most modest film had to be trailed using loud and harassing music. It seems to have settled.

(Almost as irritating is the "This Year!" and "Based on a true story" captions that are supposed to add to the imperatives that we must see this fillum!)



EdwardBast said:


> Hans said that the Lion King excerpt was less repetitive than the "Moonlight" Sonata, meaning Zimmer one, Beethoven zero. I think making the qualitative comparison at all is absurd.


But as he didn't carry out a complete analysis, we don't know that the final score wouldn't have been Zimmer 1, Beethoven 32.



mikeh375 said:


> yep, I do but my take on this does not change.


Nor does mine. I'm just a little ticked off that most of the discussions about film composers (never mind the fruitless debate about whether it counts as classical) pays little attention to the many who are working now. Just checking the list of nominees for the past 5 years at the Oscars shows that there's more to score than Williams and Zimmer, Morricone and Goldsmith, Steiner and Herrmann.

Nicholas Britell
Germaine Franco
Jon Batiste
Trent Reznor
Atticus Ross
Terence Blanchard
Hildur Guðnadóttir
Thomas Newman
Ludwig Goransson
Marc Shaiman
Alexandre Desplat
Jonny Greenwood
Alberto Iglesias
Emile Mosseri
James Newton Howard
Randy Newman
Carter Burwell
...and, yes, John Williams and Hans Zimmer. (Out of these two titans, only Zimmer won in the last 5 years.)



insert missing 'to'


----------



## Enthusiast

DaveM said:


> You’d rather listen to failed, inferior stuff? Interesting taste/standards. Still, since you brought the subject up, how does one identify a ‘failed or inferior avante-garde‘ work?


At least it would presumably have been an honest attempt to write music that says something. The Williams piece was also surely a failure? Or, if a success what did it succeed in?


----------



## Prodromides

Enthusiast's TC-flag went from Great Britain to Austria; how was the travel? 
Did you listen to any soundtrack albums on the airplane?


----------



## hammeredklavier

_Every man or woman in charge of the music of moving picture theater is, consciously or unconsciously, a disciple or follower of Richard Wagner_ – Stephen Bush, film critic, 1911
_Please write music like Wagner, only louder_ – Sam Goldwyn to a film composer
_If my grandfather were alive today, he would undoubtedly be working in Hollywood_ —Wolfgang Wagner



Enthusiast said:


> The piece sounded to me like film music and lacked the coherence, content and development of content that I would expect from classical music.





Enthusiast said:


> ^ A "theme" standing alone? As a miniature? Or does he develop it?


Aren't those more like "Germanic" or "German-influenced" attributes in common practice music? In my subjective view, there's certain banality, for example, in Viennese Classicism emphasizing "motivic development" too, in the form of sequences and repetitions. In the common practice, there are many miniatures and songs and music for the low class in operatic numbers that have (singspiels, singsmesse, lieder, etc, by composers who wrote developments other genres) no development in themselves, but compensate for it by strength of melodic/harmonic quality. Aren't they classical music too?


----------



## HansZimmer

Forster said:


> But as he didn't carry out a complete analysis, we don't know that the final score wouldn't have been Zimmer 1, Beethoven 32.


Just to make things clear, I will never do theoretical analysis to compare two pieces of music, because I think it's absurd (not only wrong, but absurd) to evaluate artworks with "matematical" parameters.
For example, the argument "the melody is repetitive and therefore the piece is bad" is absurd. Infact, in some pieces melodic repetitions disturbs, while in others doesn't. Furthermore, not only a simple and repetitive melody can be better than a more developed melody, but the simple melody can be an excellence while the more developed melody can be total trash.

If you ask me a comparison between two pieces of music, I will simply say which one of the two gives me stronger emotions and why, because this is the real point of music. The mathematical parameters can play a role in emotions, but they are not the intrinsic value of music. For example, if repetion of some melodic phrases is boring, than it's relevant in the emotional aspect. On the other hand, if the repetition of some melodic phrases create postive feelings, it's also relevant for the emotional sphere.


That said, I never wanted to start a competition between composers. Hans Zimmer composed an excellent suite for the Lion King (and when I say that something is excellent I mean a score of 10/10, so it's not possible that the music of Lion King is defeated by other pieces: at most there are pieces that are just as good) and he was fortunately awarded for it (I wouldn't believe in humanity if he wasn't), but if he hasn't won other awards until this year (for Dune) it probably means that he's not a so profilic composer in average.
He's not for sure as profilic as Mozart, who composed his first symphony at the age of 8, his first four piano concertos at the age of 11, more than 600 pieces in his short life, of wich the worst are good (8/10) and the best are excellent (10/10).


----------



## EvaBaron

HansZimmer said:


> Just to make things clear, I will never do theoretical analysis to compare two pieces of music, because I think it's absurd (not only wrong, but absurd) to evaluate artworks with "matematical" parameters.
> For example, the argument "the melody is repetitive and therefore the piece is bad" is absurd. Infact, in some pieces melodic repetitions disturbs, while in others doesn't. Furthermore, not only a simple and repetitive melody can be better than a more developed melody, but the simple melody can be an excellence while the more developed melody can be total trash.
> 
> If you ask me a comparison between two pieces of music, I will simply say which one of the two gives me stronger emotions and why, because this is the real point of music. The mathematical parameters can play a role in emotions, but they are not the intrinsic value of music. For example, if repetion of some melodic phrases is boring, than it's relevant in the emotional aspect. On the other hand, if the repetition of some melodic phrases create postive feelings, it's also relevant for the emotional sphere.
> 
> 
> That said, I never wanted to start a competition between composers. Hans Zimmer composed an excellent suite for the Lion King (and when I say that something is excellent I mean a score of 10/10, so it's not possible that the music of Lion King is defeated by other pieces: at most there are pieces that are just as good) and he was fortunately awarded for it (I wouldn't believe in humanity if he wasn't), but if he hasn't won other awards until this year (for Dune) it probably means that he's not a so profilic composer in average.
> He's not for sure as profilic as Mozart, who composed his first symphony at the age of 8, his first four piano concertos at the age of 11, more than 600 pieces in his short life, of wich the worst are good (8/10) and the best are excellent (10/10).


Very well said!


----------



## DaveM

Enthusiast said:


> At least it would presumably have been an honest attempt to write music that says something...


If deemed inferior and a failure why would one assume it was an honest attempt to write music that says something? Maybe it was written by an incompetent hack.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ I don't do conspiracy theories and I don't subscribe to the myth that the avant garde world is peopled by "incompetent hacks". Some may not be so good but I believe in their sincerity. It is a strange and difficult path to take for the insincere. I suspect (in fact I am sure) that the hacks aim at popularity and try to target a mass audience.


----------



## fbjim

Well, you know what they say, the easiest way to strike it rich is to make really weird art with almost no mainstream appeal.


----------



## fbjim

Forster said:


> We're still going on about the elderly, passed or soon to be passed soundtrack composers. Doesn't anyone have any regard for any of the younger generation?


I've posted Greenwood scores a few times! Desplat is excellent too.


----------



## DaveM

Enthusiast said:


> ^ I don't do conspiracy theories and I don't subscribe to the myth that the avant garde world is peopled by "incompetent hacks". Some may not be so good but I believe in their sincerity. It is a strange and difficult path to take for the insincere. I suspect (in fact I am sure) that the hacks aim at popularity and try to target a mass audience.


What do conspiracy theories have to do with anything? Did anyone say anything about ‘the avant-garde world is peopled by ‘incompetent hacks’. The subject by another poster was music that was ‘inferior and deemed a failure’. Try to stay on the subject and not create a fictitious one.


----------



## HansZimmer

Enthusiast said:


> ^ I don't do conspiracy theories and I don't subscribe to the myth that the avant garde world is peopled by "incompetent hacks". Some may not be so good but I believe in their sincerity. It is a strange and difficult path to take for the insincere. I suspect (in fact I am sure) that the hacks aim at popularity and try to target a mass audience.


So, the hacks are the people who are able to compose good music that many people like, while the good composers are the ones who compose horrible music that no one likes?

This is an interesting theory. I've just composed a horrible piano piece, so I can say that I'm a better composer than John Williams and that people who don't like my music have a low culture.

If we both agree with the fact that the standalone music of John Williams is not appealing, how can you accuse him to target a mass audience?


----------



## fbjim

The "actual" usage of 'hack' when it isn't used as a generic "bad artist" pejorative is a gun-for-hire with little artistic ambitions of their own. The few times I've seen the term used as non-pejorative in film and writing but it's virtually always pejorative in practice.

Of course it can be used as a generic insult but "hack" is sort of a poor term to use for artists who make art with almost no prospects for mainstream financial success.


----------



## Enthusiast

DaveM said:


> What do conspiracy theories have to do with anything? Did anyone say anything about ‘the avant-garde world is peopled by ‘incompetent hacks’. The subject by another poster was music that was ‘inferior and deemed a failure’. Try to stay on the subject and not create a fictitious one.


Perhaps you didn't mean it in that way but you thought that poor quality avant garde music was probably written by an incompetent hack. I replied believing I heard you subscribing to the weird theory that is often expressed by people who get nothing out of avant garde music that it must therefore be produced by incompetent composers. Apologies if you weren't subscribing to that belief.


----------



## Enthusiast

HansZimmer said:


> So, the hacks are the people who are able to compose good music that many people like, while the good composers are the ones who compose horrible music that no one likes?
> 
> This is an interesting theory. I've just composed a horrible piano piece, so I can say that I'm a better composer than John Williams and that people who don't like my music have a low culture.
> 
> If we both agree with the fact that the standalone music of John Williams is not appealing, how can you accuse him to target a mass audience?


I probably should not reply as I am not sure we actually communicate when we exchange posts here. Anyway, obviously I didn't say that composers who produce good music are hacks and equally obviously I didn't say that people who compose "horrible music that no one likes" are good composers. But I did say that it is far more likely that an "incompetent hack" would aim for the mass market rather than the avant garde. That seems self-evident to me. I don't think I mentioned John Williams in that post but from what I remember of our exchange on that topic you disliked his concert music because it was too modern (did I get that right?) while I disliked it because I found it empty.


----------



## DaveM

Enthusiast said:


> Perhaps you didn't mean it in that way but you thought that poor quality avant garde music was probably written by an incompetent hack. I replied believing I heard you subscribing to the weird theory that is often expressed by people who get nothing out of avant garde music that it must therefore be produced by incompetent composers. Apologies if you weren't subscribing to that belief.


Why would you assume the above?

Your response to my comment questioning why a person would prefer music ‘inferior and deemed a failure’ was the following assumption:


Enthusiast said:


> At least it would presumably have been an honest attempt to write music that says something...


I questioned that assumption with another possibility:


DaveM said:


> If deemed inferior and a failure why would one assume it was an honest attempt to write music that says something? Maybe it was written by an incompetent hack.


From the above, why would you infer some broad agenda on my part regarding all avant-garde composers unless perhaps you have an agenda of your own.


----------



## Luchesi

hammeredklavier said:


> _Every man or woman in charge of the music of moving picture theater is, consciously or unconsciously, a disciple or follower of Richard Wagner_ – Stephen Bush, film critic, 1911
> _Please write music like Wagner, only louder_ – Sam Goldwyn to a film composer
> _If my grandfather were alive today, he would undoubtedly be working in Hollywood_ —Wolfgang Wagner
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aren't those more like "Germanic" or "German-influenced" attributes in common practice music? In my subjective view, there's certain banality, for example, in Viennese Classicism emphasizing "motivic development" too, in the form of sequences and repetitions. In the common practice, there are many miniatures and songs and music for the low class in operatic numbers that have (singspiels, singsmesse, lieder, etc, by composers who wrote developments other genres) no development in themselves, but compensate for it by strength of melodic/harmonic quality. Aren't they classical music too?


The question I have is what would've composers, like film composers, produced during the period of Viennese Classicism? 
I don't think it's fair or constructive to compare works centuries apart, except to see how much obvious development there's been. That's not to say I wouldn't do it for fun, if we had good examples.


----------



## DaveM

fbjim said:


> The "actual" usage of 'hack' when it isn't used as a generic "bad artist" pejorative is a gun-for-hire with little artistic ambitions of their own. The few times I've seen the term used as non-pejorative in film and writing but it's virtually always pejorative in practice.
> 
> Of course it can be used as a generic insult but "hack" is sort of a poor term to use for artists who make art with almost no prospects for mainstream financial success.


The context of the term ‘hack’ was with reference to inferior, failed music. In such a case ‘prospects for mainstream success’ would seem particularly unlikely.


----------



## Luchesi

HansZimmer said:


> Just to make things clear, I will never do theoretical analysis to compare two pieces of music, because I think it's absurd (not only wrong, but absurd) to evaluate artworks with "matematical" parameters.
> For example, the argument "the melody is repetitive and therefore the piece is bad" is absurd. Infact, in some pieces melodic repetitions disturbs, while in others doesn't. Furthermore, not only a simple and repetitive melody can be better than a more developed melody, but the simple melody can be an excellence while the more developed melody can be total trash.
> 
> If you ask me a comparison between two pieces of music, I will simply say which one of the two gives me stronger emotions and why, because this is the real point of music. The mathematical parameters can play a role in emotions, but they are not the intrinsic value of music. For example, if repetion of some melodic phrases is boring, than it's relevant in the emotional aspect. On the other hand, if the repetition of some melodic phrases create postive feelings, it's also relevant for the emotional sphere.
> 
> 
> That said, I never wanted to start a competition between composers. Hans Zimmer composed an excellent suite for the Lion King (and when I say that something is excellent I mean a score of 10/10, so it's not possible that the music of Lion King is defeated by other pieces: at most there are pieces that are just as good) and he was fortunately awarded for it (I wouldn't believe in humanity if he wasn't), but if he hasn't won other awards until this year (for Dune) it probably means that he's not a so profilic composer in average.
> He's not for sure as profilic as Mozart, who composed his first symphony at the age of 8, his first four piano concertos at the age of 11, more than 600 pieces in his short life, of wich the worst are good (8/10) and the best are excellent (10/10).


It's not a mathematical comparison.


----------



## HansZimmer

Luchesi said:


> It's not a mathematical comparison.


In a broad sense.


----------



## Luchesi

HansZimmer said:


> In a broad sense.


Yes, it's comparing the specifics of all the ideas that make works 'artistically' effective. 

We could go down the line of them, but it makes people's eyes glaze over from boredom. 

Probably, it's the opposite of what people want out of music.


----------



## Enthusiast

DaveM said:


> Why would you assume the above?
> 
> Your response to my comment questioning why a person would prefer music ‘inferior and deemed a failure’ was the following assumption:
> 
> 
> I questioned that assumption with another possibility:
> 
> 
> From the above, why would you infer some broad agenda on my part regarding all avant-garde composers unless perhaps you have an agenda of your own.


The language you used ("incompetent hacks") was not the language of someone who had no agenda on that subject.


----------



## DaveM

Enthusiast said:


> The language you used ("incompetent hacks") was not the language of someone who had no agenda on that subject.


The agenda appears to be by someone who continues to distort what was said which was ‘incompetent hack’ referring to an individual case not ‘individual hacks’ which you want to infer is something more nefarious.

Not to mention that my comment had a SMILEY after it which generally means a light-hearted humorous comment, something you and fbjim seem to be unaware of.


----------



## Enthusiast

DaveM said:


> The agenda appears to be by someone who continues to distort what was said which was ‘incompetent hack’ referring to an individual case not ‘individual hacks’ which you want to infer is something more nefarious.


Not an individual case in fact but a hypothesised case. 

If you count how many times you accuse people of distorting what you say you might begin to wonder if you are paranoid. But this side discussion is going nowhere and to no purpose. I'm out: you win.


----------



## SanAntone

I should think we could assume that composers in general have integrity about their work, whether they are film composers or avant-garde Classical composers. IMO, one of the most corrosive lines of argument that has appeared on TC is one claiming that avant-garde composers have some motive other than expressing their aesthetic and artistic vision with the music they write.

That said, some composers working in the film industry are not trying to produce art but fulfilling a job commission to provide suitable music for a movie. Often this is a thriller, or suspense film, or comedy, where the music is Pop oriented, or written to order in some fashion. Some might call this hack work done for the money, but I don't. All musicians must survive in a commercial music industry, and most must use their musical talent to make a living, and accept that often that means putting the commerciality of their music over the artistic.

There have been some films where the composer's music transcends the run-of-the-mill movie score. But IMO the those films are a minority with most film scores having no life of their own.


----------



## DaveM

Enthusiast said:


> Not an individual case in fact but a hypothesised case.
> 
> If you count how many times you accuse people of distorting what you say you might begin to wonder if you are paranoid. But this side discussion is going nowhere and to no purpose. I'm out: you win.


If you count how many times you jump into threads and respond with irrelevant misquotes because you really don’t understand what’s going on and when called on it leave with ‘I’m out’, one wonders why you responded in the first place.


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> All musicians must survive in a commercial music industry, and most must use their musical talent to make a living, and accept that often that means putting the commerciality of their music over the artistic.


The same can be said of all general pop music (eg. The likes of the Beatles, Dylan)


----------



## pianozach

Enthusiast said:


> The language you used ("incompetent hacks") was not the language of someone who had no agenda on that subject.


As a competent hack, I really hate incompetent hacks.


----------



## pianozach

SanAntone said:


> I should think we could assume that composers in general have integrity about their work, whether they are film composers or avant-garde Classical composers. IMO, one of the most corrosive lines of argument that has appeared on TC is one claiming that avant-garde composers have some motive other than expressing their aesthetic and artistic vision with the music they write.
> 
> That said, some composers working in the film industry are not trying to produce art but fulfilling a job commission to provide suitable music for a movie. Often this is a thriller, or suspense film, or comedy, where the music is Pop oriented, or written to order in some fashion. Some might call this hack work done for the money, but I don't. All musicians must survive in a commercial music industry, and most must use their musical talent to make a living, and accept that often that means putting the commerciality of their music over the artistic.
> 
> There have been some films where the composer's music transcends the run-of-the-mill movie score. But IMO the those films are a minority with most film scores having no life of their own.


I know a guy that does scoring for television, which, at one time, seemed like a very exciting job that I could do in my sleep.

I asked him about it. His response was interesting: *"There's nothing like having to compose music on a tight time schedule to suck the joy out of music."*

He was a "competent hack", churning out underscoring like he's making unique tea cozies to sell on Etsy. He'd have to create music like he was running an assembly line, I guess.


----------



## HansZimmer

Luchesi said:


> Yes, it's comparing the specifics of all the ideas that make works 'artistically' effective.
> 
> We could go down the line of them, but it makes people's eyes glaze over from boredom.
> 
> Probably, it's the opposite of what people want out of music.


Thanks. This is exactly the point of the Lion King score.

It's famous theme comes from the piece of the suite called "The Kings of the Past".
In the mithology of the animated film, the stars are the "kings of the past": this is why you hear the theme while Simba and Mufasa are contemplating the sky.






The melody of Hans Zimmer is perfect for the scene and communicates exactly what it must communicate: the greatness of the sky.
Furthermore, the secondary meaning of this theme is the love between a father and his son. Hans Zimmer in some interviews explained that this theme is dedicated to his father, who died when he was 6 years old. According to the christian worship, the father of Hans Zimmer is in the sky.

As an atheist, I have no gods. My gods are the stars. So, this piece is like sacred music for my ears. This is why this melody thouches me so deeply: I can feel it's message while hearing to it.

The same theme has been inserted in this scene and it starts in the exact moment that Simba starts crying because he realizes that his father is dead and he is now a "king of the past".






The music of Hans Zimmer reinforces so much the messages that the animated film would be kinda sterile for me without it.


----------



## HansZimmer

Ethereality said:


> By the way HansZimmer, check out Enigma Variations if you haven't recently. It's a complication of a similar style as that.


I know them and I created a discussion about the work: Edward Elgar: Enigma Variations

Do you really feel that it sounds like the Lion King score? I wouldn't say that, unless what you want to say is that there are nice tunes inside it and so it was composed with a certain kinf of spirit.


----------



## Luchesi

HansZimmer said:


> Thanks. This is exactly the point of the Lion King score.
> 
> It's famous theme comes from the piece of the suite called "The Kings of the Past".
> In the mithology of the animated film, the stars are the "kings of the past": this is why you hear the theme while Simba and Mufasa are contemplating the sky.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The melody of Hans Zimmer is perfect for the scene and communicates exactly what it must communicate: the greatness of the sky.
> Furthermore, the secondary meaning of this theme is the love between a father and his son. Hans Zimmer in some interviews explained that this theme is dedicated to his father, who died when he was 6 years old. According to the christian worship, the father of Hans Zimmer is in the sky.
> 
> As an atheist, I have no gods. My gods are the stars. So, this piece is like sacred music for my ears. This is why this melody thouches me so deeply: I can feel it's message while hearing to it.
> 
> The same theme has been inserted in this scene and it starts in the exact moment that Simba starts crying because he realizes that his father is dead and he is now a "king of the past".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The music of Hans Zimmer reinforces so much the messages that the animated film would be kinda sterile for me without it.


I don't remember the film music, but I admire Elton's melodies (which fit his singing style so well) and the lyrics. Impressive songs, mature Elton John. 
The film music surely fulfills its purposes. I couldn't do it, and that's always my barometer..


----------



## Simon Moon

Simon Moon said:


> I would much rather listen to a failed, or inferior avant-garde or modernist piece, than the Pablum that is that Williams oboe piece.





DaveM said:


> You’d rather listen to failed, inferior stuff? Interesting taste/standards. Still, since you brought the subject up, how does one identify a ‘failed or inferior avante-garde‘ work?


I wouldn't want to hear the failed avant-garde piece more than once, but at least the avant-garde composer is most likely trying something new. 

The Williams oboe concerto, for me, is bordering on being cloying, and nondescript, and bland. For me, it comes off as just a level or two above elevator music, or something like The Ray Conniff Singers.


----------



## pianozach

Simon Moon said:


> I wouldn't want to hear the failed avant-garde piece more than once, but at least the avant-garde composer is most likely trying something new.


Ah, yes, well . . .

_" . . . trying something new."_ Yeah, I appreciate clever newness, and new cleverness, but not for its own sake. 

You want a *Concerto for table saw and squeaky door*? An *Octet for kitchen appliances*?

I'm reminded that in 1968 and 1969 *John Lennon* released three "Experimental" albums

*Unfinished Music No. 1: Two Virgins
Unfinished Music No. 2: Life with the Lions
The Wedding Album*

. . . each filled with 'avant-garde' experimental random crap, and each more unlistenable than the last. Just random recordings he and his girlfriend/wife *Yoko* put together thinking it was art. Love is blind. The first of the lot was just 30 minutes of indulgent clowning with tape loops, improvised guitar, piano pounding, and *Ono*'s wailing and shrieking. It deserves a *0/10* rating. The next two were worse. A *-1/10* and a *-2/10*, respectively. 

Last year I listened to all three, and was appalled to find that they are even worse than I remember.

And you know, this was released right before *The White Album. UM1: 2Virgins* was *John* under the influence of *Yoko*, while *The White Album* was released under the influence of *Paul McCartney*.

*John* didn't stop there either. In 1969 he was invited to host a music festival in Toronto, and he asked if they might want him to play. They said _"Oh, you'd like to play? Sure! Great!!"_ I'm sure they were expecting something rather professional and polished, as it was from a respected musician like Lennon. John put together a band on two days notice, which included Alan White, Yoko Ono, Eric Clapton, and Klaus Voorman. They assembled their setlist and "rehearsed" on the plane, and again right before the gig.

*John* sang his two solo songs (*Give Peace a Chance* and *Cold Turkey*), The Beatles' *Yer Blues*, and some covers of old rock and roll classics, then turned it over to *Yoko* for some "art" music, which started out with the band laying down some one chord groove over which she 'vocalized', meaning she screamed, screeched, and attempted to create new sounds never before created by a human voice. Just awful, and it got progressively worse, as the band transitioned to equally new 'found' sounds.

Here's the first four minutes of her 'set', the most _listenable_ part of it, from *LIVE PEACE IN TORONTO 1969. *This is her song *Don't Worry, Kyoko, Mummy's Only Looking For Her Hand In the Snow*. The vocal execution DOES evoke the pain and trauma of a mother that's looking for her hand in the snow, although it's a one-trick pony that she used extensively in her "music" career. So, I actually think this song _DOES_ have some artistic merit, and you may think so too. But chances are you'll not bother to have a re-listen.






.

He did a another gig like this with Yoko's caterwauling. That became a side of the bonus disc Lennon released with their *SOME TIME IN NEW YORK CITY* album, of which half the tracks on the 'proper' album were from Yoko.

My point is that simply because you _CAN_ bang on trash cans with dead cats and call it music, doesn't really mean that you _SHOULD_ bang on trash cans with dead cats, and then have the gall to call it music or art. It also doesn't mean it necessarily has any legitimacy *as* music or art. 

_"Trying something new"._ THAT is a double-edged sword.


----------



## fbjim

he also made "Plastic Ono Band" which implemented the screamy bits into a pop context and was probably the best solo project by anyone involved with the Beatles but that's probably besides the point of a classical thread

that said I could easily point to something like Laurie Anderson's "O Superman" which was one of the best songs of the entire 1980s and one of my favorites of all time, and managed to hit #2 on the UK pop charts despite being avant-pop by a performance artist


----------



## pianozach

fbjim said:


> he also made "Plastic Ono Band" which implemented the screamy bits into a pop context and was probably the best solo project by anyone involved with the Beatles but that's probably besides the point of a classical thread
> 
> that said I could easily point to something like Laurie Anderson's "O Superman" which was one of the best songs of the entire 1980s and one of my favorites of all time, and managed to hit #2 on the UK pop charts despite being avant-pop by a performance artist


_Yeah, we ARE threadcrapping, aren't we?_

*Lennon*'s "screamy bits" were as much a result of his Primal Therapy sessions as it was a nod to Yoko's influence. I'm sure she gave her blessing for his courage to bare his soul on record. Lennon also was brave enough to swear on his albums. John sure loved the shock value in music and lyrics, didn't he?

Anderson's avant-garde hit is a musically different thing. First off, she has a far more pleasant voice than Yoko, and is more Avant-Pop (especially compared to Lennon's avant-rock, even though that album is often classified as Avant-pop), so far more accessible to the 'common folk'. Anderson understands how to mix genres, how to craft pop songs. 

Now back to our regularly scheduled programming . . .


----------



## fbjim

well one thing people will point out is that you don't get the latter without the experimentation of the former.

you could even point to something as diverse as the experiments with tape music/musique concrete/Stockhausen leading to some of the more adventurous pop, and even mainstream stuff like the first wave of Krautrock in the 70s, which was some of the most adventurous, exciting music ever made


----------



## pianozach

fbjim said:


> well one thing people will point out is that you don't get the latter without the experimentation of the former.
> 
> you could even point to something as diverse as the experiments with tape music/musique concrete/Stockhausen leading to some of the more adventurous pop, and even mainstream stuff like the first wave of Krautrock in the 70s, which was some of the most adventurous, exciting music ever made


*This is true.*

People point to *Stockhausen* and say _"That was adventurous, and it has been musically influential."_

People point to *John Lennon*'s 'experimental' junk albums, and say, _"Well, no one's done THAT before, and it was a musical and artistic dead end."_


----------



## HansZimmer

hammeredklavier said:


> Aren't those more like "Germanic" or "German-influenced" attributes in common practice music? In my subjective view, there's certain banality, for example, in Viennese Classicism emphasizing "motivic development" too, in the form of sequences and repetitions. In the common practice, there are many miniatures and songs and music for the low class in operatic numbers that have (singspiels, singsmesse, lieder, etc, by composers who wrote developments other genres) no development in themselves, but compensate for it by strength of melodic/harmonic quality. Aren't they classical music too?


Some people speak as if classical music equates to one-hour symphonies with 20-minute movements.

Complex works are only a part of the galaxy of classical music.

Aren't minuets of Mozart classical music too? The symphonies are only a little part of orchestral works of Mozart.






Orchetral suites for films might be less complex than symphonies (especially very long symphonies), but it's not that all pieces of classical music are so complex.


----------



## HansZimmer

Enthusiast said:


> I probably should not reply as I am not sure we actually communicate when we exchange posts here. Anyway, obviously I didn't say that composers who produce good music are hacks and equally obviously I didn't say that people who compose "horrible music that no one likes" are good composers. But I did say that it is far more likely that an "incompetent hack" would aim for the mass market rather than the avant garde. That seems self-evident to me. I don't think I mentioned John Williams in that post but from what I remember of our exchange on that topic you disliked his concert music because it was too modern (did I get that right?) while I disliked it because I found it empty.


I don't like the oboe concerto of John Williams because it doesn't sound right to my ears, but what I wrote is that this might be explained with the fact that when John Williams compose standalone music he tries to test new sounds.

Infact, the music he composes for films is more conventional (it's a kind of music with a technique and an aestethic which has been extensively tested and it's known to work well with the average humans ears) and so it sounds right, but with the concertos he tries to test "new sounds". When you test new things it's easy that it doesn't sound right, but it still sound better than some other contemporary works.

If that concerto would sound like the music he composes for films I'm sure you would attack him by saying that he does music for a wide audience, which is not an insult for me, because if your music reach a wide audience it's probably because it's good music.


----------



## fbjim

HansZimmer said:


> Orchetral suites for films might be less complex than symphonies (especially very long symphonies), but it's not that all pieces of classical music are so complex.


I agree entirely. In fact when film suites are conducted it tends to be in the context of either an entire programming of film music, or in a pops repertoire (in fact he was the conductor of the Boston Pops!)


----------



## HansZimmer

Ethereality said:


> with other soundtracks like Final Fantasy I personally never had the luxury of playing the games


Thanks for mentioning Final Fantasy: great soundtracks.











An other soundtrack that must be mentioned in a discussion about videogame soundtracks are the ones of The Legend Of Zelda.

This following piece was inserted in the Classic FM Hall of Fame.


----------



## Ethereality

This music is old news, HansZimmer, but still worth mentioning, that I love to ocassionally listen to the soundtracks of Uematsu, Hisaishi, Williams if they're in the right context and limited selection. I don't even list Uematsu as a top favorite composer; I just say he is a clear Great: New composers need a bit of help if they're new on the scene before we've weeded out their good works, so I might say "ignore this, but listen to this, and then only afterwards if it interests you, this" and therefore Uematsu has a perfect progressive album just for that, to begin the essentials of his diversity of inspiration. Some may get a kick out of it/understand, like a musical vacation. But yes, it's been mentioned a lot.


----------



## Ethereality

By the way, have you put thought to what your progressive 'condensed' album of Hans Zimmer would sound like? As said above, more modern _track_ composers need our help weeding out many of their better tracks into suites or albums, that's the difference between great art today and before. Music after Beethoven became about length and stretching ideas out. If you ever get around to making a playlist I'll take a listen.


----------



## fbjim

my favorite thing about Uematsu is that he got handed a blank check from Microsoft as part of their push into Japan in 2007 and used the opportunity to hire Ian Gillan so he could jam on the Hammond organ with him because he was a long-time Deep Purple fan


----------



## Ethereality

Hehe, sounds like him. I feel like he never took his mass success (ie. music itself) too seriously. One or more of his tracks is now Japanese school curriculum. I made this thread a while ago called The Essential Sound of Each Composer, or something (can't find it) and it was a very amusing thread. I think my favorite thing about Uematsu is what I associate as his essential sound: the parts where he suddenly breaks into a quick new mood or scene in the middle, in tracks there "Dancing Mad", "One Winged Angel", "Opera Maria and Draco" (near beginning), "Fithos Lusec", and it's a quieter magic dynamic and different tempo. It's his essential sound, or charm, to me, borrowed of course as early as Mozart, late as prog, just done so majestically.  Would you recommend me some artists or their works you like?


----------



## HansZimmer

fbjim said:


> I agree entirely. In fact when film suites are conducted it tends to be in the context of either an entire programming of film music, or in a pops repertoire (in fact he was the conductor of the Boston Pops!)


I missed the point.


----------



## jojoju2000

This week; the Kennedy Center will be honoring John Williams with a 90th Birthday bash. Special Guests will include Anne Sophie Mutter, Yo Yo Ma, Steven Spielberg, 

" 
NSO Executive Director Gary Ginstling said of John Williams’ impact on the American orchestral landscape, “John’s extraordinary music has transcended its original use in film to become part of the standard orchestral repertoire. Of course, his music is thrilling as a film score, but it is equally at home in the concert hall, and has been embraced by generations of classical music fans and new audiences alike. The NSO is honored to celebrate an incredible body of work by one of America’s favorite composers.”
“Few people have been more influential in American music than John Williams,” said Kennedy Center President Deborah F. Rutter. “On a personal level, I have known John for nearly four decades and have had the good fortune of working with him in my roles at various orchestras across the country. I’m humbled by John’s enthusiasm to hold his 90th birthday celebration here at the Kennedy Center during our 50th anniversary season, and delighted that in celebrating him,* we are also launching a new fund for music education—something about which John is incredibly passionate. He is a lifelong friend of musicians and a staunch advocate for music education at all ages.*” 


https://www.kennedy-center.org/news-room/press-release-landing-page/the-kennedy-center-and-national-symphony-orchestra--announce-the-john-williams-90th-birthday-celebration/



Perhaps, while we are stuck in our bubbles, Williams might be the one encouraging future classical musicians to pick up a instrument and play... he therefore would do more to promote the traditional classical music than anyone else.


----------



## jojoju2000

EdwardBast said:


> Of course the audience influences the performance decisions. And yes, John Williams' (and others) music is more likely to be played on pops concerts or concerts in the park than Boulez. And it's more likely to be (or in fact, has been) recorded by pops orchestras in Boston, Cincinnati, etc. It's been accepted into a certain part of the "light classical" canon. The "hallowed halls of academia" would certainly acknowledge this success. You're expecting more? Why?


It's not just pops orchestras however. Seiji Ozawa for example, the former Conductor of the Boston Symphony Orchestra played many of Williams's pieces with the full orchestra, not just Pops during his tenure.


----------



## jojoju2000

Forster said:


> ^ Given the number of film composers currently at work, I agree that the narrow focus on John Williams is tiresome, no matter how marvellous his scores.


Because he's the only living composer of any medium that has some level of respect in the classical music world.

Does anyone think the Vienna Orchestra would play Hans Zimmer ? Berlin ?

Nope.


----------



## Forster

jojoju2000 said:


> Because he's the only living composer of any medium that has some level of respect in the classical music world.
> 
> Does anyone think the Vienna Orchestra would play Hans Zimmer ? Berlin ?
> 
> Nope.


The OP's question is whether "classical music composed for film scores" can be considered "classical". For an accurate consideration of the question, it seems reasonable to me that we consider more film music that is classical than that written by one composer.

What you're saying, it seems to me, is that the answer to the question is partly determined by whether there are any elite orchestras out there with film scores in their programmes. 

Fair enough.


----------



## HansZimmer

jojoju2000 said:


> Because he's the only living composer of any medium that has some level of respect in the classical music world.
> 
> Does anyone think the Vienna Orchestra would play Hans Zimmer ? Berlin ?
> 
> Nope.


Has this to do with the quality of the music, or with the fact that Hans Zimmer is selftaught and he has always rejected the accademic world of the music because he sees it as "too much formal and rigid"?

Nobuo Uematsu, the japan composer of which we were speaking in this page, is also selftaught. He has not an accademic background but he still knows how to compose good music that sounds classical.


----------



## jojoju2000

Forster said:


> The OP's question is whether "classical music composed for film scores" can be considered "classical". For an accurate consideration of the question, it seems reasonable to me that we consider more film music that is classical than that written by one composer.
> 
> What you're saying, it seems to me, is that the answer to the question is partly determined by whether there are any elite orchestras out there with film scores in their programmes.
> 
> Fair enough.


The reason why I specifically mention John Williams because he's the only and I mean only Film Composer who as of right now, has any connection with the Classical Music world. 

His collaborations with Yo Yo Ma, Gil Shaham, Anne Sophie Mutter, Itzhak Perlman. His concert performances done with Seiji Ozawa, Leonard Bernstein, Jessye Norman, Andre Previn. 

And finally his most recent concert performances with the Vienna and Berlin Orchestras. That gives him brownie points with the classical music world. And it's not even about the quality of his music or lack there of. 

Hans Zimmer will never have these Brownie Points. That's why John Williams is specifically unique and off; because he sits in the middle of the on going debate. 

His Royal Philharmonic Society Gold Medal Award from a very prestigious classical music academy, should mean something. If it doesn't then....


----------



## jojoju2000

HansZimmer said:


> Has this to do with the quality of the music, or with the fact that Hans Zimmer is selftaught and he has always rejected the accademic world of the music because he sees it as "too much formal and rigid"?
> 
> Nobuo Uematsu, the japan composer of which we were speaking in this page, is also selftaught. He has not an accademic background but he still knows how to compose good music that sounds classical.


It's not about the quality. 

John Williams is the only film composer, or heck composer of any medium today who is famous enough, and who uses his fame to promote music education, classical music understanding, 

People like Yo Yo Ma, Itzhak Perlman, Anne Sophie Mutter, Gustavo Dudamel, people who have worked with him see Williams as a serious art music composer. Because they just see it as " Music ". Beautiful meaningful music. 

If Williams sees his work as part of the artistic tradition, and if his collaboraters say the same thing then.... It's classical music. 

Does Hans Zimmer and his collaboraters see Zimmer's work as part of the overall tree of Western Music ?


----------



## jojoju2000

Here's another point :

Vienna also has a giant film music festival, that gives out the yearly Max Steiner Award. Zimmer got that award by the way. Williams could have chosen or be invited to that film music festival, he is a film composer after all. But he did not. Instead, he chose or was invited to the Vienna Philharmonic, which is like a significant upgrade. Would Zimmer get the same invitiation ? NO OF COURSE NOT. The Vienna Philharmonic chooses their programme quite carefully and although Zimmer's music is great, to them, it doesn't meet their standards.

Williams's work does, which should tell us alot about what is classical music, and what is not. 

The Vienna Philharmonic, the most snobbish, elitist orchestra in the Western world. An orchestra which up until the 1970s, refused to play Gustav Mahler because he was Jewish. 

And they invited Williams to conduct and play.


----------



## pianozach

jojoju2000 said:


> Because he's the only living composer of any medium that has some level of respect in the classical music world.
> 
> Does anyone think the Vienna Orchestra would play Hans Zimmer ? Berlin ?
> 
> Nope.


Judging by their concert schedule, yhe Vienna Orchestra (aka wiener philharmoniker) is a somewhat purist entity, playing only 'real' Classical from 'real' Classical composers.






Home - Vienna Philharmonic







www.wienerphilharmoniker.at


----------



## jojoju2000

pianozach said:


> Judging by their concert schedule, yhe Vienna Orchestra (aka wiener philharmoniker) is a somewhat purist entity, playing only 'real' Classical from 'real' Classical composers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Home - Vienna Philharmonic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.wienerphilharmoniker.at


There you go.






They're so conservative that they were accused of Anti Semitism in the past for refusing to play Gustav Mahler. And yet they invited Williams. Unless they see value in his music. They're not going to invite Hans Zimmer of course. 

Their list of guest conductors and instrument players in the past is like a who's who of Classical Music. Leonard Bernstein, Daniel Barenboim, Gustavo Dudamel, Seiji Ozawa.


----------



## Forster

jojoju2000 said:


> The reason why I specifically mention John Williams because he's the only and I mean only Film Composer who as of right now, has any connection with the Classical Music world.
> 
> His collaborations with Yo Yo Ma, Gil Shaham, Anne Sophie Mutter, Itzhak Perlman. His concert performances done with Seiji Ozawa, Leonard Bernstein, Jessye Norman, Andre Previn.
> 
> And finally his most recent concert performances with the Vienna and Berlin Orchestras. That gives him brownie points with the classical music world. And it's not even about the quality of his music or lack there of.
> 
> Hans Zimmer will never have these Brownie Points. That's why John Williams is specifically unique and off; because he sits in the middle of the on going debate.
> 
> His Royal Philharmonic Society Gold Medal Award from a very prestigious classical music academy, should mean something. If it doesn't then....


I'm not quite sure what your point is, or why you're taking issue with my post #407.

As for Williams being "the only and I mean only"...it's not relevant to the question the OP asked.

Besides, here's a concert scheduled by a distinguished orchestra next month at which extracts of film scores by Williams and many others will be played.

Movies In Concert - film music live in concert (soundtrack, score, event, ticket, filmmusik, konzert, karte)


----------



## fbjim

Where does that leave composers who make film scores like Glass/Nyman, et al


----------



## jojoju2000

fbjim said:


> Where does that leave composers who make film scores like Glass/Nyman, et al


There you get into the weeds of definition. I can't speak for Glass or Nyman. 

I can only say that if Vienna, Berlin, and later in September, Milan as well, if they're playing Williams's Music as part of their catalouge in a defined format ( Not in a film music concert, or light classical concert ), then..... well I think we have to reconsider how we view Western Art Music, and how it plays out in Film, Broadway Musicals, or any of the " lesser " mediums.


----------



## Forster

fbjim said:


> Where does that leave composers who make film scores like Glass/Nyman, et al


They're obviously not real classical composers


----------



## jojoju2000

Forster said:


> I'm not quite sure what your point is, or why you're taking issue with my post #407.
> 
> As for Williams being "the only and I mean only"...it's not relevant to the question the OP asked.
> 
> Besides, here's a concert scheduled by a distinguished orchestra next month at which extracts of film scores by Williams and many others will be played.
> 
> Movies In Concert - film music live in concert (soundtrack, score, event, ticket, filmmusik, konzert, karte)


When it comes to only, I meant more along the lines of Brownie points with the Classical Music elite. Zimmer does not have the " aura " of a " classical Music composer " that Williams has gained over the years. 

Williams's work with Yo Yo Ma, Mutter, Perlman, Shahm, has given him a " aura " of " respected ". 

It doesn't mean his music is good or bad, it just means he has that feeling.


----------



## fbjim

jojoju2000 said:


> There you get into the weeds of definition. I can't speak for Glass or Nyman.
> 
> I can only say that if Vienna, Berlin, and later in September, Milan as well, if they're playing Williams's Music as part of their catalouge in a defined format ( Not in a film music concert, or light classical concert ), then..... well I think we have to reconsider how we view Western Art Music, and how it plays out in Film, Broadway Musicals, or any of the " lesser " mediums.


Or we could say that orchestras frequently play popular repitoire? And that Vienna is maybe not so stuffy these days? (and the traditional Vienna New Years Concert is pretty much popular repitoire)


----------



## jojoju2000

fbjim said:


> Or we could say that orchestras frequently play popular repitoire? And that Vienna is maybe not so stuffy these days? (and the traditional Vienna New Years Concert is pretty much popular repitoire)


 Williams's most recent concert with Vienna also included his concerto with Anne Sophie Mutter, being played alongside his film scores. So to them, it seems as if, Williams's independent works and his film works are on the same level to be played. Also Vienna before Williams never played a full concert of film music. Williams was their first time and they invited Williams. Not Zimmer. Not Danny Elfman. Not even Goldsmith. Ennio Morircone., and being done in the traditional hall rather than in a pops like setting. And to release the full concert album on Deustche Grammophone, and to promote it as saying " John Williams is the it man ", you got to like take a step back, and say hey maybe there's something to it here.


----------



## HansZimmer

jojoju2000 said:


> Here's another point :
> 
> Vienna also has a giant film music festival, that gives out the yearly Max Steiner Award. Zimmer got that award by the way. Williams could have chosen or be invited to that film music festival, he is a film composer after all. But he did not. Instead, he chose or was invited to the Vienna Philharmonic, which is like a significant upgrade. Would Zimmer get the same invitiation ? NO OF COURSE NOT. The Vienna Philharmonic chooses their programme quite carefully and although Zimmer's music is great, to them, it doesn't meet their standards.
> 
> Williams's work does, which should tell us alot about what is classical music, and what is not.
> 
> The Vienna Philharmonic, the most snobbish, elitist orchestra in the Western world. An orchestra which up until the 1970s, refused to play Gustav Mahler because he was Jewish.
> 
> And they invited Williams to conduct and play.


However, the score of Pirates of Caribbeans has been played by Georgii Cherkin.






It doesn't matter, anyway.
In the OP I asked if classical music must be a closed enclosure (elitist, like you say) or if it must be an open art. I lean towards the latter and you gave us a very good example to explain why.
When the Vienna Philarmonic refused to play Gustav Mahler because he was Jewish, they showed that their decisions have not necessarily to do with the quality of the music. If they were racists with Mahler, then they could be racist in a broad sense of the word with other composers.

That said, I don't think that Hans Zimmer would define himself as a classical music composer, but simply as a composer who can freely get inspiration from classical music (when he wants) or from other genres of music (when he wants).

Some film music composers are polimorphic, see for example Dave Grusin.

Although Dave Grusin is not a classical music composer, this piece sounds like classical music to me.


----------



## jojoju2000

HansZimmer said:


> However, the score of Pirates of Caribbeans has been played by Georgii Cherkin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter, anyway.
> In the OP I asked if classical music must be a closed enclosure (elitist, like you say) or if it must be an open art. I lean towards the latter and you gave us a very good example to explain why.
> When the Vienna Philarmonic refused to play Gustav Mahler because he was Jewish, they showed that their decisions have not necessarily to do with the quality of the music. If they were racists with Mahler, then they could be racist in a broad sense of the word with other composers.
> 
> That said, I don't think that Hans Zimmer would define himself as a classical music composer, but simply as a composer who can freely get inspiration from classical music (when he wants) or from other genres of music (when he wants).
> 
> Some film music composers are polimorphic, see for example Dave Grusin.
> 
> Although Dave Grusin is not a classical music composer, this piece sounds like classical music to me.


Well Vienna has refused to play any music written after the 1940s; because they don't see it as " real " classical music. They are very snobby. Pierre Boulez ? Nope. Phillip Glass ? No way. 

In fact, when Arnold Schoenberg performed his works in Vienna, in 1913, he was booed out because of his " progressive " musical tendencies. Vienna loves the traditional classics. Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms. Strauss. Wagner. They even call themselves the protectors of European Classical Music. 

To us; their unwillingness to embrace post 1940s music could be a outdated, but it makes sense for them. They want to protect their heritage.

Which makes Williams a perfect partner for them. Yeah sure; his music is " outdated " by the avant garde terms, but Vienna is not exactly avant garde.


----------



## Ethereality

Classical music is defined as music widely known for its written form. Who defined it that way and why? I don't know, just kidding, I defined it that way. The why is Classical music in large part is intended to be picked up physically and heard/performed for the first time again by someone else, like a kind of code passed on from its writer. It doesn't matter if there's other good music out there too. If the music is largely about how many albums its sold, rather than how many sheets copied into homes and ensembles, then it's not Classical.


----------



## HansZimmer

Ethereality said:


> Classical music is defined as music widely known for its written form. Who defined it that way and why? I don't know, just kidding, I defined it that way. The why is Classical music in large part is intended to be picked up physically and heard/performed for the first time again by someone else, like a kind of code passed on from its writer. It doesn't matter if there's other good music out there too. If the music is largely about how many albums its sold, rather than how many sheets copied into homes and ensembles, then it's not Classical.


If music made for money is not classical music then the music of Mozart and Beethoven is not classical music.


----------



## Ethereality

HansZimmer said:


> If music made for money is not classical music then the music of Mozart and Beethoven is not classical music.


Almost all music is made for money or attention. I don't think that has relation to music that's intended as code-reinterpretation for other musicians, and music that's prerecorded for people as an album. You can probably make more money with the former these days.

With my definition, I feel also like Uematsu is way more reperformed by sheet musicians than Williams, it's just on a Bach-ian or quartet level. Williams wrote for orchestra so why would the Vienna Philharmonic perform Uematsu? Bach and other keyboardist wrote intimate music, and Uematsu seems to be in that intimate category with a lot of musicians and sheet music. I'm not claiming these composers are Classical, or aren't, it's a numbers game I have to figure out. My Classical definition is a spectrum, where the most Classical is the music with the highest Sheet:Album ratio. Where exactly that cuts off I'm still deciding, but there is a complete definition.


----------



## Torkelburger

jojoju2000 said:


> Well Vienna has refused to play any music written after the 1940s; because they don't see it as " real " classical music. They are very snobby. Pierre Boulez ? Nope. Phillip Glass ? No way.
> 
> In fact, when Arnold Schoenberg performed his works in Vienna, in 1913, he was booed out because of his " progressive " musical tendencies. Vienna loves the traditional classics. Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms. Strauss. Wagner. They even call themselves the protectors of European Classical Music.
> 
> To us; their unwillingness to embrace post 1940s music could be a outdated, but it makes sense for them. They want to protect their heritage.
> 
> Which makes Williams a perfect partner for them. Yeah sure; his music is " outdated " by the avant garde terms, but Vienna is not exactly avant garde.


Care to explain this?:

Wien Modern by Wiener Jeunesse-Chor & Wiener Philharmoniker & Claudio Abbado on Amazon Music - Amazon.com

And this?:

Amazon.com: Pierre Boulez - In Rehearsal (Berg Three Pieces for Orchestra / Boulez Notations I-IV) : Boulez, Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra: Movies & TV

And this?:


----------



## jojoju2000

Torkelburger said:


> Care to explain this?:
> 
> Wien Modern by Wiener Jeunesse-Chor & Wiener Philharmoniker & Claudio Abbado on Amazon Music - Amazon.com
> 
> And this?:
> 
> Amazon.com: Pierre Boulez - In Rehearsal (Berg Three Pieces for Orchestra / Boulez Notations I-IV) : Boulez, Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra: Movies & TV
> 
> And this?:


Thank you for correcting me. 🙂🙂🙂

However, If Vienna can play Williams, Boulez, Mozart all in the same framework of Western Music....

well.... maybe we're probably arguing over nothing ?


----------



## Forster

jojoju2000 said:


> Well Vienna has refused to play any music written after the 1940s; because they don't see it as " real " classical music. They are very snobby. Pierre Boulez ? Nope. Phillip Glass ? No way.


Would you explain where you got this information?


----------



## hammeredklavier

"It makes sense that we're experiencing a horror renaissance. The genre took off during the Great Depression and has been there for us in difficult times to accentuate and provide some semblance of shelter from our biggest fears. Since the dawn of the medium, music has proven just as important to film as visuals are; film scores complete the illusion of movement and help to further remove us from reality. But more so than any other genre of film music, horror is distinct and modern.
Cliff Martinez explained this to me perfectly when I interviewed him about his score for Nicolas Winding Refn's The Neon Demon (2016). "I hear some of the most adventurous, sound designer-ly music that seems to be happening a lot more in horror scores," he offered. "Also horror is the stuff that sounds more like modern 20th century symphonic music - it's the only stuff that references Stockhausen or Penderecki or Ligeti. That stuff doesn't go a long way in your romantic comedies or anyplace else, but it has a home in horror movies." Modern music, often composed in response to an increasingly terrifying reality, has become the perfect accompaniment to the nightmares we put up on the silver screen." www.stereogum.com/2020331/halloween-mix-horror-movie-soundtrack-songs/lists/ultimate-playlist/


----------



## Torkelburger

hammeredklavier said:


> "It makes sense that we're experiencing a horror renaissance. The genre took off during the Great Depression and has been there for us in difficult times to accentuate and provide some semblance of shelter from our biggest fears. Since the dawn of the medium, music has proven just as important to film as visuals are; film scores complete the illusion of movement and help to further remove us from reality. But more so than any other genre of film music, horror is distinct and modern.
> Cliff Martinez explained this to me perfectly when I interviewed him about his score for Nicolas Winding Refn's The Neon Demon (2016). "I hear some of the most adventurous, sound designer-ly music that seems to be happening a lot more in horror scores," he offered. "Also horror is the stuff that sounds more like modern 20th century symphonic music - it's the only stuff that references Stockhausen or Penderecki or Ligeti. That stuff doesn't go a long way in your romantic comedies or anyplace else, but it has a home in horror movies." Modern music, often composed in response to an increasingly terrifying reality, has become the perfect accompaniment to the nightmares we put up on the silver screen." www.stereogum.com/2020331/halloween-mix-horror-movie-soundtrack-songs/lists/ultimate-playlist/


_Sigh._

The resident cherry picker strikes again.

News flash, hk:

All film music is distinct and modern. You don't score dramas like _The Shawshank Redemption, or Good Will Hunting, or A Beautiful Mind_ or 99% of all others with classical-style Mozart pastiche. Or most romantic comedies with Beethoven, or sci-fi with Berlioz, or fantasy or most *ANY* film for that matter (unless its a period piece perhaps) with classical pastiche. People may claim to do Wagner, but the best at it, Korngold, died in 1957 and no one does it anymore. No one CAN do it. It is not even appropriate with 99% of today's "films". And no, not even Tchaikovsky is ripped off all that often anymore. And _Star Wars _is WAY more modern than anything else.

Modern does NOT equal dissonant/12-tone/atonal/avant-garde.

Please, please, stop.

Please.


----------



## Forster

hammeredklavier said:


> "[...]Since the dawn of the medium, music has proven just as important to film as visuals are; [...]


Important, yes, but not just as important. Who are you quoting?


----------



## hammeredklavier

Forster said:


> Important, yes, but not just as important. Who are you quoting?





Torkelburger said:


> _Sigh._


I brought that up as an objection against anti-avant-garde arguments by people like DaveM in this thread. Avant-garde music is very much relevant to our society and culture today in the form of film music.


----------



## pianozach

Forster said:


> Important, yes, but not just as important. Who are you quoting?


It's in the link provided: BY MILES BOWE


----------



## HansZimmer

Torkelburger said:


> _Sigh._
> 
> The resident cherry picker strikes again.
> 
> News flash, hk:
> 
> All film music is distinct and modern. You don't score dramas like _The Shawshank Redemption, or Good Will Hunting, or A Beautiful Mind_ or 99% of all others with classical-style Mozart pastiche. Or most romantic comedies with Beethoven, or sci-fi with Berlioz, or fantasy or most *ANY* film for that matter (unless its a period piece perhaps) with classical pastiche. People may claim to do Wagner, but the best at it, Korngold, died in 1957 and no one does it anymore. No one CAN do it. It is not even appropriate with 99% of today's "films". And no, not even Tchaikovsky is ripped off all that often anymore. And _Star Wars _is WAY more modern than anything else.
> 
> Modern does NOT equal dissonant/12-tone/atonal/avant-garde.
> 
> Please, please, stop.
> 
> Please.


You are right and I'll add that the question of this thread is not "Are film scores pastiches of the music of Mozart/Beethoven/Wagner/...?".

John Williams, to make an example, is not supposed to sound like Mozart.

First of all, because if his music would sound like the one of Mozart then he wouldn't add anything to music. John Williams must sound like John Williams.
Second, because the music that he composes must be suitable for the films and each film requires his own distinctive sound.
Third, of course the music for cinema is modern, because cinema is a modern thing in itself and so it requires new music.

Ok, now we can go on with the debate: are some film scores a modern and adapted form of classical music?

I think that the right answer is: YES. And, sometimes, the music of films is also ispired to the one of the classical-romantic period.

See: The Fisher King - Score - Exposition for TC best film score award 1992


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

From _The Washington Post _(23.06.2022):

“A purist may say that music represented in film is not absolute music. Well, that may be true,” says Williams. “But some of the greatest music ever written has been narrative. Certainly in opera. Film offers that opportunity — not often, but occasionally it does".


----------



## DaveM

hammeredklavier said:


> I brought that up as an objection against anti-avant-garde arguments by people like DaveM in this thread. Avant-garde music is very much relevant to our society and culture today in the form of film music.


There is no anti-avante-garde argument by me in this thread. And if you go looking for one, be very careful before you bring it up as being anti-avante-garde. In other words, read the context of the post carefully. In any event, you’ve got a lot of nerve trying to start trouble with that post above.


----------



## mikeh375

HansZimmer said:


> ..............Ok, now we can go on with the debate: are some film scores a modern and adapted form of classical music?


That seems a reasonable proposition to me but I would word it slightly different as in "are (some) film scores an adapted form of modern and classical practices?" To this I'd say yes with the qualification that the end result is still only a superficial comparison imv because despite any similar practices, the compositional procedures and mindset between film work and concert music are totally different.


----------



## Forster

pianozach said:


> It's in the link provided: BY MILES BOWE


Well thanks for that...though I read an interesting article about the best 10 scores for horror in the 2010s, I didn't find the quote. HK seems to say he's quoting himself!


----------



## hammeredklavier

Forster said:


> Well thanks for that...though I read an interesting article about the best 10 scores for horror in the 2010s, I didn't find the quote. HK seems to say he's quoting himself!





hammeredklavier said:


> ...........has become the perfect accompaniment to the nightmares we put up on the silver screen." *www.stereogum.com/2020331/halloween-mix-horror-movie-soundtrack-songs/lists/ultimate-playlist/*


----------



## mikeh375

JW to retire his film writing and concentrate on concert music...
Here's a pertinent quote from the article..
“A purist may say that music represented in film is not absolute music. Well, that may be true,” says Williams. “But some of the greatest music ever written has been narrative. Certainly in opera. Film offers that opportunity — not often but occasionally it does. And in a rewarding way musically. Occasionally we get lucky and we find one.”


https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...b97ac2-f2f2-11ec-ac16-8fbf7194cd78_story.html


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

VoiceFromTheEther said:


> From _The Washington Post _(23.06.2022):
> 
> “A purist may say that music represented in film is not absolute music. Well, that may be true,” says Williams. “But some of the greatest music ever written has been narrative. Certainly in opera. Film offers that opportunity — not often, but occasionally it does".





mikeh375 said:


> JW to retire his film writing and concentrate on concert music...
> Here's a pertinent quote from the article..
> “A purist may say that music represented in film is not absolute music. Well, that may be true,” says Williams. “But some of the greatest music ever written has been narrative. Certainly in opera. Film offers that opportunity — not often but occasionally it does. And in a rewarding way musically. Occasionally we get lucky and we find one.”
> 
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...b97ac2-f2f2-11ec-ac16-8fbf7194cd78_story.html


----------



## mikeh375

oops...sorry VFTE, I didn't see your post although how I missed it is troubling, must pay more attention...


----------



## Forster

hammeredklavier said:


> [contents of post is itself quotes that won't show in a 'reply' post]


Well thanks for that. It's all very well filling a post with quotes and weblinks, but some explanatory text is also useful. Is Miles Bowe someone whose opinion we should value?


----------



## hammeredklavier

Forster said:


> Well thanks for that. It's all very well filling a post with quotes and weblinks, but some explanatory text is also useful. Is Miles Bowe someone whose opinion we should value?


You don't think avant-garde music expresses "horror" better than, say, Brahms?


----------



## Forster

hammeredklavier said:


> You don't think avant-garde music expresses "horror" better than, say, Brahms?


I think that has nothing to do with the post of mine you've quoted. However, two "horror" films spring instantly to mind that use snippets of CPT: _The Shining_ uses Berlioz, and _A Clockwork Orange_ uses Beethoven. If I were to give it much more thought, I'm sure I could think of others. There is more to horror movies and their accompanying scores than slashing violins, weird electronics and fingernails on piano strings.


----------



## Torkelburger

hammeredklavier said:


> You don't think avant-garde music expresses "horror" better than, say, Brahms?


If you'd have any experience in scoring films you'd know that avant-garde music in horror films is a cliche and it's use is extremely limited to moments of extreme gore or hysterics, which should be rare. Even in those situations, it is not necessary. If misused, avant-garde would be just as ineffective as Brahms. It is also a somewhat recent invention in horror films (post-1980 or so).

I also take issue with the people you've quoted (and you've also said it many times before) that horror composers are using Stockhausen's techniques or something along those lines. These people have no idea what they are talking about. While I am by no means a Stockhausen fanatic, I am quite familiar with his music and I can assure you no one I am aware of has even come close to using his compositional techniques which is wide-ranging over a very long career (ultra serialism, electronics, conceptual, Cageian, Ivesian, etc. etc.). Just because someone wrote a piano cluster doesn't make it Stockhausen-influenced.

Pretty much most of the avant-garde techniques in film music are on a trivial level, influenced by Penderecki techniques, but only his more graphic scores (and again, trivially), nothing on the level of a St. Luke Passion. And nothing with the intricacy of a Ligeti score. The ones with the most "substance" are Corigliano and Goldenthal.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Forster said:


> I think that has nothing to do with the post of mine you've quoted. However, two "horror" films spring instantly to mind that use snippets of CPT: _The Shining_ uses Berlioz, and _A Clockwork Orange_ uses Beethoven. If I were to give it much more thought, I'm sure I could think of others. There is more to horror movies and their accompanying scores than slashing violins, weird electronics and fingernails on piano strings.


Yes, there are scenes in horror movies that are not "moments of extreme gore or hysterics" in the general sense. Maybe excerpts from Mahler or Schumann can replace the music by Berlioz and Beethoven in those scenes of movies you mentioned and the public wouldn't care. But in moments where avant-garde techniques are crucially indispensable for conveying extreme horror, the techniques must be used. Brahms cannot replace them; that's what the public today demands from film music composers.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Forster said:


> I think that has nothing to do with the post of mine you've quoted. However, two "horror" films spring instantly to mind that use snippets of CPT: _The Shining_ uses Berlioz, and _A Clockwork Orange_ uses Beethoven. If I were to give it much more thought, I'm sure I could think of others. There is more to horror movies and their accompanying scores than slashing violins, weird electronics and fingernails on piano strings.


That still doesn't say anything about how the music was used in what context and to what effect. The Goldberg variations could be used to portray a sense of "irony" or a sense of "calmness before storm" depending on the background context and situations (eg. the characters playing the music) in scenes of a horror movie. Give me an example of a horror movie that only uses 18th century classical music in its soundtracks, if there's any.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Torkelburger said:


> If you'd have any experience in scoring films you'd know that avant-garde music in horror films is a cliche and it's use is extremely limited to moments of extreme gore or hysterics, which should be rare. Even in those situations, it is not necessary. If misused, avant-garde would be just as ineffective as Brahms. It is also a somewhat recent invention in horror films (post-1980 or so).
> 
> I also take issue with the people you've quoted (and you've also said it many times before) that horror composers are using Stockhausen's techniques or something along those lines. These people have no idea what they are talking about. While I am by no means a Stockhausen fanatic, I am quite familiar with his music and I can assure you no one I am aware of has even come close to using his compositional techniques which is wide-ranging over a very long career (ultra serialism, electronics, conceptual, Cageian, Ivesian, etc. etc.). Just because someone wrote a piano cluster doesn't make it Stockhausen-influenced.
> 
> Pretty much most of the avant-garde techniques in film music are on a trivial level, influenced by Penderecki techniques, but only his more graphic scores (and again, trivially), nothing on the level of a St. Luke Passion. And nothing with the intricacy of a Ligeti score. The ones with the most "substance" are Corigliano and Goldenthal.


The Boulez work you posted-, as I was listening to it, I pictured in my mind images of grotesqueness and horror, as if I'm actually watching film scenes like them. 
Am I appreciating it "incorrectly"?


----------



## Forster

hammeredklavier said:


> That still doesn't say anything about how the music was used in what context and to what effect. The Goldberg variations could be used to portray a sense of "irony" or a sense of "calmness before storm" depending on the background context and situations (eg. the characters playing the music) in scenes of a horror movie. Give me an example of a horror movie that only uses 18th century classical music in its soundtracks, if there's any.


Horror movies - or perhaps more accurately, movies that are intended to convey a sense of horror, regardless of the actual response of audiences - have been around since cinema was first invented (towards the end of the 19thC). Whatever music accompanied the earliest horror movies, it wasn't what we would now regard as the 20th C avant-garde. _Dracula _(1931) used Tchaikovsky, Wagner and Schubert!

Obviously, as horror movies developed, and as classical music changed, informed by the changes in other connected arts like cinema, there is a clearer alignment between non-CPT music and more graphic moments of horror. But it's also true that non-CPT is being used for non-horror movies too.

I'm not really sure of the point you are making, given the question posed by the OP. It's too simplistic to claim that horror movies use atonal avant-garde when plainly they don't all the time and in all cases.


----------



## Torkelburger

hammeredklavier said:


> The Boulez work you posted-, as I was listening to it, I pictured in my mind images of grotesqueness and horror, as if I'm actually watching film scenes like them.
> Am I appreciating it "incorrectly"?


Nope. You can appreciate it any way you wish. The only problem is that this seems to be your only reaction to almost all modern music, given your posts and repeated equalization of modern music with dissonance, etc. so you are probably just watching too many horror movies (and not listening to enough modern music)  I'll also just point out that a) the Boulez piece is not avant-garde, nor intended to be and b) no film score has done anything even remotely close to what Boulez is doing in that piece.


----------



## Torkelburger

Originally posted by hammeredklavier:
"But in moments where avant-garde techniques are crucially indispensable for conveying extreme horror, the techniques must be used."

Nonsense. Ennio Morricone wrote one of the most famous, best horror film scores to one of the greatest (and goriest) horror films of all time, John Carpenter's _The Thing _and used no avant-garde techniques at all. The whole score was very subtle and nuanced, and should be a lesson to all that came after. As no surprise to anyone, it wasn't.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Forster said:


> Whatever music accompanied the earliest horror movies, it wasn't what we would now regard as the 20th C avant-garde. _Dracula _(1931) used Tchaikovsky, Wagner and Schubert!


No wonder why the general public doesn't find that primitive horror stuff (which came before the conventions established by figures such as Stanley Kubrick) auditorily scary anymore.


----------



## Torkelburger

hammeredklavier said:


> No wonder why the general public doesn't find that primitive horror stuff (which came before the conventions established by figures such as Stanley Kubrick) auditorily scary anymore.


Ironic since I don't find any modern horror movies the least bit scary, let alone interesting. I'll take Psycho, The Birds, The Haunting (1963), Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? and a whole slew of other "primitive stuff" over the predictable, boring, computer-generated "cartoons" today.


----------



## DaveM

hammeredklavier said:


> No wonder why the general public doesn't find that primitive horror stuff (which came before the conventions established by figures such as Stanley Kubrick) auditorily scary anymore.


Did you do a survey?


----------



## hammeredklavier

Torkelburger said:


> Originally posted by hammeredklavier:
> "But in moments where avant-garde techniques are crucially indispensable for conveying extreme horror, the techniques must be used."
> 
> Nonsense. Ennio Morricone wrote one of the most famous, best horror film scores to one of the greatest (and goriest) horror films of all time, John Carpenter's _The Thing _and used no avant-garde techniques at all. The whole score was very subtle and nuanced, and should be a lesson to all that came after. As no surprise to anyone, it wasn't.


I won't argue "avant-garde music is aesthetically similar to horror film soundtracks" as an objective fact. I just disagree with some people's view that it's "something ugly, discordant music no one listens to",




I'm saying it's very much an integral part of modern culture, without some of us realizing.


----------



## Torkelburger

Ok, I understand. Just keep in mind, though, that the term "avant-garde" will apply to certain music _only_ at a certain point in time, maybe longer, maybe not. It depends. For example, Boulez's 2nd Piano Sonata of 1945 _was _labeled AG back in its day, but it is not considered AG anymore. Same with Lutoslawski. What he was doing in the 1970s and 1980s was pioneering in the AG, but now it is mainstream and everyone does it and accepts it as "normal". I didn't watch The Beatles video you posted there, but I would assume its probably similar. I doubt much of anything from 50 or 60 years ago is going to be considered AG today. People would probably still call John Cage AG, and I might as well, I don't know (I don't call his conceptual pieces "music", I call them just "art"). Like I said, it depends. Just keep all of that in mind when throwing this term around.


----------



## pianozach

Torkelburger said:


> Ironic since I don't find any modern horror movies the least bit scary, let alone interesting. I'll take Psycho, The Birds, The Haunting (1963), Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? and a whole slew of other "primitive stuff" over the predictable, boring, computer-generated "cartoons" today.


Psycho was, IMO, the only foray that *Hitchcock* took into the Horror genre, although The Birds came close. Hitchcock was considered the master of Suspense.

It's possible that the films you mention resonate better because Suspense is a more nuanced genre than Horror.


----------



## pianozach

hammeredklavier said:


> I won't argue "avant-garde music is aesthetically similar to horror film soundtracks" as an objective fact. I just disagree with some people's view that it's "something ugly, discordant music no one listens to",
> ARE THE BEATLES AVANT-GARDE?
> I'm saying it's very much an integral part of modern culture, without some of us realizing.


Allow me to interject, *"Well, here we go again."

The Beatles* _dabbled_ in a lot of subgenres, and avant-gardism is one of them.

One of the problems is that I could ask a dozen people what *Avant-Garde* means, and get a dozen answers. And the meaning(s) of the phrase has probably evolved over the years, just as the Pop/Rock subgenres of Prog and Metal have.


----------



## Luchesi

pianozach said:


> Allow me to interject, *"Well, here we go again."
> 
> The Beatles* _dabbled_ in a lot of subgenres, and avant-gardism is one of them.
> 
> One of the problems is that I could ask a dozen people what *Avant-Garde* means, and get a dozen answers. And the meaning(s) of the phrase has probably evolved over the years, just as the Pop/Rock subgenres of Prog and Metal have.


If you're a conservative in art, AG wants to target the opposite of what, stereotypically, you and the old guard has wanted in art. It's a subtle focus, but it's not new (just maybe more accented since the early 1900s).


----------



## Luchesi

mikeh375 said:


> JW to retire his film writing and concentrate on concert music...
> Here's a pertinent quote from the article..
> “A purist may say that music represented in film is not absolute music. Well, that may be true,” says Williams. “But some of the greatest music ever written has been narrative. Certainly in opera. Film offers that opportunity — not often but occasionally it does. And in a rewarding way musically. Occasionally we get lucky and we find one.”
> 
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...b97ac2-f2f2-11ec-ac16-8fbf7194cd78_story.html


I wonder if you have an example of such a successful film (a lucky find above)?


----------



## mikeh375

Luchesi said:


> I wonder if you have an example of such a successful film (a lucky find above)?


You'd have to ask the man himself. My guesss is that he means he was able in some films, to exercise and think in longer and more concert/theatre orientated phrasing, development and techniques (multi themes, motifs etc.), because of the vast amount of music required for certain projects (Star Wars, Raiders et al).
He is also given much licence in movies thanks to his genius and with Spielberg in particular, that trust gives him some considerable musical latitude. The famous story about the last 15 mins or so of E.T. show how much respect Spielberg has for JW. No matter how much he tried, JW could not conduct his lengthy and brilliant cue to get it in synch with parts of the action on screen. Spielberg told him to conduct it the way he wanted the music to go and the film was subsequently re-edited to the track.


----------



## HansZimmer

Luchesi said:


> I wonder if you have an example of such a successful film (a lucky find above)?


The animated films of the Disney. Watch Lion King, The Little Mermaid and Beatiful and the Beast, for example.

During the so called "Disney Renaissance", the Disney was trying to relaunch his products with some new ideas, including the music as an important part of the products. The music awards at the Accademy Awards in the nineties were dominated by the Disney.


----------



## Forster

_“But some of the greatest music ever written has been narrative. Certainly in opera."_

JW is right of course. But that doesn't negate what he suggests the purists might say: that music for the movies is created and developed in a very different way than music written directly and explicitly for the concert hall.

Plainly, there are members here who know a great deal about some film composers, their history, their successes, their techniques and styles, their relationships with directors and producers and their stories.

Then there those who are in the business itself, and know the nuts and bolts from the inside of the industry

For the rest of us, all we have to go on is our familiarity with the movies and the music (some of us having a more expansive knowledge than others). It's quite easy to hear that a soundtrack for the overwhelming majority of mainstream movies is made up of dozens of cues constructed to fit the visuals. You don't need specialist knowledge if you've been watching movies for over 50 years and paying attention to how the music works, whether through seeing the movies multiple times or through listening to soundtrack albums. When I was 18, I paid 6 times to see _Star Wars_ in 1978. Each time, I was blown away by the fanfare, and the immense spacecruiser that just kept growing before my eyes. I'd never seen nor heard anything as exciting before*. Sound and visuals in perfect harmony.

*Who cares whether it's "classical music" or "avant garde"?*



(*Oh, but then I did see _Jaws _in 1975...and _The Poseidon Adventure_ in 1972...and _Ben Hur_ on a rerun in 1970...and _Bedknobs and Broomsticks_ in 1971...and...)


----------



## Luchesi

HansZimmer said:


> The animated films of the Disney. Watch Lion King, The Little Mermaid and Beatiful and the Beast, for example.
> 
> During the so called "Disney Renaissance", the Disney was trying to relaunch his products with some new ideas, including the music as an important part of the products. The music awards at the Accademy Awards in the nineties were dominated by the Disney.


All music holds fascinations for me. I don't want to give the wrong idea. I surely couldn't compose such long, interrelated, and purposeful motifs and arrangements. ..That's how I approach all the arts (I'm glad experts do it, I couldn't do it).

But for me it's easy listening or irrelevant when separated from the cinematic arts. And to teach that music needed in films is comparable to CM is bad for youngsters, IMV.


----------



## HansZimmer

Forster said:


> It's quite easy to hear that a soundtrack for the overwhelming majority of mainstream movies is made up of dozens of cues constructed to fit the visuals.


Of course it is, but the best film music composers write nice melodies that can be apprecitated outside of the context.

I'll add an other input to the discussion.

Can we say that John Williams, Hans Zimmer, Alan Menken, Thomas Newman, Ennio Morricone, Alan Silvestri and others COMPOSE music for a general purpose and then they ARRANGE it to fit the scenes of the film?
While they are COMPOSING the music they are already thinking about how it would sound outside of the film (because they want to sell albums and tickets for concerts), although when they arrange it they have to think about the images of the film.
Then, when it comes to concerts, they sometimes create new arrangements (if it's necessary) or they use the arrangements of film scenese if they are already suitable for the concert.


----------



## HansZimmer

Luchesi said:


> All music holds fascinations for me. I don't want to give the wrong idea. I surely couldn't compose such long, interrelated, and purposeful motifs and arrangements. ..That's how I approach all the arts (I'm glad experts do it, I couldn't do it).
> 
> But for me it's easy listening or irrelevant when separated from the cinematic arts. And to teach that music needed in films is comparable to CM is bad for youngsters, IMV.


The film scores of which we are speaking about are not elevator music. We are not speaking about B music for B movies.

I agree that some film scores are nothing more than elevator music, but I was not thinking about the "bad" film scores when I opened the thread.


----------



## Luchesi

HansZimmer said:


> The film scores of which we are speaking about are not elevator music. We are not speaking about B music for B movies.
> 
> I agree that some film scores are nothing more than elevator music, but I was not thinking about the "bad" film scores when I opened the thread.


When we know all the symphonies and quartets so well that we won't go back to them for a long time, then exploring music for films will be another category of music for us. 
I'd rather hear more jazz, but it's because I try to participate in the jazz vision, as best I can (learning and practicing).


----------



## DaveM

I have around 18 hours of carefully edited playlists of Movie Themes and Soundtracks all in the form of standalone tracks. Some of the themes are never mentioned in these threads, but are examples of some of the most beautiful melodies I’ve ever heard. Wish I had the skill to compose music like this.

An example is this standalone track, Cora, by Randy Edelman from The Last of the Mohicans. It appears in a short romantic scene where Madeline Stowe visits the jailed Daniel Day Lewis. In a version of the movie that I saw on TV, this scene was cut for some reason:


----------



## Prodromides

DaveM said:


> Some of the themes are never mentioned in these threads, but are examples of some of the most beautiful melodies I’ve ever heard. Wish I had the skill to compose music like this.
> An example is this standalone track, Cora, by Randy Edelman from The Last of the Mohicans.


I like some of Randy Edelman's 1990s soundtracks such as *Diabolique* or *Anaconda*, but Edelman doesn't stand out to me as a lyrical tunesmith creating long-lined melodies.
That "Cora" cue sounds more reverential or funereal than a love theme.

Below are a few of the love or main themes that impress with their unpredictable serpentine contours and intricately detailed notes & arrangements.

Angelo Francesco Lavagnino's *Il delitto del diavolo* (1970)





*Lisa and the Devil* by Carlo Savina





*The Abominable Snowman* by Humphrey Searle





Hugo Friedhofer's *No Man of Her Own* (1950)





All of these were created prior to Spielberg movies & Dolby Stereo; so many melodies outside of DaveM's focus upon the 1985 through 2010 timeline.
I would rather wish to write music like that by Alex North or Piero Piccioni sooner than by the likes of Trevor Jones.


----------



## Forster

HansZimmer said:


> Of course it is, but the best film music composers write nice melodies that can be apprecitated outside of the context.
> 
> I'll add an other input to the discussion.
> 
> Can we say that John Williams, Hans Zimmer, Alan Menken, Thomas Newman, Ennio Morricone, Alan Silvestri and others COMPOSE music for a general purpose and then they ARRANGE it to fit the scenes of the film?
> While they are COMPOSING the music they are already thinking about how it would sound outside of the film (because they want to sell albums and tickets for concerts), although when they arrange it they have to think about the images of the film.
> Then, when it comes to concerts, they sometimes create new arrangements (if it's necessary) or they use the arrangements of film scenese if they are already suitable for the concert.


Well you can say it if you wish. To what end?


----------



## mikeh375

HansZimmer said:


> Can we say that John Williams, Hans Zimmer, Alan Menken, Thomas Newman, Ennio Morricone, Alan Silvestri and others COMPOSE music for a general purpose and then they ARRANGE it to fit the scenes of the film?
> While they are COMPOSING the music they are already thinking about how it would sound outside of the film (because they want to sell albums and tickets for concerts), although when they arrange it they have to think about the images of the film.


Nope, that's not how it is. They may have bottom drawer music rejected from other projects that they can re-purpose and that might even include a suitable theme. Actually all media composers have big bottom drawers full to bursting of rejected music however generally speaking, each score has its own unique set of issues and needs to be written bespoke and in collaboration the director, producer etc. 

Writing music to film is also instinctual, responding to the emotional and practical needs of any particular moment in the film with the appropriate mood, so clairvoyance is out too. The bottom drawer is useful if a composer is lucky, but not the answer to the puzzle a composer is beset with in writing a score. As part of solving that puzzle, composers will also strive to find a 'soundworld' for a score and that can only be done with the film and brief in front of them and after much thought and experimentation.

The only scenario where music is pre-written to a certain emotion or mood is in Library Tracks and there is a huge industry supplying such tracks to media. These can be used by editors as temps and some might even make it to the final cut but very, very rarely does this happen.

Nice try though HZ....


----------



## HansZimmer

mikeh375 said:


> Nope, that's not how it is. They may have bottom drawer music rejected from other projects that they can re-purpose and that might even include a suitable theme. Actually all media composers have big bottom drawers full to bursting of rejected music however generally speaking, each score has its own unique set of issues and needs to be written bespoke and in collaboration the director, producer etc.
> 
> Writing music to film is also instinctual, responding to the emotional and practical needs of any particular moment in the film with the appropriate mood, so clairvoyance is out too. The bottom drawer is useful if a composer is lucky, but not the answer to the puzzle a composer is beset with in writing a score. As part of solving that puzzle, composers will also strive to find a 'soundworld' for a score and that can only be done with the film and brief in front of them and after much thought and experimentation.
> 
> The only scenario where music is pre-written to a certain emotion or mood is in Library Tracks and there is a huge industry supplying such tracks to media. These can be used by editors as temps and some might even make it to the final cut but very, very rarely does this happen.
> 
> Nice try though HZ....


I was not saying that the melodies are not composed to fit the film. What I wanted to say is that the best score composers write melodies that are good enough to be extracted from the images, because they know that if the quality is high they can make money with concerts too.


----------



## SanAntone

HansZimmer said:


> I was not saying that the melodies are not composed to fit the film. What I wanted to say is that the best score composers write melodies that are good enough to be extracted from the images, because they know that if the quality is high they can make money with concerts too.


So? There is more involved in writing a Classical work than "good melodies" even of "high quality."

What's in a label? Does the label "Classical music" represent for you some caché you wish to see attached to film music? 

Otherwise, what is your point with this thread?


----------



## philoctetes

I often don't notice soundtracks but when I do, it's because the music is either exceptionally good or bad.

My problem with so many ... especially sci-fi, when we're on other planets in the far-off future, why am I hearing music that sounds too much like the sound of 20th century America? Whenever I notice JW, it's because of the latter, usually during a battle scene. A good battle scene needs loud music like a good comedy needs a laugh track.


----------



## DaveM

SanAntone said:


> So? There is more involved in writing a Classical work than "good melodies" even of "high quality."
> What's in a label? Does the label "Classical music" represent for you some caché you wish to see attached to film music?
> Otherwise, what is your point with this thread?


There’s been more discussed in this thread than just ‘good melodies’ of ‘high quality’ in some film music. As well, there is the cross-over of the output of some film composers into actual classical music territory. Why are you asking these questions this far into this thread? Several interesting points have been made in this thread; did you miss them?


----------



## fbjim

HansZimmer said:


> I was not saying that the melodies are not composed to fit the film. What I wanted to say is that the best score composers write melodies that are good enough to be extracted from the images, because they know that if the quality is high they can make money with concerts too.


I certainly don't think this is the case. Of course any good professional will try to make work of "high quality" but I doubt concert performance is particularly high on the criteria that film composers write music for. 

Composers may do this, and they may do stuff like repurpose music they had written previously, film-or-not, as film music, but the number of film composers big enough to move tickets by their name alone in concert performance is low - and even then, a lot of things like video game/film concerts are selling off the name of the franchise, not the name of the composer. John Williams is the exception, not a rule, because John Williams practically is a brand name to himself.


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> So? There is more involved in writing a Classical work than "good melodies" even of "high quality." What's in a label? Does the label "Classical music" represent for you some caché you wish to see attached to film music? Otherwise, what is your point with this thread?


film music would be more like classical incidental music


----------



## pianozach

philoctetes said:


> I often don't notice soundtracks but when I do, it's because the music is either exceptionally good or bad.
> 
> My problem with so many ... especially sci-fi, when we're on other planets in the far-off future, why am I hearing music that sounds too much like the sound of 20th century America? Whenever I notice JW, it's because of the latter, usually during a battle scene. A good battle scene needs loud music like a good comedy needs a laugh track.


That's actually a good question.

The answer is that we can imagine far-off future items like space ships, or jet-packs, computer arrays, cyber-beings, trans-warp conduits, etc., for some reason imagining "Music of the Future" remains a far more nebulous endeavor.

Of course, we all laugh at the futuristic things we saw in sci-fi films of the 1950s, or even in Star Trek in the 1960s. Surprisingly, many things in Star Trek became reality. Ironically, one item, the flip-phone, designed much like the crew's communicators, is already obsolete.

I think, though, that you'd appreciate a battle scene score far more if you could watch the scene both with and without that score. In fact, that goes for major portions of major films.

How big an effect does music really have on film?

This particular video scene from The Lion King gives us the clip without any music, then with five different types of music, and ultimately at the end we watch the clip with its original intended film score.






.

I think that any battle scene WITHOUT the music might seem lesser without accompanying music to heighten the drama, the tension, the confusion, and the brutality.

Here's another with comparative music. There's actually a whole series of these (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLuxv7A6ndv6DTpPyXHPMBDshoMIy9goBV).


----------



## HansZimmer

SanAntone said:


> So? There is more involved in writing a Classical work than "good melodies" even of "high quality."
> 
> What's in a label? Does the label "Classical music" represent for you some caché you wish to see attached to film music?
> 
> Otherwise, what is your point with this thread?


The point of this thread is to discuss if, for example, this score for the end credits of Ghost has a romantic style or not.






Then some users, including me, posted some film scores that they like, although the point of this thread is not to discuss about the quality (the quality is for example discussed in my competition in the Movie Corner).

In the Classic FM Hall of Fame are also accepted soundtracks of videogames or films that the administrator perceive as "classical", but it's the public that decide about the quality. Some of them are promoted by the public, some others are not.


----------



## HansZimmer

fbjim said:


> I certainly don't think this is the case. Of course any good professional will try to make work of "high quality" but I doubt concert performance is particularly high on the criteria that film composers write music for.
> 
> Composers may do this, and they may do stuff like repurpose music they had written previously, film-or-not, as film music, but the number of film composers big enough to move tickets by their name alone in concert performance is low - and even then, a lot of things like video game/film concerts are selling off the name of the franchise, not the name of the composer. John Williams is the exception, not a rule, because John Williams practically is a brand name to himself.


Not only John Williams.

The concert "The World of Hans Zimmer" shows that Hans Zimmer is also a brand name. It's not "The Lion King Concert" or the "Gladiator concert", but "The World of Hans Zimmer". The same can be said for some soundtracks album that contain many works of Hans Zimmer, which are highly rated in some websites.

I don't know if Alan Menken tried to promote himself outside of the "Disney" brand, but I think he could, as well as some others film score composers. There are concerts for their music and someone is making money thanks to their music. John Williams and Hans Zimmer are only two examples of composers that do concerts with their names.


----------



## SanAntone

HansZimmer said:


> The point of this thread is to discuss if, for example, this score for the end credits of Ghost has a romantic style or not.
> 
> Then some users, including me, posted some film scores that they like, although the point of this thread is not to discuss about the quality (the quality is for example discussed in my competition in the Movie Corner).
> 
> In the Classic FM Hall of Fame are also accepted soundtracks of videogames or films that the administrator perceive as "classical", but it's the public that decide about the quality. Some of them are promoted by the public, some others are not.


*My question was why is it important to you whether film scores are considered "Classical music" or not? What is it about the label "Classical music" that you feel is a better label than "Film music"? *

The way you phrased the title of the thread: "Why do many people think that _classical music composed for film scores_ is not classical music?" seems to indicate that you think that Classical music is simply a sound or style, e.g. "romantic". But Classical music is more than a "sound."

When composers intend to write Classical music they have a host of priorities and goals and intentions which a film composer does not share. A film composer can draw on Classical styles to write his film score - but his intention is to write music for a film which entails a different host of priorities and goals and intentions.

The music is the music no matter what label is attached. Some film music is indeed very well written and of high quality. However, the original reason the music was written was motivated by a completely different set of criteria. And this is ignoring all those film scores for silly movies which are nothing like Classical music, which I think may be the majority.


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

philoctetes said:


> My problem with so many ... especially sci-fi, when we're on other planets in the far-off future, why am I hearing music that sounds too much like the sound of 20th century America? Whenever I notice JW, it's because of the latter, usually during a battle scene.


It's dramatic music that aimed to communicate the drama to a (primarily American) 20th century audience.


----------



## HansZimmer

New poll for the talkclassical best film score award: Talkclassical best film score award - 1992


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

If I had to put the distinction on something concrete it would be the form. Film music takes the form of the film, program classical music has it's own self-fulfilled form based on the thematic material regardless of also being descriptive. If you write film music in the same thorough manner as classical then it is both. When a supposedly classical score lacks in form it is called "amateur".


----------



## Torkelburger

VoiceFromTheEther said:


> Thank you for this bouquet of pejoratives, but I'm afraid not everything is clear to me. What exactly are "artificial colours / flavours", and how do they differ from normal orchestral colour? How is the melodic material nondescript if most kindergardeners with no musical training could tell you what it communicates?
> 
> The subtraction of which instruments would have, in your view, made this track better?


I was interested in going through this old thread again and had planned on answering an old post, but decided to start from the top. I'll answer this, as I do not believe any current film composer is worthy of being named alongside JW or Goldsmith or any of the previous greats. Zimmer writes musical doggerel and this is no exception.

This is the same ol' same ol' phoned in, cookie cutter, Hollywood fashion plate scoring preteens have come to know and love.

You can start by subtracting those annoying, cliche, overused, swishing suspended cymbals. My goodness. Enough already. It's melodramatic and is like fingernails down a chalkboard. Every two seconds. Swish, swish, swish. Then a BIGGER one. Now REALLY big!

There is the over-saturation of bass scoring and octave doubling in the bass instruments. There is nowhere to go for the bass and for climaxes since the bass is scored so consistently throughout. In fact, there is over-saturation and overuse of the orchestral tutti in general as always with Hollywood scoring. Nowhere to go other than everyone to just play louder until they're blowing the seams off their instruments. And they are always scored the same way each time the tutti appears. Padding in the middle with the same voicing (always stacked in score order and excessively doubled, never interlocked or enveloped, and always the same instrumentation, low octaves, same instruments doubled with the melody each and every time. Countermelodies always scored with horns. Melodies never appearing in the bass. No interesting use of solo writing, just the same instruments every score after score and score. Saccharine solo violin and "ethnic" pennywhistle/tin flutes or something close to it. I'm so sick of it. It's extremely boring and unimaginative.

The melodies are boring and unimaginative and easy to write. Almost completely diatonic. Same with the harmonies. And with just one hearing, he does at a minimum 2 idiotic cliches: going from I to vi (like C to a minor) while the melody goes from like a b c. Good grief. And then, of course, using the IV chord for a "climax" and resolving the phrase to V at a cadence where parallel fifths are created with the bass (if in C, the melody would be C E D (c on the strong beat enveloping to the D on the next strong beat, and the bass for the major chords are F and G so it creates parallel fifths). That is a cliche pop progression at cadences. Want more?


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

Torkelburger said:


> I was interested in going through this old thread again and had planned on answering an old post, but decided to start from the top. I'll answer this, as I do not believe any current film composer is worthy of being named alongside JW or Goldsmith or any of the previous greats. Zimmer writes musical doggerel and this is no exception.
> 
> This is the same ol' same ol' phoned in, cookie cutter, Hollywood fashion plate scoring preteens have come to know and love.
> 
> You can start by subtracting those annoying, cliche, overused, swishing suspended cymbals. My goodness. Enough already. It's melodramatic and is like fingernails down a chalkboard. Every two seconds. Swish, swish, swish. Then a BIGGER one. Now REALLY big!
> 
> There is the over-saturation of bass scoring and octave doubling in the bass instruments. There is nowhere to go for the bass and for climaxes since the bass is scored so consistently throughout. In fact, there is over-saturation and overuse of the orchestral tutti in general as always with Hollywood scoring. Nowhere to go other than everyone to just play louder until they're blowing the seams off their instruments. And they are always scored the same way each time the tutti appears. Padding in the middle with the same voicing (always stacked in score order and excessively doubled, never interlocked or enveloped, and always the same instrumentation, low octaves, same instruments doubled with the melody each and every time. Countermelodies always scored with horns. Melodies never appearing in the bass. No interesting use of solo writing, just the same instruments every score after score and score. Saccharine solo violin and "ethnic" pennywhistle/tin flutes or something close to it. I'm so sick of it. It's extremely boring and unimaginative.
> 
> The melodies are boring and unimaginative and easy to write. Almost completely diatonic. Same with the harmonies. And with just one hearing, he does at a minimum 2 idiotic cliches: going from I to vi (like C to a minor) while the melody goes from like a b c. Good grief. And then, of course, using the IV chord for a "climax" and resolving the phrase to V at a cadence where parallel fifths are created with the bass (if in C, the melody would be C E D (c on the strong beat enveloping to the D on the next strong beat, and the bass for the major chords are F and G so it creates parallel fifths). That is a cliche pop progression at cadences. Want more?


Thank you for your detailed reply, it is exactly of the kind I wanted to read. I sympathize with your reaction to the homogenity / repetition of certain elements, and I do agree that the piece could be made much more nuanced and diverse than it is. I find it interesting, however, that you seem to be reacting to your own knowledge of _what could be_ as much as (or more than) to _what is. _


----------



## DaveM

Torkelburger said:


> I was interested in going through this old thread again and had planned on answering an old post, but decided to start from the top. I'll answer this, as I do not believe any current film composer is worthy of being named alongside JW or Goldsmith or any of the previous greats. Zimmer writes musical doggerel and this is no exception…


Although Zimmer’s more recent output could be said to be formulaic, it should be noted that earlier in his career, he composed some excellent film music that was, at least, comparable to anything being composed at the time. As I’ve said before, since 2005-2010 or so, relatively little in the way of fully fleshed out soundtracks of note are being composed.


----------



## Forster

Torkelburger said:


> I was interested in going through this old thread again and had planned on answering an old post, but decided to start from the top. I'll answer this, as I do not believe any current film composer is worthy of being named alongside JW or Goldsmith or any of the previous greats. Zimmer writes musical doggerel and this is no exception.
> 
> This is the same ol' same ol' phoned in, cookie cutter, Hollywood fashion plate scoring preteens have come to know and love.
> 
> You can start by subtracting those annoying, cliche, overused, swishing suspended cymbals. My goodness. Enough already. It's melodramatic and is like fingernails down a chalkboard. Every two seconds. Swish, swish, swish. Then a BIGGER one. Now REALLY big!
> 
> There is the over-saturation of bass scoring and octave doubling in the bass instruments. There is nowhere to go for the bass and for climaxes since the bass is scored so consistently throughout. In fact, there is over-saturation and overuse of the orchestral tutti in general as always with Hollywood scoring. Nowhere to go other than everyone to just play louder until they're blowing the seams off their instruments. And they are always scored the same way each time the tutti appears. Padding in the middle with the same voicing (always stacked in score order and excessively doubled, never interlocked or enveloped, and always the same instrumentation, low octaves, same instruments doubled with the melody each and every time. Countermelodies always scored with horns. Melodies never appearing in the bass. No interesting use of solo writing, just the same instruments every score after score and score. Saccharine solo violin and "ethnic" pennywhistle/tin flutes or something close to it. I'm so sick of it. It's extremely boring and unimaginative.
> 
> The melodies are boring and unimaginative and easy to write. Almost completely diatonic. Same with the harmonies. And with just one hearing, he does at a minimum 2 idiotic cliches: going from I to vi (like C to a minor) while the melody goes from like a b c. Good grief. And then, of course, using the IV chord for a "climax" and resolving the phrase to V at a cadence where parallel fifths are created with the bass (if in C, the melody would be C E D (c on the strong beat enveloping to the D on the next strong beat, and the bass for the major chords are F and G so it creates parallel fifths). That is a cliche pop progression at cadences. Want more?


Zimmer does what Zimmer does because that's what his directors want him to do. If they wanted something else, presumably they'd have gone to any number of other film composers.

The question I would ask is, "Is the score a successful accompaniment to the movie?" This is a more difficult question to answer, since it would probably require surveying the audience and asking their opinion on the contribution it made to their enjoyment. Failing that, we'll just have to go on the fact that the film was hugely successful, at the box office and with critics. I would suggest the soundtrack played its part. It's one of the few that my family bought (now a broken cassette tape).

I'd be interested to know what evidence you would offer to support your assertion that no "current film composer is worthy of being named alongside JW or Goldsmith or any of the previous greats". What is it that those two did for their movies that current film composers don't do - and with some examples of their failures please.


----------



## mikeh375

Modern scoring has a different aesthetic and technical paradigm to the JW/Goldsmith/Hermann tradition which was much more traditionally based when it comes to composing. There is also directorial and commercial pressure involved that has been totally influenced by the digital means of creation and musical tropes that have developed in a more sustained fashion since the early 90's (ish) to accompany moods on screen. These ubiquitous tropes allied to the ease of creating music have all but democratised the job of film scoring to the point where in theory (but certainly not in practice), composers who are technically ignorant of the older school of composing can potentially break into the industry and do very well.

I personally don't mind this so much because imv, the film experience can and does benefit from a vastly expanded pallette of sound and approach even if that sometimes means a blander, stereotypical kind of music (Marvel,DC et al in particular) which I'm not much of a fan of. Occassionally there are real gems of approach and effect in scoring from quirky and unique individuals that contribute greatly to a film as a result of a different musical upbringing.


----------



## mikeh375

Torkelburger said:


> I was interested in going through this old thread again and had planned on answering an old post, but decided to start from the top. I'll answer this, as I do not believe any current film composer is worthy of being named alongside JW or Goldsmith or any of the previous greats. Zimmer writes musical doggerel and this is no exception.
> 
> This is the same ol' same ol' phoned in, cookie cutter, Hollywood fashion plate scoring preteens have come to know and love.
> 
> You can start by subtracting those annoying, cliche, overused, swishing suspended cymbals. My goodness. Enough already. It's melodramatic and is like fingernails down a chalkboard. Every two seconds. Swish, swish, swish. Then a BIGGER one. Now REALLY big!
> 
> There is the over-saturation of bass scoring and octave doubling in the bass instruments. There is nowhere to go for the bass and for climaxes since the bass is scored so consistently throughout. In fact, there is over-saturation and overuse of the orchestral tutti in general as always with Hollywood scoring. Nowhere to go other than everyone to just play louder until they're blowing the seams off their instruments. And they are always scored the same way each time the tutti appears. Padding in the middle with the same voicing (always stacked in score order and excessively doubled, never interlocked or enveloped, and always the same instrumentation, low octaves, same instruments doubled with the melody each and every time. Countermelodies always scored with horns. Melodies never appearing in the bass. No interesting use of solo writing, just the same instruments every score after score and score. Saccharine solo violin and "ethnic" pennywhistle/tin flutes or something close to it. I'm so sick of it. It's extremely boring and unimaginative.
> 
> The melodies are boring and unimaginative and easy to write. Almost completely diatonic. Same with the harmonies. And with just one hearing, he does at a minimum 2 idiotic cliches: going from I to vi (like C to a minor) while the melody goes from like a b c. Good grief. And then, of course, using the IV chord for a "climax" and resolving the phrase to V at a cadence where parallel fifths are created with the bass (if in C, the melody would be C E D (c on the strong beat enveloping to the D on the next strong beat, and the bass for the major chords are F and G so it creates parallel fifths). That is a cliche pop progression at cadences. Want more?


Adam, you might be amused or perhaps even more annoyed by this....
zimmer strings
344 players!!!!! and struth, imagine the potential musical damage that many violas could do.... 

Here's 2 screenshots of his string section recorded in London..

What was it you where saying about the bass again.....


----------



## pianozach

mikeh375 said:


> Modern scoring has a different aesthetic and technical paradigm to the JW/Goldsmith/Hermann tradition which was much more traditionally based when it comes to composing. There is also directorial and commercial pressure involved that has been totally influenced by the digital means of creation and musical tropes that have developed in a more sustained fashion since the early 90's (ish) to accompany moods on screen. These ubiquitous tropes allied to the ease of creating music have all but democratised the job of film scoring to the point where in theory (but certainly not in practice), composers who are technically ignorant of the older school of composing can potentially break into the industry and do very well.
> 
> I personally don't mind this so much because imv, the film experience can and does benefit from a vastly expanded pallette of sound and approach even if that sometimes means a blander, stereotypical kind of music (Marvel,DC et al in particular) which I'm not much of a fan of. Occassionally there are real gems of approach and effect in scoring from quirky and unique individuals that contribute greatly to a film as a result of a different musical upbringing.


I think you're actually really reaching here to make a point. 

Film scoring has evolved every decade that film scores became a relevant part of films, and I very much doubt that newer *"composers who are technically ignorant of the older school of composing"* to be a valid point.

You sound like Grandpas of every decade objecting to the crappy music "that teens listen to today. Back in MY day we had REAL music, music you could DANCE to, with snappy and nifty tunes you could whistle."

I could drag out "ubiquitous tropes" from every decade of film. For example, whenever there'd be an onscreen train . . . yeah, you see? You can already hear 'train' music. 

That said, the musical pallette for film scores has always been including 'exotic' and diverse new styles and genres of music as it developed chronologically.


----------



## Torkelburger

It is not about disagreeing with an aesthetic so much as it’s about writing poorly crafted music. Saying you like or dislike train music accompanying a train is one thing, and pointing out actual compositional errors within the music itself is another.


----------



## mikeh375

pianozach said:


> I think you're actually really reaching here to make a point.
> 
> Film scoring has evolved every decade that film scores became a relevant part of films, and I very much doubt that newer *"composers who are technically ignorant of the older school of composing"* to be a valid point.
> 
> You sound like Grandpas of every decade objecting to the crappy music "that teens listen to today. Back in MY day we had REAL music, music you could DANCE to, with snappy and nifty tunes you could whistle."
> 
> I could drag out "ubiquitous tropes" from every decade of film. For example, whenever there'd be an onscreen train . . . yeah, you see? You can already hear 'train' music.
> 
> That said, the musical pallette for film scores has always been including 'exotic' and diverse new styles and genres of music as it developed chronologically.


I sound like granpa?? really. here's a quote from my post....



> I personally don't mind this so much because imv, the film experience can and does benefit from a vastly expanded pallette of sound and approach even if that sometimes means a blander, stereotypical kind of music (Marvel,DC et al in particular) which I'm not much of a fan of. Occassionally there are real gems of approach and effect in scoring from quirky and unique individuals that contribute greatly to a film as a result of a different musical upbringing.


You are ignoring or don't realise the impact that the DAW has had on creativity and the business model, I could go into but don't have the time, nor do I feel inclined. I will say though that the last thing I am is a musical snob given that I spent a lot of my career at the media coalface whilst also helping colleagues who could not read music. So as you can imagine, I resent and utterly refute what you have implied.


----------



## Torkelburger

mikeh375 said:


> Adam, you might be amused or perhaps even more annoyed by this....
> zimmer strings
> 344 players!!!!! and struth, imagine the potential musical damage that many violas could do....
> 
> Here's 2 screenshots of his string section recorded in London..
> 
> What was it you where saying about the bass again.....


Dear lord, heaven help us. Yes, I just found this clip on line a few minutes ago, posted below. He has 28 celli. This idiocy only magnifies his orchestrational incompetency that’s already there. I’ll have to go into it more on Monday. I’ll choose this steaming pile of hot garbage of a cue to analyze at Forsters request.


----------



## HansZimmer

Torkelburger said:


> The melodies are boring and unimaginative and easy to write. Almost completely diatonic.


If it was easy to write the melodies of Hans Zimmer then everyone would be able to steal him the job and the market value of one of his film scores wouldn't be 2 million dollars (it's a simple market rule). Don't you want 2 million dollars? What are you waiting?

You wrote that you are bored by film scores, while I'm bored by people who say that a melody is bad because it's diatonic and so on (things like that).
Someone here wrote that analyzing too much about what's happening in a piece can inhibit enjoyment, and I think this is the case.

Although your technical analysis might be interesting in universitary lessons about music theory, it does not offer so much from an artistic perspective.
The users of a car don't need to know the details about how the car has been engineered and built. They simply need to know if it works well or not.
The same can be said for users of music: the important thing for them is that the music works, and this is the artistic perspective of music.


So, now I'll try to offer an analysis from an artistic perspective.

In this video you can see a scene of the Lion King with the right score. This piece of the suite is called "Kings of the Past".







In this video you can see the same scene but with a wrong score.







Now, you can try to do a third experiment: to use the "Art of Fugue" as a score for the same scene. Let me know what are the results of your experiment.

My conclusion is simple: the right score is perfect for the scene. Brilliant! That's why Hans Zimmer can ask 2 millions for one film score.

People who think to be better than Hans Zimmer because they write non-diatonic melodies (or things like that) will never steal the job to him, because they don't understand the artistic perspective of the music.

What other can I say? I still love this diatonic melody, as well as many other people that get chills with it (just read the comments in youtube).


----------



## HansZimmer

Torkelburger said:


> It is not about disagreeing with an aesthetic so much as it’s about writing poorly crafted music. Saying you like or dislike train music accompanying a train is one thing, and pointing out actual compositional errors within the music itself is another.


You wrote "You can start by subtracting those annoying, cliche, overused, swishing suspended cymbals. My goodness. Enough already. It's melodramatic and is like fingernails down a chalkboard. Every two seconds. Swish, swish, swish. Then a BIGGER one. Now REALLY big! ".

So, are you saying that the use of cymbals is an OBJECTIVE error? So many words to say that you don't like something.


----------



## Torkelburger

HansZimmer said:


> If it was easy to write the melodies of Hans Zimmer then everyone would be able to steal him the job and the market value of one of his film scores wouldn't be 2 million dollars (it's a simple market rule). Don't you want 2 million dollars? What are you waiting?
> 
> You wrote that you are bored by film scores, while I'm bored by people who say that a melody is bad because it's diatonic and so on (things like that).
> Someone here wrote that analyzing too much about what's happening in a piece can inhibit enjoyment, and I think this is the case.
> 
> Although your technical analysis might be interesting in universitary lessons about music theory, it does not offer so much from an artistic perspective.
> The users of a car don't need to know the details about how the car has been engineered and built. They simply need to know if it works well or not.
> The same can be said for users of music: the important thing for them is that the music works, and this is the artistic perspective of music.
> 
> 
> So, now I'll try to offer an analysis from an artistic perspective.
> 
> In this video you can see a scene of the Lion King with the right score. This piece of the suite is called "Kings of the Past".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this video you can see the same scene but with a wrong score.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, you can try to do a third experiment: to use the "Art of Fugue" as a score for the same scene. Let me know what are the results of your experiment.
> 
> My conclusion is simple: the right score is perfect for the scene. Brilliant! That's why Hans Zimmer can ask 2 millions for one film score.
> 
> People who think to be better than Hans Zimmer because they write non-diatonic melodies (or things like that) will never steal the job to him, because they don't understand the artistic perspective of the music.
> 
> What other can I say? I still love this diatonic melody, as well as many other people that get chills with it (just read the comments in youtube).


no, that’s not how it works. Even JW has admitted so. In his preface to Fred karlins book On the Track, Williams said the number one question he is asked is how to break into film scoring. His reply involved several things but mostly he stressed the importance of pure luck, out of your control. other a list composers have admitted the same thing. So you’re wrong.

Further, hz is a brand and a name that people pay for now, which is a ridiculous concept created by this idiotic industry and has helped create this mess.

however, if hz died tomorrow are you saying all of Hollywood would shut down? Would film scores just suddenly cease? Nope. They would just pay one of the other thousands of carbon copies out there 2 million dollars to write something just like him and nobody would know the difference. We have computers to see to that. They are going to pay someone 2 million dollars.

your arguments are nothing but baseless ad hoc. as if it’s ok that the ends justify the means. Or like saying we can conclude hitler had good ideas because he had millions of supporters so he couldn’t have been that wrong.

I don’t need to make a million dollars to prove how easy it is to write better Melodie’s or better music than hz. I just need to show you my music which I have plenty of examples of. More importantly, since my argument was that he does not belong mentioned with Jw and goldsmith, I just need to show their music.

strange that peoples arguments bore you but not trite melodic content.


----------



## Torkelburger

HansZimmer said:


> You wrote "You can start by subtracting those annoying, cliche, overused, swishing suspended cymbals. My goodness. Enough already. It's melodramatic and is like fingernails down a chalkboard. Every two seconds. Swish, swish, swish. Then a BIGGER one. Now REALLY big! ".
> 
> So, are you saying that the use of cymbals is an OBJECTIVE error? So many words to say that you don't like something.


Yes, cliches and over writing are objective errors.


----------



## DaveM

This is one of Hans Zimmer’s earlier works: Driving Miss Daisy End title (1989). While the subject matter of the movie is somewhat frowned on now, I find the music to be very clever:


----------



## Luchesi

Torkelburger said:


> no, that’s not how it works. Even JW has admitted so. In his preface to Fred karlins book On the Track, Williams said the number one question he is asked is how to break into film scoring. His reply involved several things but mostly he stressed the importance of pure luck, out of your control. other a list composers have admitted the same thing. So you’re wrong.
> 
> Further, hz is a brand and a name that people pay for now, which is a ridiculous concept created by this idiotic industry and has helped create this mess.
> 
> however, if hz died tomorrow are you saying all of Hollywood would shut down? Would film scores just suddenly cease? Nope. They would just pay one of the other thousands of carbon copies out there 2 million dollars to write something just like him and nobody would know the difference. We have computers to see to that. They are going to pay someone 2 million dollars.
> 
> your arguments are nothing but baseless ad hoc. as if it’s ok that the ends justify the means. Or like saying we can conclude hitler had good ideas because he had millions of supporters so he couldn’t have been that wrong.
> 
> I don’t need to make a million dollars to prove how easy it is to write better Melodie’s or better music than hz. I just need to show you my music which I have plenty of examples of. More importantly, since my argument was that he does not belong mentioned with Jw and goldsmith, I just need to show their music.
> 
> *strange that peoples arguments bore you but not trite melodic content.*


I agree about trite content. I know what it is (but it's difficult to describe in all its varieties). Maybe this is what the argument is really about. 
Can music used as specifically as it is in films, be anything but predictable and trite? And should it be more 'important' as art? I don't think so. It has to fit the type of film, and it's one package, so apart from the film what is it?


----------



## AaronSF

"Clever" could be the byword of a lot of the best movie music. Yes, it can often be very clever. But is that enough for you? I get bored pretty quickly if clever is all there is.


----------



## Luchesi

pianozach said:


> I think you're actually really reaching here to make a point.
> 
> Film scoring has evolved every decade that film scores became a relevant part of films, and I very much doubt that newer *"composers who are technically ignorant of the older school of composing"* to be a valid point.
> 
> You sound like Grandpas of every decade objecting to the crappy music "that teens listen to today. Back in MY day we had REAL music, music you could DANCE to, with snappy and nifty tunes you could whistle."
> 
> I could drag out "ubiquitous tropes" from every decade of film. For example, whenever there'd be an onscreen train . . . yeah, you see? You can already hear 'train' music.
> 
> That said, the musical pallette for film scores has always been including 'exotic' and diverse new styles and genres of music as it developed chronologically.


"You sound like Grandpas of every decade objecting to the crappy music "that teens listen to today."

Interesting. I wonder if you think the grandpas were right or wrong? 
I think it's fascinating that an older generation saw rockabilly and rock-and-roll as a dumbing down of the intelligence in the popular music of the 30s and 40s. Likewise, disco and punk were a dumbing down of rock music. And that trend continued for decades. This is how society saw it (there's so many factors).


----------



## DaveM

AaronSF said:


> "Clever" could be the byword of a lot of the best movie music. Yes, it can often be very clever. But is that enough for you? I get bored pretty quickly if clever is all there is.


Well, if the music gets boring very quickly, it can’t be very clever or maybe you have a different definition of clever.


----------



## DaveM

Luchesi said:


> I agree about trite content. I know what it is (but it's difficult to describe in all its varieties). Maybe this is what the argument is really about.
> Can music used as specifically as it is in films, be anything but predictable and trite? And should it be more 'important' as art? I don't think so. It has to fit the type of film, and it's one package, so apart from the film what is it?


A lot of film music fits the type of film and also works as a standalone work. In fact, some film music works so well standalone that if you didn’t know the movie it came from, you wouldn’t be able to tell from the music itself.


----------



## HansZimmer

VoiceFromTheEther said:


> Thank you for this bouquet of pejoratives, but I'm afraid not everything is clear to me. What exactly are "artificial colours / flavours", and how do they differ from normal orchestral colour? How is the melodic material nondescript if most kindergardeners with no musical training could tell you what it communicates?
> 
> The subtraction of which instruments would have, in your view, made this track better?


However this version of "This Land" has not been used. It's in the soundtrack album, but not in the film.

The version that has been actually used in the film is this one.


----------



## HansZimmer

Torkelburger said:


> Further, hz is a brand and a name that people pay for now, which is a ridiculous concept created by this idiotic industry and has helped create this mess.
> 
> however, if hz died tomorrow are you saying all of Hollywood would shut down? Would film scores just suddenly cease? Nope. They would just pay one of the other thousands of carbon copies out there 2 million dollars to write something just like him and nobody would know the difference. We have computers to see to that. They are going to pay someone 2 million dollars.


Yes, because fortunately Hans Zimmer is not the only skilled composer. John Williams, Alan Menken, Thomas Newman, Howard Shore, James Horner (RIP), Ennio Morricone (RIP), and so on...
The list is long.

The fact that the list is long however doesn't mean that it's easy to find someone with their talent in the general population. The market rule simply says than when the demand is high and the supply is low, the price of the goods becomes very high. No one is so stupid to pay 2 milions for something that everyone is able to do.



> as if it’s ok that the ends justify the means. Or like saying we can conclude hitler had good ideas because he had millions of supporters so he couldn’t have been that wrong.


One of the recurring ideas of the violent dictators like Hitler is that what they like is objectively good and that what they don't like must be repressed.
As a liberal, I simply think the opposite: the tastes of people are subjective, everyone has the right to have what he/she likes and no one has the right to use the violence to impose his tastes on other people. The freedom also includes the free market, at least to some extent (the people have the right to buy what they like and the companies have the right to sell to people what they like).

I'm not saying that you are like Hitler, but to say that people who like melodies or arrangements that you don't like are idiots and that the composers who write them shouldn't exist it's a start. Although it's not like killing people, insults are a form of violence and hate.

Unfortunately, violence is a part of human nature and this is why Hitler was promoted. Some attitudes of humans are harmful, but not the attitude of having different melodic preferences than yours.


----------



## mikeh375

HansZimmer said:


> Now, you can try to do a third experiment: to use the "Art of Fugue" as a score for the same scene. Let me know what are the results of your experiment.
> 
> My conclusion is simple: the right score is perfect for the scene. Brilliant! That's why Hans Zimmer can ask 2 millions for one film score.


Whereas the wrong music for a scene is easy to enough to discern. There is no such thing as one single 'right' piece of music for a scene because too many factors, musical and extra-musical come into play. I know that's not exactly what you are saying but it is worth pointing out I feel.


----------



## Forster

Torkelburger said:


> I’ll have to go into it more on Monday. I’ll choose this steaming pile of hot garbage of a cue to analyze at Forsters request.


Hmmm. Rereading my post, I can see there is an ambiguity in it that has misled you. What I said was "What is it that those two did for their movies that current film composers don't do - and with some examples of their failures please."

By which I meant. _"What is it that those two_ (Williams and Goldsmith)_ did for their movies that current film composers _(excluding Zimmer - you've already dismissed him)_ don't do - and with some examples of their failures please." _

You're doing what I've observed here more than once in discussions about modern composers - focusing narrowly on a tiny handful of hugely successful composers and drawing unsupportable conclusions about the state of film composition. See my post at:









Why do many people think that classical music composed...


The standalone music of John Williams is strange because his purpose is to compose contemporary classical music. The music he composes for films is different because it follows the rules of older classical music: melody, harmony and coherence. I agree with your judgement about the piece: it's...




www.talkclassical.com




.

Maybe you could search out the work of some of those composers and point out what's wrong with it. I'm not interested in a purely musical analysis by the way. I'm interested in an analysis of the "music-with-film" analysis. AaronSF said,_ "I get bored pretty quickly if clever is all there is." _Me, I might get bored if the film is no good. If the film is good, I'll not mind what the music is doing.


----------



## HansZimmer

Torkelburger said:


> Yes, cliches and over writing are objective errors.


You call cliches "errors", while I call them "style", or "school" if you prefer.
The music of a precise time period and of a determined context always has its own cliches.

As a passionate of the classical period, I know for example how much predictable is the music of the time.
Typical symphony of the classical period.

First movement: allegro or presto
Second movement: andante
Third movement: minuet
Fourth movement: allegro or presto

Each movement has its own cliches. The andante typically is not like a slower version of the allegro. No! It has distinctive cliches. It could be harder to distinguish the first movement from the fourth, but I think that there are some cliches that you usually find in the first movement and not in the fourth.

Then there are the individual cliches of each composer.

For what it worths, I could believe that Mozart had an enlightment when writing the Odense symphony, because I can hear that the melody of the first movement sounds different from the usual melodies of Mozart.






However, the musicologists expert of Mozart's music say that the symphony has surely not been written by him. This means that they don't think that the genius is unpredictable.


Note how the second movement of Odense symphony is obsessively repetitive (it's a nice melody, but that movement shouldn't be longer than 3 minutes). Repetitivity is quite usual in the Andante, but we can forgive this thing because classical music is magic. Many people use very high standards to disqualify music they don't like.

"A good composer is unpredictable" ----> "Hans Zimmer is predictable and so he's a bad composer". More people in this and other discussions have explained that composers of film scores often have very little time to write and arrange the suite, but according to you Hans Zimmer should reinvent music every time he composes a new film score.
Even the genius Amadeus was not able to reinvent music every time he composed a new piece (and this is why musicologists are able to say if a piece has been written by him or not), but you expect Hans Zimmer to do it.

For what it worths, I think that the score of Lion King is quite distinctive in general in respect to much film music I've heard, but I have no problem in believing that there are also some cliches. I mean, if you must compose a piece in a short time it's normal that you use already tested musical techniques.


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

Forster said:


> I might get bored if the film is no good. If the film is good, I'll not mind what the music is doing.


I might get bored if the music is no good. If the music is good, I'll not mind what the film is doing.


----------



## HansZimmer

mikeh375 said:


> Adam, you might be amused or perhaps even more annoyed by this....
> zimmer strings
> 344 players!!!!! and struth, imagine the potential musical damage that many violas could do....
> 
> Here's 2 screenshots of his string section recorded in London..
> 
> What was it you where saying about the bass again.....


I found a youtube tutorial of this plugin, so you can hear the sounds.


----------



## Forster

VoiceFromTheEther said:


> I might get bored if the music is no good. If the music is good, I'll not mind what the film is doing.


As you wish. Of course, YMMV, but it seems to me perverse to suggest that you watch films more for the music than for the whole.


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

Forster said:


> As you wish. Of course, YMMV, but it seems to me perverse to suggest that you watch films more for the music than for the whole.


Why? Similar sentiments have been shared by other professional musicians. People notice their trade foremost.


----------



## Forster

VoiceFromTheEther said:


> Why? Similar sentiments have been shared by other professional musicians. People notice their trade foremost.


Why? Because the 'art' with which we are engaging is a moving picture, comprised of many elements but primarily visual images, not just a concert of music.


----------



## Yabetz

This looks like a tempest in a teapot. Some film music is "classically" artistic and considered such and sometimes programmed along with Beethoven and Brahms. "Film music" in the abstract is too broad and vague to stand for much of anything specific, like "piano music" would be.


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

Forster said:


> Why? Because the 'art' with which we are engaging is a moving picture, comprised of many elements but primarily visual images, not just a concert of music.


Your declarative certainty about this matter and that noticeable tint of moral reprehension remind me of a little girl bossing other kids around about how various items are _supposed to be used_. As the Ottoman Turks would say, let each man eat yoghurt his own way.


----------



## hammeredklavier

VoiceFromTheEther said:


> Similar sentiments have been shared by other professional musicians.


Maybe you could show us some of these "critical reviews" by "professional musicians"? Maybe they're just being jealous they can't make as much money as the famous film music composers. Tons of things in classical music have been "controversial" in terms of theory, but accepted as good just cause people thought they sounded good.


----------



## Yabetz

Some things can sprawl across genres. Is Scott Joplin classical or popular? I think both. I don't lose any sleep over it either way.


----------



## pianozach

This discussion is what you get when you attempt to pigeonhole music into categories.


----------



## Forster

VoiceFromTheEther said:


> Your declarative certainty about this matter and that noticeable tint of moral reprehension remind me of a little girl bossing other kids around about how various items are _supposed to be used_. As the Ottoman Turks would say, let each man eat yoghurt his own way.


I already allowed for you to eat yogurt any way you wish. As for declarations, I'd be happy to give some thought to what _your_ definition of a film is.


----------



## HansZimmer

The poll for the Talkclassical best film score award - 1992 will end in some days. It's your last chance to vote.


----------



## mikeh375

HansZimmer said:


> I found a youtube tutorial of this plugin, so you can hear the sounds.


I passed on purchasing this as it doesn't fit my aims now. But as a tool or resource for composing to picture (within a DAW of course), over the top sample sets like this can be very useful at the writing and demo-ing stage as one can render impressive (to those who are paying) sound. Often the sampled sound will make it into the final mix when the budget is lacking (as it would be for over 300 string players). Quite often, sample sets are mixed into the live sound in order to boost the depth or even make up for a reduced live sound due to budget restrictions. 
And (sorry Adam), if I where still in the industry I would have had this on my hard drives the day it came out as I'm not against ignoring traditional rules and practices as some might think. One has to eat, besides it's fun to go over the top (in an orchestral numbers sense) and get paid for it. I did however purchase his piano samples but again passed on the percussion set.


----------



## HansZimmer

mikeh375 said:


> Whereas the wrong music for a scene is easy to enough to discern. There is no such thing as one single 'right' piece of music for a scene because too many factors, musical and extra-musical come into play. I know that's not exactly what you are saying but it is worth pointing out I feel.


Yes, but it's like to say that my glasses could work for an other person too. The fact that they might work for someone else doesn't mean that my optician didn't create them for me in a professional way.

The main theme of the Lion King is thought to evoke the greatness and eternity of the nature and the universe. When I listened to the concert of Hans Zimmer I told to myself "this melody is perfect for the Lion King and its message". The last time I had watched the Lion King was about 25 years before, and with that melody I felt like I was rewatching the film.
After a while I actually rewatched the film and my opinion is that to "rewatch" the film through the music of Hans Zimmer gives you a greater emotional impact than actually rewatching the film.

In that moment I realized the artistic talent of Hans Zimmer. If you attack him by saying that his melodies are diatonic (And what's bad with this? Aren't the melodies of classical period diatonic? Diatonic melodies have a nice and coherent sound, that's why the classical period is my favourite one) it means that you don't understand so much of the artistic side of music. Art in music doesn't mean to create overenginered melodies at the point that they don't work in their context.
It means composing the right thing in the right moment to evoke the right emotion.


----------



## HansZimmer

Torkelburger said:


> Further, hz is a brand


Yes, but your name becomes a brand for a reason. It's not a gift from god.

The name of Hans Zimmer has become a brand because he has been able to bring the films at the Academy Awards and other musical awards many times and because of what you read in the comments of this video.






"This is not music, this is magic!"


"when you hear such a masterpiece like this, you really understand the value of your ears"


"seriously. I'm near crying while hearing this song."


"At 1.10 you can't even explain with word the feeling you feel, it's impossible."


"2.35 2.50 love the percussions in this part, always give me chills"


"Disney, you must remember who you are."


"When Hans said that his father died when he was 6 and thats why he agreed to make this soundtrack because it was kinda similar story and Hans always wanted to tell that story to the people and every time i hear that 1.11 I feel like Hans is telling Good Bye to his father"


"Just watched the sunset while listening to this music. What an epic moment."


"1.10 - 1.35 ... chills...."


"This got some of the most amazing sub bass ever, especially the first 50 seconds. You got to crank it a bit though."


"Hans Zimmer definitely knows how to play with your feelings..."


"Hans Zimmer was born to bless us with his music."


"I've never had this much goosebumps in my entire life O.O"


"You know something is legendary when it always brings the same feelings no matter what you are doing"


"I want this to be played at my funeral. I DEMAND IT."


"This is a great piece of music....absolutely beautiful!"


"In my opinion, the Lion King is in the top 5 of the best soundtracks ever composed."


"masterpiece"


"Hans Zimmers music is a gift from God!"


"Truly epic"


"Destroys you from the inside and then fixes you with the ending"


"1.11 gets me everytime"


"This music is so beautiful"




> ridiculous concept created by this idiotic industry and has helped create this mess



I don't see any mess in film music. I think that it's in general a quite meritocratic field.


----------



## mikeh375

Remember though that what you think might be by Zimmer, might not be.....

Remote Control Productions


----------



## HansZimmer

mikeh375 said:


> Remember though that what you think might be by Zimmer, might not be.....
> 
> Remote Control Productions


If you prefer I can say that Remote Control Productions has done a very good work. However I think that when the composer is not Hans Zimmer is not a secret. Many people think that the score of Pirates of Caribbeans is of Hans Zimmer, but you just have to look at the credits to know that it was composed by Klaus Badelt. However Hans Zimmer created the demo of the main theme.


----------



## mikeh375

Sure, you can say that if you wish.
I have no objection whatsoever to the atellier approach to film scoring, knowing how demanding it can get. It actually makes good sense as a business model so long as it's fair to all concerned regarding royalties and credits.


----------



## Forster

Looking back over Zimmer's career, I note that two of his best known films - _Rain Man_ and _Driving Miss Daisy, _not necessarily best known for their scores - earned awards from the BMI (not from the AMPAS though _Rain Man_ was nominated). I wonder if those awards (specifically from Broadcast Music Inc) are worth having, and whether they are of any particular significance, musically speaking. I'm sure there are more - I just started to look through his work from the 80s and into the 90s - and also found that _Days of Thunder_ also got the BMI.

Whatever the merits of his later compositions, he's done his time in the lower echelons of the film music biz. I haven't seen either of the earliest movies for which he got composer credit - _My Beautiful Launderette_ and _Insignificance - _so I don't know what his compositions were like then (1985), but he was obviously also working hard on movies for which no one got recognition, despite the fact that he worked with two of the most lauded directors of the time, Skolimowski and Roeg. I daresay that did him no harm.


----------



## HansZimmer

Forster said:


> Looking back over Zimmer's career, I note that two of his best known films - _Rain Man_ and _Driving Miss Daisy, _not necessarily best known for their scores - earned awards from the BMI (not from the AMPAS though _Rain Man_ was nominated). I wonder if those awards (specifically from Broadcast Music Inc) are worth having, and whether they are of any particular significance, musically speaking. I'm sure there are more - I just started to look through his work from the 80s and into the 90s - and also found that _Days of Thunder_ also got the BMI.
> 
> Whatever the merits of his later compositions, he's done his time in the lower echelons of the film music biz. I haven't seen either of the earliest movies for which he got composer credit - _My Beautiful Launderette_ and _Insignificance - _so I don't know what his compositions were like then (1985), but he was obviously also working hard on movies for which no one got recognition, despite the fact that he worked with two of the most lauded directors of the time, Skolimowski and Roeg. I daresay that did him no harm.


I would say that his first great (and probably the last) success is the Lion King.

The awards:

One Accademy Award (best original score)
One Felix award (best original score)
One American Music Award (top soundtrack)
One Award Circuit Community Award (best original score)
One BMI Film and TV award (BMI Film Music Award)
One Chicago Film Critics Association Award (best original score)
One Golden Globes Award (Best Original Score - Motion Picture )
One Grammy Award (Best Instrumental Arrangement with Accompanying Vocals) because he arranged Circle of Life
One Motion Picture Sounds Editor Award (Best Sound Editing - Music)

The nominations:

For one BAFTA award (Anthony Asquith Award for Film Music )
For one Grammy Award (Best Instrumental Composition Written for a Motion Picture or for Television)
For one International Film Music Critics Award (Best Archival Release of an Existing Score - Re-Release or Re-Recording)

The Lion King - Awards - IMDb

Later, he will win four Classical BRIT awards:

One for The Gladiator
One for The Dark Kinight
One award for "Composer of the year" (2013)
One award for "Outstanding Contribution to Music"

List of awards and nominations received by Hans Zimmer - Wikipedia


----------



## Forster

HansZimmer said:


> I would say that his first great (and probably the last) success is the Lion King.


The purpose of my post was to move away from the accusations being levelled against Zimmer about the predictability of his scores, to invite comment on other work than the Lion King (after all, this thread isn't just about that film or that composer) and on the value of any awards he might have received, other than Oscars.

I have no quarrel with you about the value of his scores, though I have sometimes found the "Zimmer Studio" sound to be somewhat narrow. But as I said, directors want him to do what he does for their films; it's no use complaining that he sounds like Hans Zimmer (even when he's Klaus Badelt  😄). The same accusation could easily have been levelled at John Barry and Max Steiner, Oscar winners both.

Moving away from Zimmer altogether, last night I was enjoying _Little Women_ (2019) and mostly, Alexandre Desplat's Oscar-nominated "classical" score. Its busy piano seemed a little intrusive at times, but as I have said before, apparently controversially, I watch the movie for the story, the acting, the dialogue, the production design and costumes - the whole thing, and not just (or primarily) for the score.


----------



## HansZimmer

Forster said:


> The purpose of my post was to move away from the accusations being levelled against Zimmer about the predictability of his scores, to invite comment on other work than the Lion King (after all, this thread isn't just about that film or that composer) and on the value of any awards he might have received, other than Oscars.


Torkelburger wrote that the scores of Hans Zimmer are predictable because they are diatonic and use precise mathematical patterns, but I don't see this as an offense because I think that it's the most correct way to compose. Like in the classical period: you choose a key, you write a melody in the chosen key using precise patterns. It works very well because the melody sounds good and it's coherent.

I see the later classical music and the his fashion to break the good rules as a bad habit. If film music is classical music (the question of this thread) then it's probably neoclassical, because it's modern music composed with the fundamental aesthetic of classicism.
Why? Because the reality is that you can not re-educate the ears of people. The rules of classicism are scientific and ethernal: if you want to write a melody that works for the ears of most people, you have follow those good rules.
This is exactly the goal of film music, so if you think that diatonic melodies with predictable patterns are a **** than you will conclude that all film music is a ****.

The problem is that I don't understand the logic of the premise.


----------



## HansZimmer

Luchesi said:


> "You sound like Grandpas of every decade objecting to the crappy music "that teens listen to today."
> 
> Interesting. I wonder if you think the grandpas were right or wrong?
> I think it's fascinating that an older generation saw rockabilly and rock-and-roll as a dumbing down of the intelligence in the popular music of the 30s and 40s. Likewise, disco and punk were a dumbing down of rock music. And that trend continued for decades. This is how society saw it (there's so many factors).


They were right, but this has not necessarily to do with the quality in composition, but it has more to do with the lowering of the cultural level.

The class of the old music is higher than the one of much of the modern music.
The music of Frank Sinatra might be not more complex from the compositional perspective, but it's more mature (for adults). The musical industry of today knows that it can do a lot of money with teenagers and adults of low culture, so it produces tons of songs that are intended to be appreciated by these people and that looks very immature int he eyes of the more mature and educated people.

Furthermore, with the development of digital tools like the autotune a solid education in singing is no more required and sometimes the technical level is quite embarassaing.


----------



## pianozach

RE: Appropriateness of film scores.

It's been a while, but I've accompanied some silent films. Before my first I immersed myself in the whole musical subset as to how to accompany a silent film.

In the beginning there might be a pianist or organist that played along, sometimes improvising, sometimes using popular songs or classical music. Sometimes the accompanist would get to prescreen, to make note of the flow of a film, other times it was a "seat of your pants" type of thing, as the accompanist would play as they watched the film for the first time. It's very likely that the second and third (and so on) screenings' live accompaniment would change from showing to showing.

Small theaters might simply have someone "Drop the needle" on a record just to have some music, any music, accompany the film, regardless of appropriateness.

As the silent film industry gained momentum, many silent film fake books were made, often organized by theme: Hero, Love, Chase, Bad guy, etc. Sometimes a film, when delivered to the theater, would also have a "suggested playlist" for the accompanist.

It developed further, and the accompanist might be two people, or three or more. It might be a little pit band. Towards the end of the silent era, some films actually had composed scores that would be played by small pit orchestras (well, in the larger theaters in the larger cities). Prior to the advent of the talkies a disc containing the score might come with the film, for the theater owner to play on a "sound system". It wouldn't be perfectly synched, but it would be close.

Here we are years later, and modern composers have made scores for these silent films. In many cases, more than one composer might create a score. I attended a screening of Nosferatu, and the organist played his own published score.

So, I think there's more than a couple of scores available for some silent films (*Nosferatu* and *Metropolis* come to mind), sometimes on the same disc (DVD). You can watch with one score, then change settings and watch with a different score.

Today you might like Score A better, tomorrow Score B. Or maybe not.

There are actually film score composing contests, where a clip/scene from a film is provided, and contestants create a score.

There's more than one way to skin a cat; and more than one way to score a film.


----------



## DaveM

A number of film composers wrote works very derivative of their previous works. IMO, one of the worst was John Barry. Rachel Portman composed an excellent theme for a Cider House Rules, but then, changed a few notes here and there and used something very similar for Mona Lisa Smile.

I was watching Patriot Games the other night and was surprised to hear the same ’brooding’ theme from his Aliens theme. He apparently used it elsewhere as well.


----------



## mikeh375

DaveM said:


> A number of film composers wrote works very derivative of their previous works. IMO, one of the worst was John Barry. Rachel Portman composed an excellent theme for a Cider House Rules, but then, changed a few notes here and there and used something very similar for Mona Lisa Smile.
> 
> I was watching Patriot Games the other night and was surprised to hear the same ’brooding’ theme from his Aliens theme. He apparently used it elsewhere as well.


There are reasons for that Dave. Composers get hired on the back of their success because often directors will want scores similar to what they have heard either in sound or approach and very often both. Composers also get pigeon-holed. One thinks of Christopher Young who is known for successful horror scores but is also by some accounts an excellent composer, fully trained in more styles than that. The pigeon holing is in equal part a curse and a blessing. In my time I've been asked to write like some composers and with some of them, I know exactly how to approach scoring or how to write a typical melody in the style of, such is the repute thanks to pigeon-holing and constant recirculation and requesting for their style.
Oh and Horner was always repeating himself (and others). That music you refer to reminds me of Bartok.


----------



## Torkelburger

HansZimmer said:


> Yes, because fortunately Hans Zimmer is not the only skilled composer. John Williams, Alan Menken, Thomas Newman, Howard Shore, James Horner (RIP), Ennio Morricone (RIP), and so on...
> The list is long.
> 
> The fact that the list is long however doesn't mean that it's easy to find someone with their talent in the general population. The market rule simply says than when the demand is high and the supply is low, the price of the goods becomes very high. No one is so stupid to pay 2 milions for something that everyone is able to do.


That's what the JOB _PAYS_. As long as someone is able to do it, then that's what they get paid. There is no shortage in Los Angeles within the next thousand years of anyone not being able to do it. If that entire list of composers died tomorrow, there would be literally hundreds of composers ready, willing and ABLE to fill the position. The position that pays 2 million dollars. I know at least a dozen of them personally. I lived and worked in LA for 9 years in the industry. And yes, whoever got the job would get 2 million dollars. Hundreds of people living out there this very moment can do it. Easily.


----------



## Torkelburger

Regarding the cue above:

Writing almost 100% of all of your cues in the same key (D minor) is very weird and seems a bit of a weakness, IMO. It’s incredibly boring and unimaginative, for both attuned listeners and good musicians. It really drags on the ear. It reminds me of Irving Berlin, who couldn’t read or write music, nor play the piano (very well), so he either whistled or hummed his music to transribers, or could only play the music in one or two keys, Db or Gb (which are the black keys of the piano). It would also appear to be very limiting dramatically. As musicians and composers know especially, the choice of key can greatly affect the sound and mood of the music. But if it’s always the same key, well…

Right from the start, there are several problems, namely one of poor orchestrational balance. Even without the ridiculous, nonsensical forces he uses (if it were a normal orchestra), it would not make sense. He has a third of the entire violin section in pizzicato on a note in their lowest range, in a boring, repetitive, unimaginative ostinato, pitted against pretty much the rest of the entire ensemble playing thick chords through their entire range and a melody played by an enormous celli section.

Here we see one of the big reasons why he has such a ridiculous amount of forces in the orchestra. The orchestra is “unorthodox”, not because of any interesting scoring like how Hermann might do, but because of a slipshod and lazy compositional style that has hallmarks of someone writing from a computer and keyboard with synth pads.
The reason he has so many strings is because when he composes, he is obviously composing by sitting down at a computer instead of in his head and paper and he is using a string patch on a synthesizer at a keyboard. When he plays a chord, the synth is playing say, a cello sound of a 4-note chord played by his right hand. So, what would a “composer” do when he scores it? Well, just divide the cello section into 4 subsections and write “divisi” or just have 4 staves on the score with Cello I, Cello II, Cello III, and Cello IV, of course.

This is not how the great film composers of the past composed. More importantly, this is not how CPT composers of the past composed. This is how slipshod, lazy, ignorant, techies compose using a computer and keyboard who just think that composing is playing “composer’s piano” at the keyboard with your patches and then just automatically transferring to the score page (by an “orchestrator” or computer, of course).

This stupidity and ineptness costs a lot of money. Again this is not ingenuity. The orchestra is so large because of these idiotic divisis. When you split a cello section just one time (into two voices), you are cutting the volume of the sound exactly in half. Each time you add a note to the chord and have to divide the cellos further, you are CUTTING THE VOLUME IN HALF each time. That is with an acoustic, live orchestra. But that DOESN’T happen with a synthesizer. That’s the problem. When that happens and you score a massive chord using the same string sound, the section has to be huge. And then to balance that out, the rest of the orchestra choirs need to also be huge. All because of not understanding the principles of orchestration for the past 250 years but instead using a “time saving” computer system, which ironically, costs more money in the end.
One problem with this cue is that the opening does not reach it’s full potential as an effective buildup. The only thing he does is repeat ad nauseum and do a crescendo at the end.

The half-step “tension” in the violins in bar 7 is cliché. The melody/motif is incredibly boring and nondescript. It is entirely made of notes of equal duration which also gives it little meaning, weak identification, weak potential for development and variation, etc. Even the last note’s value isn’t any different. After the boring initial statement, where it will even just repeat the same note three times in a row, all of the repeats are just the first three notes over and over again. There is no displacement of rhythm, no diminution, no interesting imitation (of which there are many techniques) or addition of voices. No compositional devices used at all to build tension in the melody. Exact repetition as seen here is boring. He is falling back on the chords changing underneath, but those are repeating too. The melody is just amounting to nothing more than a predictable half-step pedal that fails to create anything beyond weak tension.

Same with the ostinato. The ostinato is just cut-and-pasted exactly like the melody is. The second bar is the same as the first. Bars two and four are the same as one and two. In fact, bar 13 of the ostinato is the exact same as the bar 1. All of them are the same. All one note, same rhythm, same everything. Anyone with knowledge of a cut-and-paste feature on a computer can do that. The predictability makes it anticlimactic.

Harmony same thing. Just three banal triads anyone could write. They don’t create any tension at all. Bb, Gm, and Dm. A typical modal progression used millions upon millions of times before by just about anyone. It repeats up to the Gm because the timing runs out. He makes no use of any sort of prolonged shortening of the harmonic rhythm in order to add to the tension. It just sits there like cut-and-pasted wallpaper. The chords are poorly voice-led with the number of voices dropping in and out of the texture (and there is no thickening/widening of voicings to reach a climax), because remember this is written at a keyboard.

Another way to tell a keyboard player composed this using a keyboard by “composer’s piano” technique is the overuse of octaves in the bass, always in the lowest register, extremely low at that, very unorthodox for an orchestra—but not for a piano/keyboard (and normal for bad piano players who can only play “composer’s piano”). Not only taxing on the ear and overall sonority, but gives the piece usually nowhere to go (such as the opening climax—no descending motion or sudden appearance of the bass, or sudden _removal_/dropping out of the bass, and so forth).

I think this is a slipshod way of trying to build suspense. Mostly because it doesn’t make sense musically. If it doesn’t build suspense musically, it is going to fall flat on the screen as well. Just repeating things ad nauseum without any change at all over and over again with only one little crescendo at the very end is ineffective.

It would have been ideal to have composed the climactic bar(s) first and then subtract features in the bars leading up to that. Also it would have been beneficial to not keep everything in the same range the whole way through. You save the extreme ranges for the climax (low and high) and work your way up to it (even in the ostinato).

And just like clockwork and the previous example analyzed there is dry, dead, stagnant “pads” literally everywhere tying the least amount of chords over the most amount of measures simply used as a crutch to tie and glue the scene together because no other skills are available to a composer with no knowledge beyond a remedial understanding of commercial arranging, bad film scoring, and rock music synth performance.

I refuse to buy into the excuse that this is some sort of necessary modern style suited for modern directing. For one thing, JJ Abrams is a modern director and writer who is terrible, writes and directs in the modern style, but for some reason, wants old school scores. So JW wrote old school style scores for modern style movies and they worked just fine. So does Michael Giacchino.

And I don’t buy into the excuse that this slipshod way of composition is necessary in order to write fast to meet deadlines. Deadlines were lightning fast in the old school days as well. And actually, well-crafting a score can help speed things up. Take a look at West Side Story. Bernstein used the tritone to tie all the music together for the entire score. That will speed up the writing process. Goldsmith did the same thing with his Oscar-winning score for The Omen. The main themes are based on sixths. Because of the numbers 6, 6, and 6 (what the movie is about—the antichrist and the numbers that identify him at the end). So the main theme was a descending 6th, then a rising 6th (three notes all a 6th apart). But he didn’t stop there. The love theme/family motif encompasses a 6th (G A E D E). He did that on purpose. Not only does it tie the music together, but it allows you to come up with ideas FASTER.

The “fight music” is extremely boring and simple to write. I’d easily accept 2 million bucks to just fill 20+ bars of the same exact boring rhythm of just one drum playing straight eighth notes and another one playing four notes per bar (just one on every downbeat). It can’t get much simpler (or boring) than that. Just useless filler. Wallpaper cut-and-pasted. It’s almost as if Zimmer sees cue sheets and bars of music as a musical liability that eats up time, instead of as assets to suit the dramatic purposes of the scene. More evidence of this is the overuse of sustained pads lasting multiple measures (sometimes even over a dozen measures) with no other music events (theme, motif, rhythm, ostinato) occurring. The cue amounts to not much more than the starting and stopping of boring ostinatos and pads that are cut and pasted.

The only thing really going for the cue is the contrary motion in the “theme” with its accompanying bass such as in bars 80-81 (3:24). And the slightly better written climax at the end. The very end however, is just bargain-basement mickey-mousing. Nothing interesting.


----------



## Torkelburger

HansZimmer said:


> The name of Hans Zimmer has become a brand because he has been able to bring the films at the Academy Awards and other musical awards many times and because of what you read in the comments of this video.


Nah, I ain't buying that. Arnold Schwartzenegger has gotten accolades from established reviewers as well (like Roger Ebert for _Maggie, Total Recall)_ that doesn't mean he is some wonderful actor to fawn over or even worth mentioning in the same breath as Laurence Olivier. Screenwriters have to sometimes put reasons why his character speaks with an Austrian accent cause the dude can't speak any other way. But he's just as good as Laurence Olivier, see, cause you know, millions of dollars and all that.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Torkelburger said:


> That's what the JOB _PAYS_. As long as someone is able to do it, then that's what they get paid. There is no shortage in Los Angeles within the next thousand years of anyone not being able to do it. If that entire list of composers died tomorrow, there would be literally hundreds of composers ready, willing and ABLE to fill the position. The position that pays 2 million dollars. I know at least a dozen of them personally. I lived and worked in LA for 9 years in the industry. And yes, whoever got the job would get 2 million dollars. Hundreds of people living out there this very moment can do it. Easily.


Then why do they pay him so much? Why not pay him little and if he complains, tell him "dude, there are literally thousands of composers out there who can replace you. You should be thankful for the privilege you're getting."


----------



## Torkelburger

hammeredklavier said:


> Then why do they pay him so much? Why not pay him little and if he complains, tell him "dude, there are literally thousands of composers out there who can replace you. You should be thankful for the privilege you're getting."


That makes no sense. What privilege would he be getting? A lifelong career of working 80 hours a week for free slave labor to see his name on a big screen and be cool at parties? Does he live at home?


----------



## DaveM

Well, actually hammeredklavier has a point. I’m a little skeptical about the ‘hundreds’ willing and able to do what Zimmer has done. If there were even a few dozen others who have demonstrated that they can do what HZ has done, then producers/directors would be quite happy to pay them half what they pay Zimmer.

After all, the average movie-goer doesn’t know anything about HZ, but they often do know a good soundtrack when they hear one and producers/directors are likely counting on it. And Zimmer gets results. As I’ve said before, Zimmer doesn’t tend to create the quality fully fleshed out works he used to probably because studios don’t want to pay for it anymore. But that doesn’t change the fact that he has composed some film music such as that for Nine Months and Pearl Harbor that stands up there with anything JW et al have written.


----------



## SanAntone

> It reminds me of Irving Berlin, who couldn’t read or write music, nor play the piano (very well), so he either whistled or hummed his music to transribers, or could only play the music in one or two keys, Db or Gb (which are the black keys of the piano).


An irrelevancy concerning Irving Berlin, since he was one of the greatest composers of popular songs who's ever lived.


----------



## Simon Moon

Torkelburger said:


> That makes no sense. What privilege would he be getting? A lifelong career of working 80 hours a week for free slave labor to see his name on a big screen and be cool at parties? Does he live at home?


I have a good friend who has a pretty decent resume (47 creits on IMDB) with regards to composing movie soundtracks. No blockbusters, mind you, but some pretty evocative and emotional soundtracks. His most well known, is probably Ang Lee's. "Eat, Drink, Man. Woman". His most recent was from 2010, "Pete Smalls is Dead", with Peter Dinklage.

He told me many stories about the BS he had to endure trying to get bigger movies.

He gave up, certainly not for lack of skill, but being edged out of on big movie after another, due to lack of having a big name. The pressure from the money people in Hollywood to use a "notable name" is pretty powerful.


----------



## EvaBaron

Torkelburger said:


> Regarding the cue above:
> 
> Writing almost 100% of all of your cues in the same key (D minor) is very weird and seems a bit of a weakness, IMO. It’s incredibly boring and unimaginative, for both attuned listeners and good musicians. It really drags on the ear. It reminds me of Irving Berlin, who couldn’t read or write music, nor play the piano (very well), so he either whistled or hummed his music to transribers, or could only play the music in one or two keys, Db or Gb (which are the black keys of the piano). It would also appear to be very limiting dramatically. As musicians and composers know especially, the choice of key can greatly affect the sound and mood of the music. But if it’s always the same key, well…
> 
> Right from the start, there are several problems, namely one of poor orchestrational balance. Even without the ridiculous, nonsensical forces he uses (if it were a normal orchestra), it would not make sense. He has a third of the entire violin section in pizzicato on a note in their lowest range, in a boring, repetitive, unimaginative ostinato, pitted against pretty much the rest of the entire ensemble playing thick chords through their entire range and a melody played by an enormous celli section.
> 
> Here we see one of the big reasons why he has such a ridiculous amount of forces in the orchestra. The orchestra is “unorthodox”, not because of any interesting scoring like how Hermann might do, but because of a slipshod and lazy compositional style that has hallmarks of someone writing from a computer and keyboard with synth pads.
> The reason he has so many strings is because when he composes, he is obviously composing by sitting down at a computer instead of in his head and paper and he is using a string patch on a synthesizer at a keyboard. When he plays a chord, the synth is playing say, a cello sound of a 4-note chord played by his right hand. So, what would a “composer” do when he scores it? Well, just divide the cello section into 4 subsections and write “divisi” or just have 4 staves on the score with Cello I, Cello II, Cello III, and Cello IV, of course.
> 
> This is not how the great film composers of the past composed. More importantly, this is not how CPT composers of the past composed. This is how slipshod, lazy, ignorant, techies compose using a computer and keyboard who just think that composing is playing “composer’s piano” at the keyboard with your patches and then just automatically transferring to the score page (by an “orchestrator” or computer, of course).
> 
> This stupidity and ineptness costs a lot of money. Again this is not ingenuity. The orchestra is so large because of these idiotic divisis. When you split a cello section just one time (into two voices), you are cutting the volume of the sound exactly in half. Each time you add a note to the chord and have to divide the cellos further, you are CUTTING THE VOLUME IN HALF each time. That is with an acoustic, live orchestra. But that DOESN’T happen with a synthesizer. That’s the problem. When that happens and you score a massive chord using the same string sound, the section has to be huge. And then to balance that out, the rest of the orchestra choirs need to also be huge. All because of not understanding the principles of orchestration for the past 250 years but instead using a “time saving” computer system, which ironically, costs more money in the end.
> One problem with this cue is that the opening does not reach it’s full potential as an effective buildup. The only thing he does is repeat ad nauseum and do a crescendo at the end.
> 
> The half-step “tension” in the violins in bar 7 is cliché. The melody/motif is incredibly boring and nondescript. It is entirely made of notes of equal duration which also gives it little meaning, weak identification, weak potential for development and variation, etc. Even the last note’s value isn’t any different. After the boring initial statement, where it will even just repeat the same note three times in a row, all of the repeats are just the first three notes over and over again. There is no displacement of rhythm, no diminution, no interesting imitation (of which there are many techniques) or addition of voices. No compositional devices used at all to build tension in the melody. Exact repetition as seen here is boring. He is falling back on the chords changing underneath, but those are repeating too. The melody is just amounting to nothing more than a predictable half-step pedal that fails to create anything beyond weak tension.
> 
> Same with the ostinato. The ostinato is just cut-and-pasted exactly like the melody is. The second bar is the same as the first. Bars two and four are the same as one and two. In fact, bar 13 of the ostinato is the exact same as the bar 1. All of them are the same. All one note, same rhythm, same everything. Anyone with knowledge of a cut-and-paste feature on a computer can do that. The predictability makes it anticlimactic.
> 
> Harmony same thing. Just three banal triads anyone could write. They don’t create any tension at all. Bb, Gm, and Dm. A typical modal progression used millions upon millions of times before by just about anyone. It repeats up to the Gm because the timing runs out. He makes no use of any sort of prolonged shortening of the harmonic rhythm in order to add to the tension. It just sits there like cut-and-pasted wallpaper. The chords are poorly voice-led with the number of voices dropping in and out of the texture (and there is no thickening/widening of voicings to reach a climax), because remember this is written at a keyboard.
> 
> Another way to tell a keyboard player composed this using a keyboard by “composer’s piano” technique is the overuse of octaves in the bass, always in the lowest register, extremely low at that, very unorthodox for an orchestra—but not for a piano/keyboard (and normal for bad piano players who can only play “composer’s piano”). Not only taxing on the ear and overall sonority, but gives the piece usually nowhere to go (such as the opening climax—no descending motion or sudden appearance of the bass, or sudden _removal_/dropping out of the bass, and so forth).
> 
> I think this is a slipshod way of trying to build suspense. Mostly because it doesn’t make sense musically. If it doesn’t build suspense musically, it is going to fall flat on the screen as well. Just repeating things ad nauseum without any change at all over and over again with only one little crescendo at the very end is ineffective.
> 
> It would have been ideal to have composed the climactic bar(s) first and then subtract features in the bars leading up to that. Also it would have been beneficial to not keep everything in the same range the whole way through. You save the extreme ranges for the climax (low and high) and work your way up to it (even in the ostinato).
> 
> And just like clockwork and the previous example analyzed there is dry, dead, stagnant “pads” literally everywhere tying the least amount of chords over the most amount of measures simply used as a crutch to tie and glue the scene together because no other skills are available to a composer with no knowledge beyond a remedial understanding of commercial arranging, bad film scoring, and rock music synth performance.
> 
> I refuse to buy into the excuse that this is some sort of necessary modern style suited for modern directing. For one thing, JJ Abrams is a modern director and writer who is terrible, writes and directs in the modern style, but for some reason, wants old school scores. So JW wrote old school style scores for modern style movies and they worked just fine. So does Michael Giacchino.
> 
> And I don’t buy into the excuse that this slipshod way of composition is necessary in order to write fast to meet deadlines. Deadlines were lightning fast in the old school days as well. And actually, well-crafting a score can help speed things up. Take a look at West Side Story. Bernstein used the tritone to tie all the music together for the entire score. That will speed up the writing process. Goldsmith did the same thing with his Oscar-winning score for The Omen. The main themes are based on sixths. Because of the numbers 6, 6, and 6 (what the movie is about—the antichrist and the numbers that identify him at the end). So the main theme was a descending 6th, then a rising 6th (three notes all a 6th apart). But he didn’t stop there. The love theme/family motif encompasses a 6th (G A E D E). He did that on purpose. Not only does it tie the music together, but it allows you to come up with ideas FASTER.
> 
> The “fight music” is extremely boring and simple to write. I’d easily accept 2 million bucks to just fill 20+ bars of the same exact boring rhythm of just one drum playing straight eighth notes and another one playing four notes per bar (just one on every downbeat). It can’t get much simpler (or boring) than that. Just useless filler. Wallpaper cut-and-pasted. It’s almost as if Zimmer sees cue sheets and bars of music as a musical liability that eats up time, instead of as assets to suit the dramatic purposes of the scene. More evidence of this is the overuse of sustained pads lasting multiple measures (sometimes even over a dozen measures) with no other music events (theme, motif, rhythm, ostinato) occurring. The cue amounts to not much more than the starting and stopping of boring ostinatos and pads that are cut and pasted.
> 
> The only thing really going for the cue is the contrary motion in the “theme” with its accompanying bass such as in bars 80-81 (3:24). And the slightly better written climax at the end. The very end however, is just bargain-basement mickey-mousing. Nothing interesting.


The dark knight soundtrack is my favorite of all time. It really works for me and this is only one cue, you might consider listening to the rest. In context of the film it works really really well and because I love the movie and the soundtrack so much it works out of context for me as well. Also, it’s a very dark movie with a distinctive tone, so if d minor fits that description than that’s fine


----------



## Simon Moon

DaveM said:


> Well, actually hammeredklavier has a point. I’m a little skeptical about the ‘hundreds’ willing and able to do what Zimmer has done. If there were even a few dozen others who have demonstrated that they can do what HZ has done, then producers/directors would be quite happy to pay them half what they pay Zimmer.
> 
> After all, the average movie-goer doesn’t know anything about HZ, but they often do know a good soundtrack when they hear one and producers/directors are likely counting on it. And Zimmer gets results. As I’ve said before, Zimmer doesn’t tend to create the quality fully fleshed out works he used to probably because studios don’t want to pay for it anymore. But that doesn’t change the fact that he has composed some film music such as that for Nine Months and Pearl Harbor that stands up there with anything JW et Al have written.


The people that finance blockbuster movies, at $10's or $100's of millions of dollars, are so loath to take any chances with a money making formula, that hiring a big name composer is a no brainer for them. Do you really think that they care about saving a $1,000,000 by going with a lesser known composer, is (in their minds) worth the 'gamble'?

Sure, not too many people will go see a movie just because of a big name composer, but having that big name composer on the movie poster is enough to give the movie just a little more cache. I just looked at the movie posters for several blockbusters that Zimmer composed the score for, and his name made the credits on every one of them.


----------



## Torkelburger

DaveM said:


> Well, actually hammeredklavier has a point. I’m a little skeptical about the ‘hundreds’ willing and able to do what Zimmer has done. If there were even a few dozen others who have demonstrated that they can do what HZ has done, then producers/directors would be quite happy to pay them half what they pay Zimmer.
> 
> After all, the average movie-goer doesn’t know anything about HZ, but they often do know a good soundtrack when they hear one and producers/directors are likely counting on it. And Zimmer gets results. As I’ve said before, Zimmer doesn’t tend to create the quality fully fleshed out works he used to probably because studios don’t want to pay for it anymore. But that doesn’t change the fact that he has composed some film music such as that for Nine Months and Pearl Harbor that stands up there with anything JW et Al have written.


No, he doesn't. And don't be skeptical. They are there and people break in to the industry all the time and no, they are not working for free. I did at least a half dozen projects for little to no money, but that was for directors who themselves were just starting out and had no budget and that was their going rate. The pay was experience. But I would not work for pennies or for slave labor for the exact same job knowing the employer has a million dollar bankroll and was a Hollywood juggernaut. Neither would you. I'd be "skeptical" if you or anybody would. I know full well that you, or anyone with even half a brain wouldn't hire an agent as is customary, and get every dime you could out of them. If there was no chance at making a fortune, now or later, then no one would write for the big companies. That makes no sense.

Further, no-names undercut top composers frequently. The idea is to get a name for yourself and get more money down the road for you (and your agent). That's how James Horner got started.

What is more, with luxury items like the Hollywood industry, I know from Economics class (in addition to music I have a degree in Accounting) that the law of supply and demand has several exceptions, one of them being that the wealthy do not always look for a bargain. That is one way how Donald Trump turned around his luxury real estate business in New York/New Jersey in the 80's/90's when the luxury market was in a slump. Supply and demand had lowered prices for his condos, etc. but instead of lowering the prices further to boost demand (making them desirable via cost-effective), he RAISED the prices in opposition to the Law so the rich would demand them more (making them desirable via luxury/keeping up with Joneses). I live in an area that is the same way (The Woodlands, TX). This is a wealthy neighborhood and people do not pay to get the most cost-effective product (like getting the "Walmart" brand of a shampoo made with the same ingredients as the higher, designer brand--they are the essentially the same). People will pay for the higher-priced item regardless because they assume it is better quality or that it is "beneath them" to by the cheaper product. Supply and demand would not apply there either. There's a lot of examples that go against the law.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Torkelburger said:


> That makes no sense. What privilege would he be getting? A lifelong career of working 80 hours a week for free slave labor to see his name on a big screen and be cool at parties? Does he live at home?


Why not hire multiple composers so that they can divide up the workload among themselves? After all, you said it's an easy job of merely padding things out with generic clichés, pastiche, and self-parody.


----------



## Torkelburger

SanAntone said:


> An irrelevancy concerning Irving Berlin, since he was one of the greatest composers of popular songs who's ever lived.


Is there any documentation on how much he actually wrote and how much was by his transcribers? How much were the lyrics and how much the music?


----------



## Torkelburger

hammeredklavier said:


> Why not hire multiple composers so that they can divide up the workload among themselves? After all, you said it's an easy job of merely padding things out with generic clichés, pastische, and self-parody.


I still don't understand what privilege you are talking about. Multiple slaves instead of one sounds like a step in the wrong direction.


----------



## Torkelburger

EvaBaron said:


> The dark knight soundtrack is my favorite of all time. It really works for me and this is only one cue, you might consider listening to the rest. In context of the film it works really really well and because I love the movie and the soundtrack so much it works out of context for me as well. Also, it’s a very dark movie with a distinctive tone, so if d minor fits that description than that’s fine


Apparently the guy who runs that channel disagrees with you, given that he picked it out of the whole movie to analyze.


----------



## SanAntone

Torkelburger said:


> Is there any documentation on how much he actually wrote and how much was by his transcribers? How much were the lyrics and how much the music?


Sounds like you don't know much about Irving Berlin. 

There is plenty of first hand testimony of his method of songwriting, including by classically trained composers such as Jerome Kern and Stephen Sondheim. He was incredibly hard-working, he once said he never stopped thinking about songwriting, and would work on a song through the night, or for days, until he got it done to his satisfaction. 

He wrote both lyrics and music for all of his songs, entirely on his own - and among them are dozens of the greatest songs of the Great American Songbook. A song such as "How Deep is the Ocean" is a masterpiece, among many other masterpieces.


----------



## Torkelburger

Great, sounds like Zimmer should do us all a favor and take up songwriting. Let me guess...


----------



## EvaBaron

Torkelburger said:


> Apparently the guy who runs that channel disagrees with you, given that he picked it out of the whole movie to analyze.


That guy can disagree with me all he wants, just like you. I still love the soundtrack and the way it builds tension is awe inspiring


----------



## Torkelburger

EvaBaron said:


> That guy can disagree with me all he wants, just like you. I still love the soundtrack and the way it builds tension is awe inspiring


There is so much better music out there though. Movies too. My opinion, of course. But I just think there really is. Really.


----------



## Forster

Torkelburger said:


> There is so much better music out there though. Movies too. My opinion, of course. But I just think there really is. Really.


Music by whom? Which movies?


----------



## DaveM

Torkelburger said:


> No, he doesn't. And don't be skeptical. They are there and people break in to the industry all the time and no, they are not working for free. I did at least a half dozen projects for little to no money, but that was for directors who themselves were just starting out and had no budget and that was their going rate. The pay was experience. But I would not work for pennies or for slave labor for the exact same job knowing the employer has a million dollar bankroll and was a Hollywood juggernaut. Neither would you. I'd be "skeptical" if you or anybody would. I know full well that you, or anyone with even half a brain wouldn't hire an agent as is customary, and get every dime you could out of them. If there was no chance at making a fortune, now or later, then no one would write for the big companies. That makes no sense.
> 
> Further, no-names undercut top composers frequently. The idea is to get a name for yourself and get more money down the road for you (and your agent). That's how James Horner got started…


I‘m not saying you don’t have a point. It’s just that it seems somewhat exaggerated if it requires diminishing Hans Zimmer’s accomplishments and if it assumes that several dozen others could accomplish the same thing. Plus, it comes across as highly anecdotal.

I understand the premise that it is hard for composers with potential to break into that business. However, I understand the dilemma of producers/directors. Someone like Zimmer has been around the block and he still has the ability to catch the audience with even short themes that open a movie or occur at important points in the movie. (Yes, I know he has a committee to draw on.) Being able to create a catchy melody with requisite hooks is a skill that not every composer has. (Sticking my neck out, it is also a skill not apparent in a lot of contemporary CM these days.)

I listen closely to soundtracks in movies and pay attention to who composed them. There are a lot of relatively no-name soundtrack composers creating music for the umpteen movies that show up on Netflix. Most of them are forgettable. Rarely do I hear melodies/tracks that I want to hear more of. If these are the composers that are trying to break in to the business then I’m not very impressed.


----------



## Torkelburger

Forster said:


> Music by whom? Which movies?
> [/QUOTE


 I’ll give one score and movie by JW which is 1978 Superman which is in the superhero genre. And jerry goldsmith’s Chinatown starring jack nicholson. Actually I’d wager that either of these men wrote better scores on their worst days than Zimmer writes on his best. The movies overall were usually better especially in the case of Williams. But I’d still take a horror movie like the omen or poltergeist over the garbage if today (good goldsmith scores).


----------



## EvaBaron

Torkelburger said:


> I’ll give one score and movie by JW which is 1978 Superman which is in the superhero genre. And jerry goldsmith’s Chinatown starring jack nicholson. Actually I’d wager that either of these men wrote better scores on their worst days than Zimmer writes on his best. The movies overall were usually better especially in the case of Williams. But I’d still take a horror movie like the omen or poltergeist over the garbage if today (good goldsmith scores).


The dark knight, interstellar and Dunkirk are incredibly good movies?!


----------



## Torkelburger

I just saw this and could only stomach the first 2 minutes. Luckily, it’s very Netflix-y and forgettable, at least the score is. More doggerel so it won’t take long to forget. I wish jerry were still here. Play me the worlds smallest violin.


----------



## Torkelburger

EvaBaron said:


> The dark knight, interstellar and Dunkirk are incredibly good movies?!


No comment.


----------



## Torkelburger

DaveM said:


> I‘m not saying you don’t have a point. It’s just that it seems somewhat exaggerated if it requires diminishing Hans Zimmer’s accomplishments and if it assumes that several dozen others could accomplish the same thing. Plus, it comes across as highly anecdotal.
> 
> I understand the premise that it is hard for composers with potential to break into that business. However, I understand the dilemma of producers/directors. Someone like Zimmer has been around the block and he still has the ability to catch the audience with even short themes that open a movie or occur at important points in the movie. (Yes, I know he has a committee to draw on.) Being able to create a catchy melody with requisite hooks is a skill that not every composer has. (Sticking my neck out, it is also a skill not apparent in a lot of contemporary CM these days.)
> 
> I listen closely to soundtracks in movies and pay attention to who composed them. There are a lot of relatively no-name soundtrack composers creating music for the umpteen movies that show up on Netflix. Most of them are forgettable. Rarely do I hear melodies/tracks that I want to hear more of. If these are the composers that are trying to break in to the business then I’m not very impressed.


what’s exaggerated is the correlation of craft with money. I keep giving detailed analysis on why the music is poorly crafted and instead of replies to my points I just get, well he makes millions. I just showed you how a terrible actor whose thick accent he can’t get rid of creates plot holes in his roles you could drive a bus through is paid millions and even given accolades by top reviewers, but that doesn’t make him a great actor with the technique and craft to be mentioned with the likes of the top actors in the field just because he makes a ton of money.


----------



## Torkelburger

DaveM said:


> I‘m not saying you don’t have a point. It’s just that it seems somewhat exaggerated if it requires diminishing Hans Zimmer’s accomplishments and if it assumes that several dozen others could accomplish the same thing. Plus, it comes across as highly anecdotal.
> 
> I understand the premise that it is hard for composers with potential to break into that business. However, I understand the dilemma of producers/directors. Someone like Zimmer has been around the block and he still has the ability to catch the audience with even short themes that open a movie or occur at important points in the movie. (Yes, I know he has a committee to draw on.) Being able to create a catchy melody with requisite hooks is a skill that not every composer has. (Sticking my neck out, it is also a skill not apparent in a lot of contemporary CM these days.)
> 
> I listen closely to soundtracks in movies and pay attention to who composed them. There are a lot of relatively no-name soundtrack composers creating music for the umpteen movies that show up on Netflix. Most of them are forgettable. Rarely do I hear melodies/tracks that I want to hear more of. If these are the composers that are trying to break in to the business then I’m not very impressed.


it is odd that you put zimmer with the top 1% of film composers and not the 99% of the rest to which he belongs. I do the same thing you do when listening and I for the life of me cannot see how on earth someone puts him in the same category with hermann, goldsmith, williams, korngold, etc.


----------



## DaveM

Torkelburger said:


> what’s exaggerated is the correlation of craft with money. I keep giving detailed analysis on why the music is poorly crafted and instead of replies to my points I just get, well he makes millions...


Perhaps you’re evaluating elements that don’t matter to those listening to his music. I’ve listened to an awful lot of Zimmer’s music and spent a lot of time editing together suites from his earlier soundtracks and I don’t hear anything that impacts me as poor craftsmanship. Maybe the craftsmanship has suffered somewhat with the ‘composition by committee’, but it wasn’t always true and isn’t universally true of _everything_ he has composed more recently.

This reminds me of another poster who as a musician has railed again Rachmaninoff’s orchestration while most of us haven’t been aware of it after years of listening to his music.


----------



## Torkelburger

Thanks for the ammunition the next time you rant against you know what and you know who.


----------



## Forster

Torkelburger said:


> I’ll give one score and movie by JW which is 1978 Superman which is in the superhero genre. And jerry goldsmith’s Chinatown starring jack nicholson. Actually I’d wager that either of these men wrote better scores on their worst days than Zimmer writes on his best. The movies overall were usually better especially in the case of Williams. But I’d still take a horror movie like the omen or poltergeist over the garbage if today (good goldsmith scores).


I asked: _"What is it that those two (Williams and Goldsmith) did for their movies that current film composers (excluding Zimmer - you've already dismissed him) don't do - and with some examples of their failures please."_









Why do many people think that classical music composed...


Modern scoring has a different aesthetic and technical paradigm to the JW/Goldsmith/Hermann tradition which was much more traditionally based when it comes to composing. There is also directorial and commercial pressure involved that has been totally influenced by the digital means of creation...




www.talkclassical.com





All you've done is to cite a couple of movies by JW and JG. Fine movies to be sure, but from the 1970s; what you don't do is look elsewhere for any up-to-date comparisons beyond Zimmer. So, I ask again, maybe you could search out the scores of some of those composers (I listed in my post #486) and point out what's wrong with them. I'm not interested in a purely musical analysis by the way. I'm interested in an analysis of the "music-with-film".


----------



## Forster

Simon Moon said:


> I just looked at the movie posters for several blockbusters that Zimmer composed the score for, and his name made the credits on every one of them.


I think you'll find that movie posters which carry credits usually include the composer, regardless of their status. Not all posters carry credits however, not even blockbusters that have a Hans Zimmer score!

New ‘Dune’ Poster Is Bad Art But Smart Marketing (forbes.com)


----------



## mikeh375

@DaveM. Dave, you mentioned Pearl Harbour in favorable light. I was going to mention it a while back because I, like Adam (@Torkelburger), hear the main theme as one of the most musically and technically weakest of his scores, tired technical moves that result in musical cliche in almost every bar. You might not believe this (yes I noted your CM jibe), but any competent composer can sit down at a piano and improvise these simple moves without even thinking about them and come up with music as good (or bad) or even better. Zimmer gets to do it because his style or approach is often in demand, proven as it is by his good track record of success, his career and business savvy and as @Simon Moon suggests, the paying clients willingness to preserve successful business models. Fair enough.

On the plus side for the consumer, the music has immediate appeal and is memorable, but I'm not going to pretend it is great music even though if fulfills those important requirements for the job. For me, it is more jaded and commercially cynical than great, or am I more jaded and cynical because I too can improvise that stuff all day and actually have done to earn money...who knows eh? Professionally speaking, I'd rate it as throw away utility music that does the job well enough and can buy nice cars and houses. As Ira Gershwin once commented.." nice work if you can get it", which is true as you can take half the day off when you're done. As always, ymmv.

@hammeredklavier mentioned farming the work out, well that's exactly what HZ has done a lot of the time at his company Remote Control Productions.

Just had to edit this post as for some reason I didn't notice TB's post 687...ooops.


----------



## Torkelburger

Forster said:


> All you've done is to cite a couple of movies by JW and JG.


Then look up their whole catalogue. You're not going to have me spinning my wheels on meaningless arbitrary assignments. Do your own homework.



Forster said:


> but from the 1970s


It makes no difference what year they are from. If someone puts a composer from today on the same exact pedestal as Mozart, meaning that composer is in Mozart's league as the same level of a composer, then I will use Mozart's music from centuries ago as a comparison. Same with people who put Zimmer on the same pedestal as Goldsmith.



Forster said:


> what you don't do is look elsewhere for any up-to-date comparisons beyond Zimmer.


Strawman. My issue is with others (not me) putting Zimmer on the same pedestal as the elite film composers of the PAST, therefore, it makes no sense to compare him to other subpar composers writing today.



Forster said:


> So, I ask again, maybe you could search out the scores of some of those composers (I listed in my post #486) and point out what's wrong with them. I'm not interested in a purely musical analysis by the way. I'm interested in an analysis of the "music-with-film".


That is a continued attempt at a red herring to distract from the discussion at hand and will continue to be ignored.


----------



## JeffD

I enjoy best music that is about the music. Music that is about the movie, only interests me when heard with the movie, or in reference to the movie.


----------



## DaveM

mikeh375 said:


> @DaveM. Dave, you mentioned Pearl Harbour in favorable light. I was going to mention it a while back because I, like Adam (@Torkelburger), hear the main theme as one of the most musically and technically weakest of his scores, tired technical moves that result in musical cliche in almost every bar. You might not believe this (yes I noted your CM jibe), but any competent composer can sit down at a piano and improvise these simple moves without even thinking about them and come up with music as good (or bad) or even better. Zimmer gets to do it because his style or approach is often in demand, proven as it is by his good track record of success, his career and business savvy and as @Simon Moon suggests, the paying clients willingness to preserve successful business models. Fair enough.


I’ve been around the block when it comes to CM and film music and I’m simply not buying the fact _that ‘any competent composer can sit down at a piano and improvise these simple moves without even thinking about them and come up with music as good (or bad) or even better.’ _If you think about it, it diminishes the skill required to compose film music if not any music for that matter.



> On the plus side for the consumer, the music has immediate appeal and is memorable, but I'm not going to pretend it is great music even though if fulfills those important requirements for the job. For me, it is more jaded and commercially cynical than great, or am I more jaded and cynical because I too can improvise that stuff all day and actually have done to earn money...who knows eh?.


If the music has immediate appeal and is memorable, which means that it is not forgettable the moment people leave the theatre, then I don’t know what more would be required of good and maybe even great film music. I’m sorry to add that you may think you can improvise that stuff all day, but it remains to be seen if it would have ‘immediate appeal and is memorable’. Just saying.

When I went to the movie Pearl Harbor, I didn’t know that the film composer was Hans Zimmer. The opening of the movie with the Zimmer-composed theme was one of the most striking I’ve ever experienced. My only experience quite like that previously was the opening of Saturday Night Fever. Also, the theme accompanying the scene of the overturned Arizona was very moving. Could anybody compose that? I don’t think so.


----------



## verandai

Successful or popular music doesn't automatically label good quality. If you make a survey about classical music, I guess it won't be rated very high among the majority of the world's population. Pop-music will probably be liked much more, generally speaking. But I think most of us in TC can agree about the overall quality of classical music.

I guess one requirement for film music is to be suitable for mainstream (=> easily understandable), which is one quality of Hans Zimmer. But to create easily understandable music says nothing about the quality of the music. IMHO it's more difficult to write high quality music which is still understandable by the mainstream.

I agree that Hans Zimmer is completely on another level than f.e. John Williams (composing-wise). But even with the simplicity HZ often creates a matching supporting atmosphere in the movie. For example I really like the movie "Interstellar" and also can enjoy the score despite its simplicity. 

But I wouldn't listen to this music without the movie (which I do with music from JW). On the other hand, many people can listen to both audio-only - it's also a question of personal taste.

Some orchestras also advertise events like "music of John Williams and Hans Zimmer" - where film music of both are played by an orchestra in a single performance. Sometimes I wonder if the managers also think that the music is on the same level - or if this has financial reasons only.

But if someone likes the music of Hans Zimmer, I'm totally fine with it. As I said, some of it I also can enjoy (f.e. Inception and Interstellar in combination with the movie). I just won't agree with the music being on the same level than f.e. JW ;-)


----------



## mikeh375

DaveM said:


> I’ve been around the block when it comes to CM and film music and I’m simply not buying the fact _that ‘any competent composer can sit down at a piano and improvise these simple moves without even thinking about them and come up with music as good (or bad) or even better.’ _If you think about it, it diminishes the skill required to compose film music if not any music for that matter.


You don't have to buy it Dave, doesn't change anything though, what I said stands and is the case. My post does not diminish skill and artifice at all, in fact what I said is a testament to those very attributes because knowing how makes the doing of it that much easier - skilled competence. The way we composers on the other side see, hear and treat the workings and end result of music is very different to how a lay person does, especially those who may romanticise the business of composing. I don't deny HZ anything, in fact I've expressed my admiration for him and I love some of his (?) music. What you lack is a perspective from the inside out and an idea of how music is handled by composers in media and in serious music too for that matter. It's damn messy even with skill and know-how.



DaveM said:


> If the music has immediate appeal and is memorable, which means that it is not forgettable the moment people leave the theatre, then I don’t know what more would be required of good and maybe even great film music. I’m sorry to add that you may think you can improvise that stuff all day, but it remains to be seen if it would have ‘immediate appeal and is memorable’. Just saying.


Oh I don't_ think_ I can do it, I can do it and have done it. I've even won awards for doing it. Not just sayin' but tellin', but thanks anyway for letting me know how you see it (btw, I too am sorry you added that last bit). One award winning 60" piece took me 20 mins to jot down.


----------



## Torkelburger

DaveM said:


> I’ve been around the block when it comes to CM


No you haven't. Not in the context of this discussion. As mike pointed out, you have no experience in composition at all but have no problem commenting on how easy or difficult it is to compose something when you have absolutely no idea. I've never heard your background in music theory, composition, performance/training in any classical instrument, or even if you can read or write music at all--as is the case with many people on here (Captainnumber36, nikola, etc.--and I'm assuming Hans Zimmer too) who trash any theoretical analysis and only seem to speak in musical buzzwords.


----------



## Torkelburger

DaveM said:


> If you think about it, it diminishes the skill required to compose film music if not any music for that matter.


Yes, that is precisely the point. I believe that this is one of the composers who is mostly responsible for that very problem you just stated above and is why I am so passionate about this. The skill required to compose music for film has diminished to ridiculously low levels. The composers you complain about on Netflix, etc. are HZ copycats who are just mimicking the nonsense started 20 years ago by this talentless hack and has created an ENTIRE INDUSTRY of talentless hacks trying to be just like HIM where it is now, unlike before, not even necessary to read or write music, play an instrument, have any working knowledge of theory at all, have any working knowledge of music history or film history (as is also evidenced by this thread), and on and on. All you need is a COMPUTER. That's it. Musical training of any kind is not required. It is revolting (IMHO). Instead of the "McMansion" (or whatever assembly line, cookie-cutter, generic term you want use), it's "McMusic". And yes, there is no reason why it can't apply to ANY music "for that matter". What's stopping them?


----------



## DaveM

mikeh375 said:


> Oh I don't_ think_ I can do it, I can do it and have done it. I've even won awards for doing so. Not just sayin' but tellin', but thanks anyway for letting me know how you see it (btw, I too am sorry you added that last bit). One award winning 60" piece took me 20 mins to jot down.


What was the work and what was the award?


----------



## DaveM

Torkelburger said:


> Yes, that is precisely the point. I believe that this is one of the composers who is mostly responsible for that very problem you just stated above and is why I am so passionate about this. The skill required to compose music for film has diminished to ridiculously low levels. The composers you complain about on Netflix, etc. are HZ copycats who are just mimicking the nonsense started 20 years ago by this talentless hack and has created an ENTIRE INDUSTRY of talentless hacks trying to be just like HIM where it is now, unlike before, not even necessary to read or write music, play an instrument, have any working knowledge of theory at all, have any working knowledge of music history or film history (as is also evidenced by this thread), and on and on. All you need is a COMPUTER. That's it. Musical training of any kind is not required. It is revolting (IMHO). Instead of the "McMansion" (or whatever assembly line, cookie-cutter, generic term you want use), it's "McMusic". And yes, there is no reason why it can't apply to ANY music "for that matter". What's stopping them?


Don’t be so hesitant to express your feelings! Out with it man, out with it!


----------



## mikeh375

DaveM said:


> What was the work and what was the award?


I wouldn't say here and I can't be bothered to PM you so figure it out yourself via my signature if you wish.


----------



## DaveM

mikeh375 said:


> I wouldn't say here and I can't be bothered to PM you so figure it out yourself via my signature if you wish.


I did just that. Listened to some of your music on your website and on YouTube. I like a lot of it. You’re very skilled at what you do.


----------



## Forster

Torkelburger said:


> Then look up their whole catalogue. You're not going to have me spinning my wheels on meaningless arbitrary assignments. Do your own homework.
> 
> 
> 
> It makes no difference what year they are from. If someone puts a composer from today on the same exact pedestal as Mozart, meaning that composer is in Mozart's league as the same level of a composer, then I will use Mozart's music from centuries ago as a comparison. Same with people who put Zimmer on the same pedestal as Goldsmith.
> 
> 
> 
> Strawman. My issue is with others (not me) putting Zimmer on the same pedestal as the elite film composers of the PAST, therefore, it makes no sense to compare him to other subpar composers writing today.
> 
> 
> 
> That is a continued attempt at a red herring to distract from the discussion at hand and will continue to be ignored.


No strawman, no red herring. You claimed that 



Torkelburger said:


> I was interested in going through this old thread again and had planned on answering an old post, but decided to start from the top. I'll answer this, as* I do not believe any current film composer is worthy of being named alongside JW or Goldsmith or any of the previous greats.*


My subsequent posts have endeavoured to get you to back up your assertion, but you have overlooked my requests, preferring to focus on only one "current" (Zimmer) and "analyse" pieces of his work that you are passionate in finding boring and repetitive.

You are of course entitled to your opinion about Zimmer (with which I disagree) and to ignore my requests for some evidence to support your original claim (with which I also disagree) but I feel obliged to point out for the benefit of other readers that my posts have been on-topic, are not irrelevant and no more of a distraction from the topic in hand than your sweeping generalisation about one composer as a basis for the dismissal of today's film composers. You may feel that your extended musical examination gives you some authority on the subject, but your arguments give you none.


----------



## Forster

It is often argued (in various threads here over time) that audience responses to music are individual and cannot be generalised. It crops up most acutely when those who are passionate about "modern" music rebut claims from those who dismiss it as "ugly", saying that they find it beautiful.

The debate about film music potentially reinforces the claim that actually, music elicits common responses, because it is so easy to assemble a score to push an audience's emotional buttons. If little or no skill is required to produce scores for, say, Nolan's Batman movies, this suggests that the millions who have watched and enjoyed these movies have responded well to a very simple musical formula.

This doesn't rule out the possibility that _some _audience members will not enjoy the film (or the music). However, I would guess that many millions more go to the movies than attend classical concerts, and this is one argument where numbers might matter. So many people report positively about the same movies and their scores that it's a supportable claim that (despite protests from individualists), there is much greater commonality in our musical responses than previously thought.


----------



## DaveM

Forster said:


> So many people report positively about the same movies and their scores that it's a supportable claim that (despite protests from individualists), there is much greater commonality in our musical responses than previously thought.


Every once in awhile you see an extreme example of that. The Francis Lai theme from the 1970 Love Story was probably responsible for the sale of several million albums of the soundtrack. The movie comes across as rather dated (not to mention the limited acting skills) these days, but it was a cleverly composed theme for the subject matter.


----------



## Torkelburger

Fine, pick one then and what exactly is Your assertion? That they Are equally skilled in film and music composition as Williams et Al?


----------



## Torkelburger

And do not pick the newmans. They are old school, and I am acquainted with their family (when I was out there). Joey was a very close friend ever since our days at Berklee and was a groomsman in my first wedding. Don’t pick them.


----------



## Torkelburger

Zimmer qualifies as a current film composer of which my post applied. You’ve offered absolutely nothing of value to what I’ve said in my two lengthy analyses of his work. You just hand wave by saying you disagree. If you think I’m going to waste any more of my time taking apart other composers drivel with long thought out posts at your command just so you can dismiss it in 1 sentence with more hand waving, think again. I won’t do it unless you engage in an actual analytical theoretical discourse.

we are starting with zimmer and will go to whoever you want AFTER we are done with him. Otherwise I can just hand wave you away too. It’s really easy.


----------



## Forster

I think it best to restate my position on the merits of "film music", since some may be labouring under a misapprehension that I think comparison between past and present masters of film scoring is a fruitful pastime.

Film music is composed for films - obviously - and consequently, I don't attempt to make comparative judgements about film scores (or their composers) without reference to the films they accompany. It means that for me, the value of a film score is to be found in the extent to which it achieves what a film's production team (director, producer, composer et al) want it to achieve. It is not to be found by considering how "great" the melodies are, or the harmonies are in the same way that one might judge a stand-alone symphony.

(btw - When a composer decides to present a suite derived from a movie at a concert hall, the basis for judgement changes. Personally, I am extremely unlikely to go to such a presentation. I'm not much interested in film scores outside of the movie context.)

Consequently, unlike some other members, I love the movies I love without necessarily being aware of the contribution made by the score: it's too complex a process, with too many elements involved. This applies to most of the movies I've watched, from the silent era, through the golden era and up to the present day. The fact that I can recall memorable moments from the scores of my favourite movies, hum the tunes, sniff at the thought of emotional climaxes highlighted by soaring violins or mournful piano does not mean that the score has been a great success or a great failure. The fact that I can name "great" film composers and recall some of their "great" scores only means I have watched many of their movies, paid attention to who they are, and learned sufficient of their habits to be able to identify a few of them before seeing their credits. It also means that any kind of technical analysis (of which I am not capable anyway) to evaluate the worth of a score would be a redundant exercise.

As for the OP - it matters not a jot to me whether film music is classical or not.

To be clear, this is all my _opinion_. I know others think quite differently from me on this subject, and if at times I have seemed somewhat dictatorial in my statements on the issue, I'm sorry. I'm just as committed to my opinions as others are who also wish to assert their feelings on the great film scores and their composers.


----------



## HansZimmer

Torkelburger said:


> I won’t do it unless you engage in an actual analytical theoretical discourse.


Why should we, if we think that art is about emotions?

That John Williams is a classically trained composer while Hans Zimmer is a self-taught DAW composer is a known fact. In my top 10 film scores there are also works of John Williams, so I agree with your point: John Williams > Hans Zimmer. If they both write melodies that I like, but one of the two has a greater technical formation, then of course wins the one who is more prepared.

However, what I think is that we can forgive Hans Zimmer for being a DAW composer if he writes other melodies like these.






You might say that the general public loves orchestral music of Hans Zimmer because he has never heard the one of Mozart, but you can't use this argument in this forum. As you can see, there are more people here who like at least one melody of Hans Zimmer. Even mikeh375, that seems to partially agree with you, has expressed positive opinions about some melodies of Hans Zimmer.

That said, I think that the part after 4:53 in the video above is sweet and sad like the best adagios of classical music and that it fits perfectly with the scene. I think that the one of Lion King is one of the most effective scores in the history of cinema. I can't help falling in love with such melodies.
If you don't understand that art is about emotions I can't do nothing for you. Hans Zimmer, like the best film score composers, knows how to touch human emotions, and that's why he is paid 2 milions for each score. That he can be replaced by anyone is only your personal opinion.


----------



## HansZimmer

verandai said:


> Successful or popular music doesn't automatically label good quality. If you make a survey about classical music, I guess it won't be rated very high among the majority of the world's population. Pop-music will probably be liked much more, generally speaking.


Yes, but it's because pop music is a great business while classical music is not. It's not the people don't like classical music, it's that they don't know it because it's not publicized like other products that the companies want to sell.

If mainstream radios would start to push classical music, it would become more popular.
Alternatively, if you use classical music for scoring one or more films, the pieces used as scores would become popular.


----------



## SanAntone

HansZimmer said:


> Yes, but it's because pop music is a great business while classical music is not. It's not the people don't like classical music, it's that they don't know it because it's not publicized like other products that the companies want to sell.


No, Classical music is not suffering from bad promotion. 

Pop music is popular because it is designed to appeal to people with catchy and infectious melodies and harmonies, propulsive rhythms meant to get your body moving, and all done to be easily memorable. Most Classical music is nothing like this and requires more work on the part of the listener to appreciate, and even when understood does not offer the same kind of instant gratification that Pop music offers.


----------



## Forster

Not that there's anything wrong with instant gratification.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Forster said:


> Not that there's anything wrong with instant gratification.


Exactly. Nerdy people are into nerdy things, just like sports or games, for instance. Music is just not really that essential to human lives; there are people around me who don't really care for any music in their lives and don't feel the need to. Most "arguments about banality in music" have very limited objective validity when it comes to appreciation.


----------



## Forster

Well it's certainly essential to my life. Both the nerdy variety and the instant gratification variety.


----------



## SanAntone

I didn't say there was anything wrong with Pop, nor did I say it was banal, and didn't use the word "nerdy.". 

I was responding to the claim that if only Classical music were promoted as much as Pop it would be as popular. I don't think anyone really believes that, and that Classical music, as well as Jazz and other genres have never intended to use mass appeal as the standard of their purpose.

I am a huge fan of all kinds of music, Pop, classical and most everything in between.


----------



## hammeredklavier

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


----------



## pianozach

SanAntone said:


> Sounds like you don't know much about Irving Berlin.
> 
> There is plenty of first hand testimony of his method of songwriting, including by classically trained composers such as Jerome Kern and Stephen Sondheim. He was incredibly hard-working, he once said he never stopped thinking about songwriting, and would work on a song through the night, or for days, until he got it done to his satisfaction.
> 
> He wrote both lyrics and music for all of his songs, entirely on his own - and among them are dozens of the greatest songs of the Great American Songbook. A song such as "How Deep is the Ocean" is a masterpiece, among many other masterpieces.


I once musical directed an original biographical *Irving Berlin* musical. 

OMG: So. Many. Songs.

So many styles, from ragtime to patriotic to holiday to romance to comedy. Placed in the proper contexts (by decade), there were so many songs that were so very brilliant.


----------



## Luchesi

I wonder how many folks in here can look at a score and understand what Torkelburger is trying to get across to musicians and non-musicians. As in other threads, I'm interested in this question. To me, it seems to be THE question!

His posts are interesting. Where else? I try to follow along.


----------



## SanAntone

Luchesi said:


> I wonder how many folks in here can look at a score and understand what Torkelburger is trying to get across to musicians and non-musicians. As in other threads, I'm interested in this question. To me, it seems to be THE question!
> 
> His posts are interesting. Where else? I try to follow along.


Torkelburger can be applauded for his analyses of some film scores. However, I find his approach to be one dimensional and ignores the primary skill necessary for any successful film composer: having the aural imagination to create music that enhances dramatic situations.

One need not be a classically trained composer to possess this skill. And Hans Zimmer has it in spades, and has been chosen by dozens of directors to score their films because of this skill.


----------



## Luchesi

SanAntone said:


> Torkelburger can be applauded for his analyses of some film scores. However, I find his approach to be one dimensional and ignores the primary skill necessary for any successful film composer: having the aural imagination to create music that enhances dramatic situations.
> 
> One need not be a classically trained composer to possess this skill. And Hans Zimmer has it in spades, and has been chosen by dozens of directors to score their films because of this skill.


If that's the question, you're right. It doesn't ignore the skill of helping people enjoy a film. That's so obvious there's no debate. What do we tell young music students if they've decided that learning about film scores can substitute for studying CM? Some adults would say, it's ok, it's what they like. It sounds like CM to them.


----------



## DaveM

A couple of posters have, in so many words, described HZ’s works as, at best just okay, but not anywhere in the top tier of JW and overall the work of a limited talent hack.

Well I think HZ is right up there with JW. I‘m probably repeating myself, but the following work isn’t the work of a hack. There are 5 minutes of solid, well fleshed-out music with 3 distinct melodies and a beautiful 5 minutes it is:






This was described as one of his poorer works. I think it is one of his best and I would challenge anyone to equal it, let alone surpass it as an engaging opening to the movie:


----------



## Forster

Luchesi said:


> I wonder how many folks in here can look at a score and understand what Torkelburger is trying to get across to musicians and non-musicians. As in other threads, I'm interested in this question. To me, it seems to be THE question!
> 
> His posts are interesting. Where else? I try to follow along.


You've raised this before (in other threads) and whilst musicians can read a score and hear the music in their head at the same time (and we non-musicians can only see a code to be translated), that doesn't, I think, give them some special advantage in deciding what does and doesn't suit the image on the screen.



SanAntone said:


> Torkelburger can be applauded for his analyses of some film scores. However, I find his approach to be one dimensional


Well quite. TB may be able to identify the different components of the score, but whether it is "weird [...] boring, repetitive, unimaginative" played by "ridiculous, nonsensical forces" is still a matter of opinion/taste.


----------



## Forster

SanAntone said:


> I didn't say there was anything wrong with Pop, nor did I say it was banal, and didn't use the word "nerdy."


Indeed you didn't. I was merely cautioning (others) against reading into your post, the negative usually associated with instant gratification.

A further thought. Some of cinema's best movies have used familiar/popular tunes to help provide instant gratification...a rapid connection between the emotions on screen and the emotions of the audience. For example, _Casablanca's_ use of the Marseillaise and_ As Time Goes By. _Steiner's score plays with the latter to maintain the sense of loss, frustration, unrequited love etc. as well as deploying some familiar tropes for humorous or threatening intent. Pull his score to pieces technically and I suspect there's not much there of originality or imagination.. but it works. (He uses other popular tunes too - _Knock on Wood_ springs to mind, prompted by the Wiki entry for the movie!)


----------



## mikeh375

DaveM said:


> A couple of posters have, in so many words, described HZ’s works as, at best just okay, but not anywhere in the top tier of JW and overall the work of a limited talent hack.
> 
> 
> This was described as one of his poorer works. I think it is one of his best and I would challenge anyone to equal it, let alone surpass it as an engaging opening to the movie:


I thought we had finished with this.
I stand 1000% behind what I said about how relatively easy the PH theme music and similar is to create ( given the parameters and as pure music that is, not in relation to the film) - good composers will tell you the same. In my opinion, it's a good idea to not worship too much the act of composition as you don't understand the process and the relationship between technique and composing. Certainly don't _overestimate_ how difficult it can be to come up with a tune that uses as it's basis a chord progression that has been used many times over with slight variations. If a composer has been trained, or has much experience or feel in the art of melodic construction (even a basic knowledge of things like overall arch, phrasing, climactic points, suspensions etc), then there is no barrier to eventually finding the 'right' notes over such a simple harmonic backdrop, right notes insofar as the composer (and/or director). may 'feel' them to be right. Sure, HZ came up with what he did and it does the job it was intending to do, but make no mistake, someone else could've come up with a different theme based on the same or similar common chord progressions. One that may well have been as equally compelling for the movie and for one listener in particular. I'm not saying any Tom, Dick or Sally could write a memorable film theme btw, I'm saying that the ability to do so is not as unique as you seem to think.

HZ has done so much better than PH's main (love) theme on a purely musical level imv, and just to be clear, I'm not saying that writing a simple, effective and memorable tune like this and within this genre is easy, it takes ability and musical experience to get it just right. However, as a piece of music, the PH theme's genre and mood etc, is 'easy' in the sense that its like can be composed without too much angst and profound searching. Doing so can take some composers an hour or less, or a day ot two, or maybe longer. Good pianist composers will be able to readily improvise pastiche of the PH theme because the material is basic compared to say chromatic harmony or Fugal writing and as such, the material is relatively easy to play with and manipulate. Your challenge could be taken up by many composers, me included. As Adam (@Torkelburger) mentioned earlier, you will probably even find that the guy/gal serving a beer to you at their 'survival job' bar in L.A. can probably do it too. Again, it is not a unique ability to write themes and tunes - even memorable ones - it's a necessary skill for a decent composer.

Anyway, in my view, HZ's really consistent and impressive talent is in doing very well the hardest part about film scoring - coming up with the idea (be that conceptual as well as musical), in the first place and then executing it rather brilliantly in sound, as @SanAntone pointed out above. Scores like 'Interstellar', 'Inception', 'Gladiator' and the two note minor third theme in 'The Dark Knight', all evoke a musical sound-world that is admirably suited for the purpose. The knack of finding the right notes, suitable emotional and aural weight and that unique soundworld are almost impossible to teach for there is no correct, final and authoritative solution to solving a given score other than what is approved in that moment in post-production when, given the subjectivity, the brief, the creative partnership, personalities and creative journey of the people involved, a cue or theme feels 'just right'.

For me, and on a purely musical level, HZ has created much in the way of innovation and originality of approach and yes, good music too. So much so that his work has been slavishly copied and has established new ways of scoring...that's an achievement in my book. PH's theme not so much. Of course ymmv.


----------



## HansZimmer

Luchesi said:


> If that's the question, you're right. It doesn't ignore the skill of helping people enjoy a film. That's so obvious there's no debate. What do we tell young music students if they've decided that learning about film scores can substitute for studying CM? Some adults would say, it's ok, it's what they like. It sounds like CM to them.


I suppose that classical trained composers use their knowledge in film scores too. For example, the score of Home Alone (composed by John Williams) has some poliphonic parts. However, when a film score contains nothing relevant at the compositional level, if it is well orchestrated might be good for learning about orchestration.

That said, no one here is saying that the students must learn John Williams instead of Bach, but a student in this discussion wrote that they had a lesson with John Williams about how to orchestrate his music. Film music can not replace the most relevant works of classical music, but it can be a bonus.


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

The best students will learn from just about every kind of resource available anyway.


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

*June 1987:*
Interviewer: Is writing music for a film anything the same as writing incidental music for a play in a theater?
M. Rózsa: Yes, exactly.
Interviewer: [A bit surprised] Exactly the same?
M. Rózsa: Yes, because mostly the music accompanies the actors, and instead of singing they are speaking. The musical ideas are in the music.
Interviewer: Do you feel that some of this film music works well away from the film, as a concert suite?
M. Rózsa: In my case it did.


----------



## mikeh375

VoiceFromTheEther said:


> *June 1987:*
> Interviewer: Is writing music for a film anything the same as writing incidental music for a play in a theater?
> M. Rózsa: Yes, exactly.
> Interviewer: [A bit surprised] Exactly the same?
> M. Rózsa: Yes, because mostly the music accompanies the actors, and instead of singing they are speaking. The musical ideas are in the music.
> Interviewer: Do you feel that some of this film music works well away from the film, as a concert suite?
> M. Rózsa: In my case it did.


ahhh.... but theatre music is not 'concert music'. There is a big difference so far as a composer and especially actual composition is concerned - the paradigm is different with concert music and consequently the way music is written and expressed. A concert suite if done well can work in a classical context and clearly did in a great like Rozsa's case.


----------



## HansZimmer

mikeh375 said:


> However, as a piece of music, the PH theme's genre and mood etc, is 'easy' in the sense that its like can be composed without too much angst and profound searching. Doing so can take some composers an hour or less, or a day ot two, or maybe longer.


The coffe machine in a company is broken and so the director calls the technician.
The technician bashes the machine with a hammer. Now the coffee machine works.

The technician: "200 dollars!"
The director: "200 dollars only for a hammer blow?"
The techinician: "No, 3 dollars for the hammer blow, and 197 dollars because I know where and how to hammer the machine to make it work".


Hans Zimmer is like the technician: he knows how and where to hammer.

Have you ever heard about the "law of value"? It's one of the most important concept of the theory of Marx.
The theory says that the value of a product must be determined by the amount of time and effort used to produce the product.
Now, in the popular culture the debate about marxism Vs capitalism might be still opened, but not in the accademic circle, because it's easy to explain the fundamental error of the theory of Marx.

In reality, the value of a product is determined by the qualities of the product: the results, not the work!

I think that some people obsessed with music theory do the same error of Marx. They think that that a complex music piece has a greater value than a more simple music piece, but it's not true. You can compose a more simple or more complex piece, but the quality of it depends on the results: his effectiveness in transmitting the right emotion.

I wrote that John Williams used poliphony in the Home Alone score. In the forum of John Williams some persons wrote that it's a common technique of John Williams to use polyphony to create tension, so you might find many examples of poliphony in tension scenes.
What I want to say is that an artist doesn't always write complex melodies to show how well he knows the music theory (this is a boor, not an artist), but he knows when it's the time to write a simple melody and when it's the time to write more complex melodies: everything must be functional to emotions.


That said, I seriously doubt that writing music is simply a math work. How many persons take a degree in composition each year? Why don't we have millions of Mozart? I think that the answer is simple: because there are many people who understand music theory, but only some of them are ARTISTS who know where to hammer.


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

mikeh375 said:


> ahhh.... but theatre music is not 'concert music'. There is a big difference so far as a composer and especially composition is concerned. A concert suite if done well then yes that might work in a classical context and clearly did in a great like Rozsa's case.


The structural fixation / comparisons with "concert music" are strange to me. I am beginning to think that a dead horse strawman is being beaten here, even by seasoned forumers, and I do not clearly see to what end. It should be clear to every "ear" that a Zimmer track is not a Schubert sonata. Even the adjective 'symphonic' describes instrumental forces, not form. The purpose of my quoting of Rózsa is to show that he thought film scores were equivalent to live stage music, which in turn to him would obviously be a part of the same larger, overarching tradition.


----------



## mikeh375

HansZimmer said:


> The coffe machine in a company is broken and so the director calls the technician.
> The technician bashes the machine with a hammer. Now the coffee machine works.
> 
> The technician: "200 dollars!"
> The director: "200 dollars only for a hammer blow?"
> The techinician: "No, 3 dollars for the hammer blow, and 197 dollars because I know where and how to hammer the machine to make it work".
> 
> 
> Hans Zimmer is like the technician: he knows how and where to hammer.
> 
> Have you ever heard about the "law of value"? It's one of the most important concept of the theory of Marx.
> The theory says that the value of a product must be determined by the amount of time and effort used to produce the product.
> Now, in the popular culture the debate about marxism Vs capitalism might be still opened, but not in the accademic circle, because it's easy to explain the fundamental error of the theory of Marx.
> 
> In reality, the value of a product is determined by the qualities of the product: the results, not the work!
> 
> I think that some people obsessed with music theory do the same error of Marx. They think that that a complex music piece has a greater value than a more simple music piece, but it's not true. You can compose a more simple or more complex piece, but the quality of it depends on the results: his effectiveness in transmitting the right emotion.
> 
> I wrote that John Williams used poliphony in the Home Alone score. In the forum of John Williams some persons wrote that it's a common technique of John Williams to use polyphony to create tension, so you might find many examples of poliphony in tension scenes.
> What I want to say is that an artist doesn't always write complex melodies to show how well he knows the music theory (this is a boor, not an artist), but he knows when it's the time to write a simple melody and when it's the time to write more complex melodies: everything must be functional to emotions.
> 
> 
> That said, I seriously doubt that writing music is simply a math work. How many persons take a degree in composition each year? Why don't we have millions of Mozart? I think that the answer is simple: because there are many people who understand music theory, but only some of them are ARTISTS who know where to hammer.


Hans, you might not like what I'm saying, but there it is. It's true. I'm not so much questioning the quality of PH's theme (which is more subjective anyway), as much as I'm exposing the mechanics and ways of how easy or difficult it can actually be to write certain styles of music. The same mechanics and methods by the way, that help instill any resulting work with value. Being fluent (which is what learning how to compose does to a composer), does not degrade anything at all. And being fluent enables speed which is something needed in the film scoring business. Being technically fluent is also how Hermann manged to re-write cues during lunch breaks.
Please don't give me the 'technique versus heart' argument as it is a tired, cliched one often misunderstood by non-composers. Your comments on polyphony show that you don't understand the complicated relationship between technique and "heart" as you put it. The two are not mutually exclusive, rather a vital and symbiotic pairing and mastering the balance brings out the artists' heart even more, not chase it away. Even HZ has technique for crying out loud.


----------



## mikeh375

VoiceFromTheEther said:


> The structural fixation / comparisons with "concert music" are strange to me. I am beginning to think that a dead horse strawman is being beaten here, even by seasoned forumers, and I do not clearly see to what end. It should be clear to every "ear" that a Zimmer track is not a Schubert sonata. Even the adjective 'symphonic' describes instrumental forces, not form. The purpose of my quoting of Rózsa is to show that he thought film scores were equivalent to live stage music, which in turn to him would obviously be a part of the same larger, overarching tradition.
> 
> It is your narrative interpretation that I find lacking, not data. You act as if Dr. Rózsa, had he been alive, would gladly see his film scores driven out of this forum.


Sorry, I can't do this all again. I explained my reasoning earlier in this thread. I hope you are interested enough to go find it. My point goes exactly to the heart of why classical music and film music are not the same imv. certainly from a composers p.o.v. Suffice to say my points are confirmed by simply listening to something like Schindler's List and then JW's 1st violin concerto. That says everything I tried to only in the best way - via music and not lengthy explanatory posts.....


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

mikeh375 said:


> Sorry, I can't do this all again. I explained my reasoning earlier in this thread.


That's exactly what I am referring to.


----------



## mikeh375

VoiceFromTheEther said:


> That's exactly what I am referring to.


can you link it for me and maybe we'll take it from there....I meant_ very early on_ in this thread iirc.
No wait, scrap that @VoiceFromTheEther . Sorry, I'm not being rude, I don't really want to spend time going over points I've already made. If you listen to the 2 JW pieces I mentioned above, that really is what I mean. They come from different parts of the composer and the reason for that is clear. Concert music for me is born out of a free expression of and by the composer, not one dictated by the timings, phrases, harmonic language, orchestration and emotions of a film and maybe a meddling director with temp tracks.
The one thing I do know is that a composer will have to put on different musical and technical hats for each discipline and they are not necessarily mutually inclusive. There is a necessary compromise in film music and imv that goes against film music being good or should I say pure, concert music for the most part (excluding the more traditionally orientated JW and a few others) as I define concert music that is.


----------



## Forster

VoiceFromTheEther said:


> The structural fixation / comparisons with "concert music" are strange to me. I am beginning to think that a dead horse strawman is being beaten here, even by seasoned forumers, and I do not clearly see to what end. It should be clear to every "ear" that a Zimmer track is not a Schubert sonata. Even the adjective 'symphonic' describes instrumental forces, not form. The purpose of my quoting of Rózsa is to show that he thought film scores were equivalent to live stage music, which in turn to him would obviously be a part of the same larger, overarching tradition.
> 
> It is your narrative interpretation that I find lacking, not data. You act as if Dr. Rózsa, had he been alive, would have gladly seen his film scores driven out of this forum.


I read the quote from Rozsa as saying that incidental music for the theatre - not just 'live stage music' - has some similarities with film scores.


----------



## Luchesi

Forster said:


> You've raised this before (in other threads) and whilst musicians can read a score and hear the music in their head at the same time (and we non-musicians can only see a code to be translated), that doesn't, I think, give them some special advantage in deciding what does and doesn't suit the image on the screen.


As I often say, "What about the children? What about the next generation of CM students (composers, musicologists, critics) coming up?" You're an educator. What are the very natural reactions of young people? They're naturally lazy, they want the easier, more entertaining music to study (there are very good reasons for this from science, so laziness is too harsh a word I guess).


----------



## SanAntone

Luchesi said:


> As I often say, "What about the children? What about the next generation of CM students (composers, musicologists, critics) coming up?" You're an educator. What are the very natural reactions of young people? They're naturally lazy, they want the easier, more entertaining music to study (there are very good reasons for this from science, so laziness is too harsh a word I guess).


You make a mistake to worry about the future of CM and composers, etc. based on anything you read on TC. This forum is a tiny snapshot of oddball opinions about CM and does not represent the reality of what is going on both in the CM community as a whole and in music schools where serious students are being taught.


----------



## Luchesi

SanAntone said:


> You make a mistake to worry about the future of CM and composers, etc. based on anything you read on TC. This forum is a tiny snapshot of oddball opinions about CM and does not represent the reality of what is going on both in the CM community as a whole and in music schools where serious students are being taught.


You're disagreeing that I should worry about the future of CM.

I don’t worry about grownups. If they’re not already a musicologist, composer or educated critic etc., they've made their choices (hopefully they were given the opportunity).


----------



## pianozach

Forster said:


> Indeed you didn't. I was merely cautioning (others) against reading into your post, the negative usually associated with instant gratification.
> 
> A further thought. *Some of cinema's best movies have used familiar/popular tunes to help provide instant gratification...a rapid connection between the emotions on screen and the emotions of the audience*. For example, _Casablanca's_ use of the Marseillaise and_ As Time Goes By. _Steiner's score plays with the latter to maintain the sense of loss, frustration, unrequited love etc. as well as deploying some familiar tropes for humorous or threatening intent. Pull his score to pieces technically and I suspect there's not much there of originality or imagination.. but it works. (He uses other popular tunes too - _Knock on Wood_ springs to mind, prompted by the Wiki entry for the movie!)


Having studied the art of accompaniment of *Silent Films*, this is a strategy heavily used back pre-1930 for live soundtracks. 

The accompanist would choose a song that was well-known for a particular scene, and the instrumental version they played would still resonate with the audience.


----------



## pianozach

Fun thread.

One thing barely mentioned in this thread, if at all, is the turn-around time composers have to create a score for a film. Between the time a film is in pre-production, and the time to film and edit it can be rather lengthy, months, sometimes many, many months.

Oftimes scenes are (or the entire film is) rushed to a composer, and told they've got a very limited time frame in which to get the music composed and recorded. The length of time a composer has to write the score varies from project to project; depending on the post-production schedule, a composer may have *as little as two weeks or as much as three months* to write the score.

THAT, in and of itself, is a special skill. The guy serving drinks between gigs may be able to create a film score, but can he do it in two weeks?

Major film composers have this component down to an art . . . they've got all the equipment, software, and intimate knowledge.


----------



## DaveM

mikeh375 said:


> I thought we had finished with this.
> I stand 1000% behind what I said about how relatively easy the PH theme music and similar is to create ( given the parameters and as pure music that is, not in relation to the film) - good composers will tell you the same.


Well, I wasn’t finished with it. Let’s review what you are 1000% standing behind regarding the Pearl Harbor theme/music:


mike375 said:


> I, like Adam (@Torkelburger), hear the main theme as one of the most musically and technically weakest of his scores, tired technical moves that result in musical cliche in almost every bar. You might not believe this (yes I noted your CM jibe), but any competent composer can sit down at a piano and improvise these simple moves without even thinking about them and come up with music as good (or bad) or even better…


Later in the same post, you say this:


> On the plus side for the consumer, *the music has immediate appeal and is memorable, but I'm not going to pretend it is great music even though if fulfills those important requirements for the job.* For me, it is more jaded and commercially cynical than great, or am I more jaded and cynical because I too can improvise that stuff all day..


And now this:


> In my opinion, *it's a good idea to not worship too much the act of composition as you don't understand the process and the relationship between technique and composing.* Certainly don't _overestimate_ how difficult it can be to come up with a tune that uses as it's basis a chord progression that has been used many times over with slight variations. If a composer has been trained, or has much experience or feel in the art of melodic construction (even a basic knowledge of things like overall arch, phrasing, climactic points, suspensions etc), then there is no barrier to eventually finding the 'right' notes over such a simple harmonic backdrop, right notes insofar as the composer (and/or director). may 'feel' them to be right.


I am not a professional composer, though as a fairly good pianist, I have done a little composing. So, I don’t have the compositional experience you have, but I do have a decades long experience in finding both classical and popular works that have exceptional melodies since melody is one of my most important requirements in music.

Of all your comments about Zimmer’s Pearl Harbor music, the following is most interesting and important to me: ‘*the music has immediate appeal and is memorable, but I'm not going to pretend it is great music even though if fulfills those important requirements for the job.’ *

You have mentioned, more than once, to the effect that I don’t know what I’m talking about when it comes to this music because I don’t have your compositional experience. My response is that when it comes to an _opinion of music that has, from a melodic point of view, immediate appeal and is memorable,_ my opinion is, at least, as educated as yours.

You imply that any average composer can come up with this kind of melodic theme in an hour or so. The problem is that a composer may think they have come up with a great tune in a few minutes, but the question as to whether, in the end, it is successfully developed to have ‘_immediate appeal and be memorable_’ is not determined by the composer, it is determined by minions like me who may know nothing about ’the process and relationship between technique and composing’, but go to a theatre and react, positively or not, to the soundtrack of the movie.

Hans Zimmer has composed a lot of (to use your terminology re: the PH music) memorable soundtrack music with immediate appeal which fulfills those important requirements for the job. I can think of no more important parameters whether it is in the context of the movie itself or as a separate suite.


----------



## Forster

Luchesi said:


> As I often say, "What about the children? What about the next generation of CM students (composers, musicologists, critics) coming up?" You're an educator. What are the very natural reactions of young people? They're naturally lazy, they want the easier, more entertaining music to study (there are very good reasons for this from science, so laziness is too harsh a word I guess).


I'm not sure how your question relates to my post. My point was that since a film score's value should be primarily considered in its proper context, the ability to read the score is not relevant for that exercise.

The ability to read a score is of course essential for educating those young people who wish to become musicians. But that's not the subject here.


----------



## HansZimmer

SanAntone said:


> No, Classical music is not suffering from bad promotion.
> 
> Pop music is popular because it is designed to appeal to people with catchy and infectious melodies and harmonies, propulsive rhythms meant to get your body moving, and all done to be easily memorable. Most Classical music is nothing like this and requires more work on the part of the listener to appreciate, and even when understood does not offer the same kind of instant gratification that Pop music offers.


I think that my new discussion is a good answer to your post: Why do many people say that supermarket music is more attractive than classical music?


----------



## hammeredklavier

Eva Yojimbo said:


> You are incredibly delusional if you think it's "easy money" making "songs for teens." Do you have any idea how many people are trying to do that and failing? As I've said, if doing such a thing were easy then there would be more Max Martins out there. If you think it's easy, by all means take your music education and go write some hit songs for teens. See how easy it is. If you're actually good at it, trust me, you will be successful.


Your post reminded me of this, from this thread-


Torkelburger said:


> That's what the JOB _PAYS_. As long as someone is able to do it, then that's what they get paid. There is no shortage in Los Angeles within the next thousand years of anyone not being able to do it. If that entire list of composers died tomorrow, there would be literally hundreds of composers ready, willing and ABLE to fill the position. The position that pays 2 million dollars. I know at least a dozen of them personally. I lived and worked in LA for 9 years in the industry. And yes, whoever got the job would get 2 million dollars. Hundreds of people living out there this very moment can do it. Easily.


----------



## mikeh375

^^^ Eva Y and TB are talking about different things though.


----------



## HansZimmer

Luchesi said:


> As I often say, "What about the children? What about the next generation of CM students (composers, musicologists, critics) coming up?" You're an educator. What are the very natural reactions of young people? They're naturally lazy, they want the easier, more entertaining music to study (there are very good reasons for this from science, so laziness is too harsh a word I guess).


Some users in this discussion wrote that the film scores wich use the same instrumentation and musical language of classical music are not classical music because it's written to accompany images. I still don't understand the logic and how this would be different from incidental music, but ok.

Unlike other users, your point is about quality: "film scores consist of poor writing and technique and so they are not useful to study music theory".

Could you please explain why exactly would this piece from "Home Alone" ("Setting the Trap) be "poor writing"?







Here below you find the arranged version contained in the film: the score in the video contains technical explanations.







The countersubject in the fugue after 1:47 is the melody of this vocal piece, which according to me is an example of good vocal music.







Then could you please explain why this piece from Star Wars ("March of the Resistance") would be poor writing?






And why this (arranged version) would be poor orchestration?







It seems to me that some persons suffer of the bias "long and boring" ---> good music, "short, pleasant and melodic" ---> bad music.
This is not how things work. A piece can be melodic, plesant, appealing and smart at the same time.
It's certainly true that film scores composers are required to write music with an immediate appealing, but it's not that the music with immediate appealing has a low quality: it's true the contrary. If you write music which is not only smart, but also pleasant, you are a "Serie A composer". After all, why should I listen to music which is not pleasant? I like the composers who write good melodies.


----------



## HansZimmer

However, do film scores offer anything that standalone classical music doesn't offer?
Yes: musical psychology.
In standalone classical music you write a fugue only because you want to write a fugue, while John Williams wrote a fugue in Home Alone for a psychological reason: he uses fugues to create tension. And the music, infact, fits very well with the scene.






The experts of John Williams say that you often find fugues in his pieces with a similar mood.

On the other hand, he uses more simple melodies for other moods. This melody is more simple, but it's not poor writing. The orchestration is nice.







So, to conclude, film scores are a study about how to communicate with persons through melodies. This is an art which requires a great talent.


----------



## Luchesi

HansZimmer said:


> Some users in this discussion wrote that the film scores wich use the same instrumentation and musical language of classical music are not classical music because it's written to accompany images. I still don't understand the logic and how this would be different from incidental music, but ok.
> 
> Unlike other users, your point is about quality: "film scores consist of poor writing and technique and so they are not useful to study music theory".
> 
> Could you please explain why exactly would this piece from "Home Alone" ("Setting the Trap) be "poor writing"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here below you find the arranged version contained in the film: the score in the video contains technical explanations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The countersubject in the fugue after 1:47 is the melody of this vocal piece, which according to me is an example of good vocal music.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then could you please explain why this piece from Star Wars ("March of the Resistance") would be poor writing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And why this (arranged version) would be poor orchestration?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me that some persons suffer of the bias "long and boring" ---> good music, "short, pleasant and melodic" ---> bad music.
> This is not how things work. A piece can be melodic, plesant, appealing and smart at the same time.
> It's certainly true that film scores composers are required to write music with an immediate appealing, but it's not that the music with immediate appealing has a low quality: it's true the contrary. If you write music which is not only smart, but also pleasant, you are a "Serie A composer". After all, why should I listen to music which is not pleasant? I like the composers who write good melodies.


My point is about intention. The intention of the composer. Composing to advance the art of music, or not? Composing for cinema (cinema as art) comes close, but it's a different intention. A different problem, a different challenge, a different achievement.


----------



## EvaBaron

HansZimmer said:


> Some users in this discussion wrote that the film scores wich use the same instrumentation and musical language of classical music are not classical music because it's written to accompany images. I still don't understand the logic and how this would be different from incidental music, but ok.
> 
> Unlike other users, your point is about quality: "film scores consist of poor writing and technique and so they are not useful to study music theory".
> 
> Could you please explain why exactly would this piece from "Home Alone" ("Setting the Trap) be "poor writing"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here below you find the arranged version contained in the film: the score in the video contains technical explanations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The countersubject in the fugue after 1:47 is the melody of this vocal piece, which according to me is an example of good vocal music.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then could you please explain why this piece from Star Wars ("March of the Resistance") would be poor writing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And why this (arranged version) would be poor orchestration?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me that some persons suffer of the bias "long and boring" ---> good music, "short, pleasant and melodic" ---> bad music.
> This is not how things work. A piece can be melodic, plesant, appealing and smart at the same time.
> It's certainly true that film scores composers are required to write music with an immediate appealing, but it's not that the music with immediate appealing has a low quality: it's true the contrary. If you write music which is not only smart, but also pleasant, you are a "Serie A composer". After all, why should I listen to music which is not pleasant? I like the composers who write good melodies.


I would describe a lot of pop music as short, pleasant and melodic. But apparently that is not art while film music is. When reading this thread it’s almost like you’re contradicting yourself


----------



## pianozach

Luchesi said:


> My point is about intention. The intention of the composer. Composing to advance the art of music, or not? Composing for cinema (cinema as art) comes close, but it's a different intention. A different problem, a different challenge, a different achievement.


I think "the point" is so fine and narrow that it's irrelevant.

Writing for a film, or a videogame, or a ballet, or a musical, or an operetta, or an opera, or just a symphony is all art. 

A film can be art, and its music can be as well. It's simply the parameters. The old grand masters wrote concertos easy enough for the patron to play the solo violin or whatever, or for the King's coronation. Film composers write to enhance drama and comedy. 

At this point, "intention" doesn't really matter as much as it did a hundred years ago.


----------



## Luchesi

At this point, "intention" doesn't really matter as much as it did a hundred years ago.
[/QUOTE]


pianozach said:


> I think "the point" is so fine and narrow that it's irrelevant.
> 
> Writing for a film, or a videogame, or a ballet, or a musical, or an operetta, or an opera, or just a symphony is all art.
> 
> A film can be art, and its music can be as well. It's simply the parameters. The old grand masters wrote concertos easy enough for the patron to play the solo violin or whatever, or for the King's coronation. Film composers write to enhance drama and comedy.
> 
> At this point, "intention" doesn't really matter as much as it did a hundred years ago.


You can


----------



## Forster

HansZimmer said:


> Some users in this discussion wrote that the film scores wich use the same instrumentation and musical language of classical music are not classical music because it's written to accompany images. I still don't understand the logic


Here's the logic: musical cues that are written for the movies have to draw on whatever themes, motifs, musical structures will match the edit of the movie. *They are subservient* to the timings, the moods, the subject matter, the whims of the director (and sometimes the producer and editor).

Music that is written for its own sake (such as a symphony) is subservient only to the composer's will and is completely free to be constructed as they wish. *It is not subservient*.

This says nothing whatsoever about the quality of either the "free" symphony, or the "chained" musical score.


----------



## DaveM

Forster said:


> Here's the logic: musical cues that are written for the movies have to draw on whatever themes, motifs, musical structures will match the edit of the movie. *They are subservient* to the timings, the moods, the subject matter, the whims of the director (and sometimes the producer and editor).
> 
> Music that is written for its own sake (such as a symphony) is subservient only to the composer's will and is completely free to be constructed as they wish. *It is not subservient*.
> 
> This says nothing whatsoever about the quality of either the "free" symphony, or the "chained" musical score.


Not all soundtrack music is so subservient that it can’t stand alone. This ‘subservience premise’ as if it is universally true of all soundtracks has been addressed a number of times before, yet it keeps being repeated. I’ve put up a number of examples that can stand alone.


----------



## Forster

DaveM said:


> Not all soundtrack music is so subservient that it can’t stand alone. This ‘subservience premise’ as if it is universally true of all soundtracks has been addressed a number of times before, yet it keeps being repeated. I’ve put up a number of examples that can stand alone.


All soundtrack music _is _so subservient, but that doesn't mean it can't be repurposed. If one listens to the soundtrack of a movie, one can invariably hear how the music has been cut to fit. It is not the same as the suite of cues tat make it into the concert hall or the soundtrack album. There is something symbiotic about the relationship where composer, director and editor work together to achieve the end result (though this is not always the case, _Alien _being a famous case in point), but the final decision is about what works for the movie as a whole, not what works for the music.


----------



## DaveM

Forster said:


> All soundtrack music _is _so subservient, but that doesn't mean it can't be repurposed. If one listens to the soundtrack of a movie, one can invariably hear how the music has been cut to fit. It is not the same as the suite of cues tat make it into the concert hall or the soundtrack album.


No, it isn’t _all_ subservient and you can’t listen to a soundtrack and ‘_invariably_’ hear how it has been cut to fit. There are standalone segments within a movie that you wouldn’t be able to tell whether they’ve been restricted or not to fit the movie if you didn’t know where they came from. Not to mention that many movies have standalone end title music that is very much part of the soundtrack.

In addition, suites that make it into a concert hall or the soundtrack album while having the same music that was in the movie, _sometimes_ flows the same way as if it had been composed as a work separate from the movie. The fact that segments of it appear in the movie doesn’t always mean that the music as a whole was restricted by what’s happening in the movie.


----------



## Forster

DaveM said:


> No, it isn’t _all_ subservient and you can’t listen to a soundtrack and ‘_invariably_’ hear how it has been cut to fit. There are standalone segments within a movie that you wouldn’t be able to tell whether they’ve been restricted or not to fit the movie if you didn’t know where they came from. Not to mention that many movies have standalone end title music that is very much part of the soundtrack.
> 
> In addition, suites that make it into a concert hall or the soundtrack album while having the same music that was in the movie, _sometimes_ flows the same way as if it had been composed as a work separate from the movie. The fact that segments of it appear in the movie doesn’t always mean that the music as a whole was restricted by what’s happening in the movie.


You're right, not 'invariably'...but usually.

And yes, it is all subservient, even end titles. Or are you suggesting that the decision about what music goes at the end is purely a musical one, nothing to do with the choices of the director and producer? I'm not sure what a "standalone segment" is or its relevance to the debate here. I'm talking about the soundtrack as a whole entity, not its component parts.

Sure, there are movies that have great introductions - _Star Wars_ fanfare for example - and sequences where the music takes off in relation to the action (eg Indiana Jones movies) or to accompany a montage. But at some point, cues may be repeated, held in suspension, extended to fit the screen activity and, for example, sustain the tension and excitement or the romance or humour.


----------



## pianozach

Forster said:


> All soundtrack music _is _so subservient, but that doesn't mean it can't be repurposed. If one listens to the soundtrack of a movie, one can invariably hear how the music has been cut to fit. It is not the same as the suite of cues tat make it into the concert hall or the soundtrack album. There is something symbiotic about the relationship where composer, director and editor work together to achieve the end result (though this is not always the case, _Alien _being a famous case in point), but the final decision is about what works for the movie as a whole, not what works for the music.


Not all soundtrack music is subservient. If it were, you wouldn't be able to explain *2001: A Space Odyssey*, or even *Guardians of the Galaxy*. The music in *2001* was written prior to production starting on the film, and they can absolutely stand alone.

In Guardians the characters actually react to the soundtrack music in places.



Just sayin'. 
There's always an exception or two.


----------



## Forster

pianozach said:


> Not all soundtrack music is subservient. If it were, you wouldn't be able to explain *2001: A Space Odyssey*, or even *Guardians of the Galaxy*. The music in *2001* was written prior to production starting on the film, and they can absolutely stand alone.
> 
> In Guardians the characters actually react to the soundtrack music in places.
> 
> 
> 
> Just sayin'.
> There's always an exception or two.


Even the exceptions are not really exceptions. It's well known that Kubrick rejected the commissioned score in favour of Strauss etc - that's a director deciding what he wants to accompany his images. And I'm quite sure that while James Gunn might have wanted to construct a scene around the use of a particular song, the overall soundtrack was comprised of songs and composed music by Tyler Bates.

And let's not forget sound effects, which have to dovetail with the music too.

I suppose Derek Jarman's _Blue _might be an interesting example to consider, since there is only one image - "a single shot of saturated blue colour - specifically International Klein Blue" (Wiki) - and the soundtrack attains a more significant status. But the musical choices will still have been made to fit with the image.


----------



## DaveM

Forster said:


> Even the exceptions are not really exceptions. It's well known that Kubrick rejected the commissioned score in favour of Strauss etc - that's a director deciding what he wants to accompany his images. And I'm quite sure that while James Gunn might have wanted to construct a scene around the use of a particular song, the overall soundtrack was comprised of songs and composed music by Tyler Bates.
> 
> And let's not forget sound effects, which have to dovetail with the music too.
> 
> I suppose Derek Jarman's _Blue _might be an interesting example to consider, since there is only one image - "a single shot of saturated blue colour - specifically International Klein Blue" (Wiki) - and the soundtrack attains a more significant status. But the musical choices will still have been made to fit with the image.


Your premise is that all soundtrack music is so subservient to the movie that it is always different from orchestral (or other) works composed to be standalone works, such as symphonies. The following work appeared as a complete end title track for the movie Anonymous. A segment or two appears once or twice through the movie. If this same end title piece appeared as a commissioned standalone work named Soulfulness during a concert, no one, including you, could have suspected a different origin because of evidence of ‘subservience’ to a movie.


----------



## Forster

DaveM said:


> Your premise is that *all soundtrack music* is so subservient to the movie that it is always different from orchestral (or other) works composed to be standalone works, such as symphonies. The following work appeared as a complete end title track for the movie Anonymous. A segment or two appears once or twice through the movie. If this same end title piece appeared as a commissioned standalone work named Soulfulness during a concert, no one, including you, could have suspected a different origin because of evidence of ‘subservience’ to a movie.


My premise is that film soundtracks are _usually _comprised of pieces of music either new-composed, or cut from previously composed sources, edited in with sound effects and dialogue to build a complete soundworld for the length of the movie, to accompany the visuals. Neither of us is able to assert that all movies are made this way - doubtless there are some exceptions to the way these elements are created and combined. BUT since movies are primarily about the visuals, and it is normally the director who makes the final choices about which sounds, dialogue and music goes where, the music (and the composer's musical choices) remains subservient to the whole production.

It doesn't mean that composers aren't able to compose what might be termed "complete" pieces that can stand alone outside the film, but they still serve a specific function within the movie. None of this prevents the composed material being revised and cut into a "suite" of cues for release as an OST album. It's then that those who like such things can estimate the worth of a music soundtrack as a standalone.


----------



## Forster

BTW...



DaveM said:


> The following work appeared as a complete end title track for the movie Anonymous.


According to the OST listing, this track - Soul of the Age - doesn't last long enough to cover the 6 minutes of the end titles. I've not seen this film, but oddly, someone has bothered to put on YTB, a film of the end titles (along with the commentary by Roland Emmerich) and it's clear that there is not a single piece composed just for the titles. As is often (not always) the case, the music for the end titles reprises some of the key themes used during the movie.

(16) Anonymous (2011) End Credits With Commentary - YouTube


----------



## mikeh375

@Forster speaks a lot of sense imv. I know I'm repeating myself but we are all guilty of that right? 

Soundtracks are in most cases, music written by comittee. That bothers me when assessing the validity of extracts and themes being considered as concert worthy as it goes against the artistic and aesthetic integrity I for one expect from concert/art music. The resulting soundtrack is not a personally composed music that adheres to deeper, less hindered aesthetics I typically expect to be held by the composer, it is almost always a very restrictive compromise.
Neither are the compositional processes alike and that is a big issue imv as I know how different approaches, requirements and desired outcomes to composing can alter the mindset, technically and musically. There are exceptions of course but what is in short supply is soundtrack music that resembles a symphonic work with all of the cohesion, development, urestricted language and logical expressive journey over time, that symphonic writing requires. (Please don't mention Lord of the Rings anybody as I am not a fan of the music outside of the films).

I'll mention again the linear and language differences between William's Marches and his 1st Violin Concerto to highlight my point. It's good to know he's got my back...


----------



## DaveM

Forster said:


> My premise is that film soundtracks are _usually _comprised of pieces of music either new-composed, or cut from previously composed sources, edited in with sound effects and dialogue to build a complete soundworld for the length of the movie, to accompany the visuals. Neither of us is able to assert that all movies are made this way - doubtless there are some exceptions to the way these elements are created and combined. BUT since movies are primarily about the visuals, and it is normally the director who makes the final choices about which sounds, dialogue and music goes where, the music (and the composer's musical choices) remains subservient to the whole production.
> 
> It doesn't mean that composers aren't able to compose what might be termed "complete" pieces that can stand alone outside the film, but they still serve a specific function within the movie. None of this prevents the composed material being revised and cut into a "suite" of cues for release as an OST album. It's then that those who like such things can estimate the worth of a music soundtrack as a standalone.


@DaveM speaks a lot of sense imv. (Seems to be some sort of new ‘hyper Like’. )
Nice to see that you’re now using the qualifier term ‘_usually_’. Also, as in my example, segments of what started as a complete standalone work/suite can be used in a movie as opposed to a suite resulting from a ‘revision’ of music originally used in the movie.


----------



## bharbeke

Let's consider the music used for the two Fantasia movies. Those works were edited down to meet the length requirements of the various film segments. However, you would have to do some amazing rhetorical gymnastics to convince someone here that the music on the soundtrack does not qualify as classical music.

Whether it goes through a collaborative process or not, if the music sounds like classical, then it can be called classical. Any further labeling should only be for the benefit of guiding people to what they like and definitely not for gatekeeping.


----------



## EdwardBast

DaveM said:


> Your premise is that all soundtrack music is so subservient to the movie that it is always different from orchestral (or other) works composed to be standalone works, such as symphonies. The following work appeared as a complete end title track for the movie Anonymous. A segment or two appears once or twice through the movie. *If this same end title piece appeared as a commissioned standalone work named Soulfulness during a concert, no one, including you, could have suspected a different origin because of evidence of ‘subservience’ to a movie.*


I would just wonder why and how it had gotten onto an orchestral concert and think:"That probably would have been better as a bit of film music." Isn't that pretty much the same thing?


----------



## DaveM

EdwardBast said:


> I would just wonder why and how it had gotten onto an orchestral concert and think:"That probably would have been better as a bit of film music." Isn't that pretty much the same thing?


Not as far as the original ‘argument’ goes which was that a work like that is the way it is because of subservience to the movie. Also, since that work has been already exposed as having come from a movie (more than once), I’m not convinced that on your hearing it for the first time during a concert, you would have immediately designated it as part of a soundtrack.


----------



## EdwardBast

DaveM said:


> *Not as far as the original ‘argument’ goes which was that a work like that is the way it is because of subservience to the movie.* Also, since that work has been already exposed as having come from a movie (more than once), *I’m not convinced that on your hearing it for the first time during a concert, you would have immediately designated it as part of a soundtrack.*


The original example, end credit music from an Indiana Jones flick, I would have nailed as film music after two minutes even had I never heard of Indiana Jones.

It's not that I would actively identify "Soulfulness" as sound track music. It's that I'd immediately hear that it's not good enough or original enough to belong on a concert program, based on its abstract musical merit, and then wonder where it might better serve.


----------



## mikeh375

bharbeke said:


> Let's consider the music used for the two Fantasia movies. Those works were edited down to meet the length requirements of the various film segments. However, you would have to do some amazing rhetorical gymnastics to convince someone here that the music on the soundtrack does not qualify as classical music.
> 
> Whether it goes through a collaborative process or not, if the music sounds like classical, then it can be called classical. Any further labeling should only be for the benefit of guiding people to what they like and definitely not for gatekeeping.


Fantasia is using classical music (even if butchered), so yeah it's classical. I'm happy with my take aired in this thread though and that's all it is. If you where referring to my posts then I say my take is certainly not 'gatekeeping'. Besides I've stated more than once that I'm happy to see good soundtracks in the concert hall, I'm just under no illusions as to the genesis of and reasons for the music and that matters to me. My view more a reasoned judgement and assessment based on experience and know-how. As always ymmv - mine certainly does.


----------



## DaveM

EdwardBast said:


> The original example, end credit music from an Indiana Jones flick, I would have nailed as film music after two minutes even had I never heard of Indiana Jones.
> 
> It's not that I would actively identify "Soulfulness" as sound track music. It's that I'd immediately hear that it's not good enough or original enough to belong on a concert program, based on its abstract musical merit, and then wonder where it might better serve.


Well then, that comes down to one man’s opinion and you are more than well welcome to it. IMO, it’s better than a lot of music passing for classical music these days. Though the movie was not a money-maker, it had a budget of 30 million so Kloser and Wander probably got paid reasonably well for it.

I find it interesting that several times, soundtrack music used as examples in this thread is dismissed as substandard as music as if producers/directors work hard to make a good movie and then choose music that sucks.


----------



## Forster

DaveM said:


> Nice to see that you’re now using the term ‘qualified ‘.


I don't understand...where?



DaveM said:


> Also, as in my example, segments of what started as a complete standalone work/suite can be used in a movie as opposed to a suite resulting from a ‘revision’ of music originally used in the movie.


I don't understand this either. Sorry.


----------



## Forster

DaveM said:


> Not as far as the original ‘argument’ goes which was that a work like that is the way it is because of subservience to the movie. Also, since that work has been already exposed as having come from a movie (more than once), I’m not convinced that on your hearing it for the first time during a concert, you would have immediately designated it as part of a soundtrack.


What is the significance of being able/not being able to identify a piece as having come from a movie? What has that to do with either a) whether the soundtrack is subservient to the movie or b) whether the music is of good quality.

Let me repeat, just to be clear. At no point have I ever said or suggested that film music is, as a genre, of poor quality. I don't even think I've picked out any individual score for criticism. The reason we got back into this particular round of discussion was because "Hans Zimmer" said _"Some users in this discussion wrote that the film scores wich use the same instrumentation and musical language of classical music are not classical music because it's written to accompany images. I still don't understand the logic_"


----------



## DaveM

Forster said:


> I don't understand...where?


My mistake. That was supposed to be ‘usually’, not ‘qualified’.


----------



## EdwardBast

DaveM said:


> Well then, that comes down to one man’s opinion and you are more than well welcome to it. IMO, it’s better than a lot of music passing for classical music these days. Though the movie was not a money-maker, it had a budget of 30 million so Kloser and Wander probably got paid reasonably well for it.
> 
> I find it interesting that several times, *soundtrack music used as examples in this thread is dismissed as substandard as music as if producers/directors work hard to make a good movie and then choose music that sucks.*


You are missing the whole point. They are picking music appropriate to and good for accompanying a movie, not music meant for performance on a classical stage. The two things don't necessarily have much to do with one another.

As for the film underperforming financially, the loss of yet another film airing nonsense about "the real" Shakespeare is not a big loss.


----------



## DaveM

Forster said:


> What is the significance of being able/not being able to identify a piece as having come from a movie? What has that to do with either a) whether the soundtrack is subservient to the movie or b) whether the music is of good quality.
> 
> Let me repeat, just to be clear. At no point have I ever said or suggested that film music is, as a genre, of poor quality. I don't even think I've picked out any individual score for criticism. The reason we got back into this particular round of discussion was because "Hans Zimmer" said _"Some users in this discussion wrote that the film scores wich use the same instrumentation and musical language of classical music are not classical music because it's written to accompany images. I still don't understand the logic_"


You’re responding to my post that was a response to EdwardBast as if it was a response to, or referring to, you.


----------



## eljr

Forster said:


> What is the significance of being able/not being able to identify a piece as having come from a movie? What has that to do with either a) whether the soundtrack is subservient to the movie or b) whether the music is of good quality.
> 
> Let me repeat, just to be clear. At no point have I ever said or suggested that film music is, as a genre, of poor quality. I don't even think I've picked out any individual score for criticism. The reason we got back into this particular round of discussion was because "Hans Zimmer" said _"Some users in this discussion wrote that the film scores wich use the same instrumentation and musical language of classical music are *not classical music because it's written to accompany images*. I still don't understand the logic_"


I guess Pictures At an Exhibition is not classical music either.


----------



## DaveM

EdwardBast said:


> You are missing the whole point. They are picking music appropriate to and good for accompanying a movie, not music meant for performance on a classical stage. The two things don't necessarily have much to do with one another.


Since you qualify the point as ‘_The two things don’t *necessarily* have much to do with each other.’_, it’s possible that I’m not missing the whole point.

Your point apparently is:


EdwardBast said:


> It's not that I would actively identify "Soulfulness" as sound track music. It's that I'd immediately hear that it's not good enough or original enough to belong on a concert program,


I didn’t miss the point. It implies one of two things or both: That the work is not good enough to appear on a concert stage, but would be fine as soundtrack music (which implies that soundtrack music is by definition of lower quality) OR the work is not good on either count. I don’t agree with either.

Edit: Btw, you can’t possibly have missed some of the godawful stuff that can appear on the concert stage these days. Go to a few Los Angeles Phil concerts with a scheduled commissioned work sometime. I’ve been tempted to go to the box office and ask for 10% of my ticket cost refunded.


----------



## Forster

eljr said:


> I guess Pictures At an Exhibition is not classical music either.


Ask Hans - I was quoting him. Those were not my words. I assume, if he replies, that he'll acknowledge that he was referring to the moving images of cinema, not the static images of the art gallery.


----------



## Forster

DaveM said:


> You’re responding to my post that was a response to EdwardBast as if it was a response to, or referring to, you.


It doesn't matter. What you and I and Edward post can be commented upon by anyone else reading here.

So, you have no comment to make or answer to give to the questions I asked?


----------



## HansZimmer

Forster said:


> Ask Hans - I was quoting him. Those were not my words. I assume, if he replies, that he'll acknowledge that he was referring to the moving images of cinema, not the static images of the art gallery.


Yes, of course we are speaking of films, but I don't see how this detail changes the evaluation regarding the musical language.

This soul song has been composed by Marvin Gaye for the opening of the film "Trouble Man".







This classical music piece has been composed by Thomas Newman for the opening of the film "Little Women".







I think that no one in the public of soul music would say that the song above is not "soul" because it has been composed for an opening of a film. Only in the public of classical music there are persons who pretend to think that you have to evaluate the category according to the usage and not according to the musical language.

Explain me why. Is the first opening not soul music?


----------



## Forster

^^ I already agreed with you thus far, in my post #39:



> Music composed for films draws on different musical traditions, including that which is considered "classical". To that extent, it can be called classical.


What is more important at this point is to know whether my explanation of the "logic" you said you didn't understand has helped in any way.


----------



## HansZimmer

EdwardBast said:


> The original example, end credit music from an Indiana Jones flick, I would have nailed as film music after two minutes even had I never heard of Indiana Jones.


Basically, you wrote that the End Credits of Indiana Jones don't follow the sonata form, and not that the musical language and the instrumentation is not classical. The usual approach to music is to define the style according to the instrumentation and the musical language.

In order to write a classical music piece you have to follow the language, not the sonata form, otherwise many pieces that are legitimately classified as "classical music" should be expelled from the category because they don't follow the sonata form.

That said, I don't think that the high prescriptivity of classical music is the thing of classical music that should be conserved. It's a good thing if contemporary composers threw away alle the rigid rules of the classical period and develop the pieces and the melodies in the way they prefer. Art for me means freedom of expression.



> It's not that I would actively identify "Soulfulness" as sound track music. It's that I'd immediately hear that it's not good enough or original enough to belong on a concert program, based on its abstract musical merit, and then wonder where it might better serve.


The quality must be judged AFTER, not BEFORE. To say that something must not be inserted in the catalogue of classical music because, according to you, is not good, it's censorship. All pieces that follow the musical language must be inserted in the catalogue and after the public will make the charts of the best and the worst pieces.

I noticed that when I post minor works of classical music in this forum there are many users who give negative votes, but the first symphony of Mozart is classical music as much as Jupiter. This means that many persons in the public think that some classical music pieces are bad, but they are still in the catalogue.
Maybe the score of Indiana Jones would get a better feedback than many minor works of classical music, who knows.


----------



## HansZimmer

Forster said:


> ^^ I already agreed with you thus far, in my post #39:
> 
> 
> 
> What is more important at this point is to know whether my explanation of the "logic" you said you didn't understand has helped in any way.


Your position is a bit confusing. You say that you already agreed with me, but in your last posts you were apparently trying to explain that the definition must be based on the usage and not on the musical language.
You should assume a clear position about the subject.


----------



## Forster

HansZimmer said:


> Your position is a bit confusing. You say that you already agreed with me, but in your last posts you were apparently trying to explain that the definition must be based on the usage and not on the musical language.
> You should assume a clear position about the subject.


I said I agreed with you "thus far" (that is, only to a certain extent)...and reposted what I had said previously.

I'm not confused, but if you're reducing my most recent explanation to "usage", I'm not surprised you're confused.


----------



## HansZimmer

So, you also agree with me only to a certain extent with the fact that the following is a soul song?


----------



## HansZimmer

EvaBaron said:


> I would describe a lot of pop music as short, pleasant and melodic. But apparently that is not art while film music is. When reading this thread it’s almost like you’re contradicting yourself


My other discussion speaks about top-selling music (not about pop or popular music), which according to me is in average music of a low quality.
I also wrote that in every style of music there is music of a higher quality, but it's difficult that a piece of music of quality goes to the top of the charts. They are songs for a slightly more mature and niche audience.

I also gave an example of a pop song of good quality: the opening of the Lion King.







The top-selling music, as pianozach explained, is happy and danceable music: music for parties. The general public of the music today doesn't want music that it's interesting from the techincal and artistic point of view (technically difficult music with high expressivity and fantasy), but only happy and danceable music. For me the latter is a low expectation, while the public who want technically difficult music with high expressivity and fantasy have higher and more artistic expectations from music.


----------



## Forster

HansZimmer said:


> So, you also agree with me only to a certain extent with the fact that the following is a soul song?


I don't see the point of confusing this with soul music.


----------



## HansZimmer

Forster said:


> I don't see the point of confusing this with soul music.


Why not?


----------



## Forster

Because it's not the thread topic, and I fail to see any value in trying to show some analogy between the definitions of film, classical and soul music.


----------



## eljr

Forster said:


> Ask Hans - I was quoting him. Those were not my words. I assume, if he replies, that he'll acknowledge that he was referring to the moving images of cinema, not the static images of the art gallery.


What is the differance? Is a moving imagine of notable distinction?

I think not.


----------



## Luchesi

Forster said:


> Because it's not the thread topic, and I fail to see any value in trying to show some analogy between the definitions of film, classical and soul music.


I can't find the recent post in which you replied to me. I know I read it and the post that it pointed to..

As I've mentioned before, this is a CM forum so we do meet members who at a very early age appreciated CM (in the manner that a young mind is able) and we also learn from posters who are over 60 who are still finding some pop music that is relevant to them.

In the wider world I can't relate that I know anybody like this, and I don't even remember anybody in my past like this (older or younger). Maybe you do know some people like this?

I understand that for non-musicians there's not a lot of opportunity to bring up these subjects, so maybe some of my friends are like this and I just don't know..

In order to help young people develop a lasting appreciation for CM we need a more general population to think about. Not, as I see it, a very few members and their lucky and rare serendipities.

added:
I see now that your reply was on the other thread. sorry.


----------



## Luchesi

DaveM said:


> Since you qualify the point as ‘_The two things don’t *necessarily* have much to do with each other.’_, it’s possible that I’m not missing the whole point.
> 
> Your point apparently is:
> 
> 
> I didn’t miss the point. It implies one of two things or both: That the work is not good enough to appear on a concert stage, but would be fine as soundtrack music (which implies that soundtrack music is by definition of lower quality) OR the work is not good on either count. I don’t agree with either.
> 
> Edit: Btw, you can’t possibly have missed some of the godawful stuff that can appear on the concert stage these days. Go to a few Los Angeles Phil concerts with a scheduled commissioned work sometime. I’ve been tempted to go to the box office and ask for 10% of my ticket cost refunded.


I have to butt in here and say that so much of what Dr. Bast posts is not instantly meaningful to a non musician and we really ought to go into the various reasons for this. The problem is it would take volumes to describe and explain. 

And now I hope you're not thinking that I'm just brushing your points (from your perspective) aside. I'm very interested in the subject. I'm interested in the huge chasm. How could this be? We're all starting out as young musical sponges and yet we diverge into groups who can hardly understand each other. 
Or obviously maybe it's just me...


----------



## Forster

eljr said:


> What is the differance? Is a moving imagine of notable distinction?
> 
> I think not.


If you think there is no difference between a still image and a film, I suspect we will never reconcile our positions. Was Pictures at an Exhibition written to actually accompany a tour of the exhibition, or was it merely inspired by the pictures and structured as an imaginary tour?

Either way, this is not the same as a soundtrack constructed to be heard simultaneously and synchronously with a film.


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

Intent does not matter.


----------



## fbjim

Context does matter, though.


----------



## DaveM

Luchesi said:


> I have to butt in here and say that so much of what Dr. Bast posts is not instantly meaningful to a non musician and we really ought to go into the various reasons for this. The problem is it would take volumes to describe and explain.
> 
> And now I hope you're not thinking that I'm just brushing your points (from your perspective) aside. I'm very interested in the subject. I'm interested in the huge chasm. How could this be? We're all starting out as young musical sponges and yet we diverge into groups who can hardly understand each other.
> Or obviously maybe it's just me...


IMO, those with advanced music-related education deserve a certain amount respect. But the extent to which that education confers on one expertise in all areas of music composition and evaluation has its limits. In the more recent case, the example I posted from the movie, Anonymous, was deemed not good enough to be on the concert stage. Previously, another soundtrack-related work I posted from the Hans Zimmer Pearl Harbor, was, by someone with compositional experience, deemed weak and something that any journeyman composer could come up with in a short time. I have seen numerous comments on that soundtrack on YouTube and none of them come close to criticism, let alone that kind of criticism.

Perhaps those with advanced music education/experience have a perspective missed by the rest of us, but that doesn’t confer superior expertise in judging a work from the point of view of the audience. I think that the Soul of the Age is a beautiful work with a striking melody. I think an audience would enjoy it if a Yo-Yo Ma walked out onstage and played it with the orchestra as an encore. And I’m willing to bet that it would be enjoyed far more than some of the amelodic commissioned stuff that appears stuck in between works that the audience came to hear so that people don’t get up and leave. Presumably, these commissioned works were picked by people with some music experience.

Just for interest sake, the following is a, not soundtrack-related, work that is a favorite at the BBC/Royal Albert Hall Proms. It has a number of similarities to the Anonymous movie Soul of the Age work in that both are highly melodic, 3-4 minutes long and scored for cello and orchestra. Apparently it is deemed concert stage worthy:


----------



## mikeh375

DaveM said:


> IMO, those with advanced music-related education deserve a certain amount respect. But the extent to which that education confers on one expertise in all areas of music composition and evaluation has its limits. In the more recent case, the example I posted from the movie, Anonymous, was deemed not good enough to be on the concert stage. Previously, another soundtrack-related work I posted from the Hans Zimmer Pearl Harbor, was, by someone with compositional experience, deemed weak and something that any journeyman composer could come up with in a short time. I have seen numerous comments on that soundtrack on YouTube and none of them come close to criticism, let alone that kind of criticism.
> 
> *Perhaps those with advanced music education/experience have a perspective missed by the rest of us, but that doesn’t confer superior expertise in judging a work from the point of view of the audience. *I think that the Soul of the Age is a beautiful work with a striking melody. I think an audience would enjoy it if a Yo-Yo Ma walked out onstage and played it with the orchestra as an encore. And I’m willing to bet that it would be enjoyed far more than some of the amelodic commissioned stuff that appears stuck in between works that the audience came to hear so that people don’t get up and leave. Presumably, these commissioned works were picked by people with some music experience.
> 
> Just for interest sake, the following is a, not soundtrack-related, work that is a favorite at the BBC/Royal Albert Hall Proms. It has a number of similarities to the Anonymous movie Soul of the Age work in that both are highly melodic, 3-4 minutes long and scored for cello and orchestra. Apparently it is deemed concert stage worthy:


It's ok Dave, you can name or quote me. I'm happy with my assessment of Pearl Harbour's main theme but as you seem to be bringing this up on a regular basis I'll just mention that I said a _good_ composer, not a journeyman composer, was someone capable of improvising themes like PH and more readily able to find equally effective music, a fact that is, like it or not, true. I'm sure you don't want to and I certainly wouldn't want you to misrepresent my opinion, whether I remain anonymous or not in future iterations. You seem to find the idea difficult to accept but there it is, a manifestation of the lack of compositional/experiential perspective you mention above.

The bolded I totally agree with, but there is no "perhaps" about it. It's inevitable that expertise will develop a set of skills and a view that is different to a laypersons in any discipline - it is what it is.
Oh and I'm sure I'll get by knowing that similar views to mine are rarely seen on YT.


----------



## DaveM

mikeh375 said:


> It's ok Dave, you can name or quote me. I'm happy with my assessment of Pearl Harbour's main theme but as you seem to be bringing this up on a regular basis I'll just mention that I said a _good_ composer, not a journeyman composer, was someone capable of improvising themes like PH and more readily able to find equally effective music, a fact that is, like it or not, true. I'm sure you don't want to and I certainly wouldn't want you to misrepresent my opinion, whether I remain anonymous or not in future iterations. You seem to find the idea difficult to accept but there it is, a manifestation of the lack of compositional/experiential perspective you mention above.
> 
> The bolded I totally agree with, but there is no "perhaps" about it. It's inevitable that expertise will develop a different view in any discipline from a layperson - it is what it is.
> Oh and I'm sure I'll get by knowing that similar views to mine are rarely seen on YT.


I didn’t bring the subject up out of the blue. I was responding to a post that raised the question of the different perspective between those with advanced musical education and the rest of us with less than and the disagreements that seem to result.

And I don’t believe I misrepresented your view of the PH work at all. If you read your posts on the subject, the premise was that it didn’t take an especially talented composer to create it. You made sure to let me know that your buddy TB agreed with you that it was one of HZ’s weaker works as if that proved the point. Btw, those with musical expertise should keep in mind that it is the laypeople that, more than not, evaluate the music and determine it’s success or failure.

Perhaps you should read the views on YT on the music examples, including the PH soundtrack, I presented. After all, they come from people who simply listened to the music and, for the most part, the comments contain superlatives. Is your viewpoint more important than theirs?


----------



## Forster

DaveM said:


> [...]
> Perhaps those with advanced music education/experience have a perspective missed by the rest of us, but that doesn’t confer superior expertise in judging a work from the point of view of the audience. I think that the Soul of the Age is a beautiful work with a striking melody. I think an audience would enjoy it if a Yo-Yo Ma walked out onstage and played it with the orchestra as an encore.


And you are just as entitled to your opinion on the quality of the work as anyone else here, regardless of their level of musical expertise. However, while some with an advanced level may wish to argue the difference between concert and film music on grounds of quality, Edward Bast made clear:



> You are missing the whole point. They are picking music appropriate to and good for accompanying a movie, not music meant for performance on a classical stage. The two things don't necessarily have much to do with one another.


I don't really see that taking _Tom Bowling_ out of its context is particularly relevant. It's a small part of a suite which has earned a traditional place in the Proms partly because it was composed by the founder of the Proms and not necessarily because it was a quality piece of music!

Fantasia on British Sea Songs - Wikipedia


----------



## mikeh375

DaveM said:


> I didn’t bring the subject up out of the blue. I was responding to a post that raised the question of the different perspective between those with advanced musical education and the rest of us with less than and the disagreements that seem to result.
> 
> And I don’t believe I misrepresented your view of the PH work at all. If you read your posts on the subject, the premise was that it didn’t take an especially talented composer to create it. You made sure to let me know that your buddy TB agreed with you that it was one of HZ’s weaker works as if that proved the point. Btw, those with musical expertise should keep in mind that it is the laypeople that, more than not, evaluate the music and determine it’s success or failure. Perhaps you should read the views on YT on the music examples I presented. After all, they come from people who simply listened to the music. Is your viewpoint more important than theirs?


I don't need TB's back up to state and have full confidence in my own opinion Dave. My views on PH's main theme are quite simply my opinion and that's all. My aesthetic opinion is more important to me than a laypersons view. The same could be said of you and everyone else and for everything. There's no superiority from me, I wouldn't presume as such. I do try to give an insight into how composing (for media) is without the silk dressing robe and scented candles. If knowing what I'm talking about is a crime send me down. Besides, I more often than not tag on "ymmv" at the end of posts to keep the peace and acknowledge that other subjective opinions exist.

Back to the old recurring favourite then, I seem to recall saying that coming up with the simplicity whilst being effective is harder (or something lke that) but eminently do-able for good composers. I also mentioned that some composers take 10 mins and anything up to a day or two to write in such a honed manner. I've written some big tunes in 10 minutes flat (tunes that got a lot of respone too, some won professional awards. Much better than YT comments imo). At other times, tunes have needed revisiting over a day or so. It's just what is expected can be done at pro level composing under deadlines...it's that simple.

*Edit*...just re-reading your post I felt compelled to add that it is the composer who evaluates first and foremost the success of a composition, not the listener. It's a distinction that implies much more than it states....YMMV.


----------



## DaveM

Forster said:


> And you are just as entitled to your opinion on the quality of the work as anyone else here, regardless of their level of musical expertise. However, while some with an advanced level may wish to argue the difference between concert and film music on grounds of quality, Edward Bast made clear


That was his opinion and I responded to it. It is only clear if you agree with it.


> I don't really see that taking _Tom Bowling_ out of its context is particularly relevant. It's a small part of a suite which has earned a traditional place in the Proms partly because it was composed by the founder of the Proms and not necessarily because it was a quality piece of music!


Out of context? What are you talking about? It is a short melodic piece played by cello and orchestra. And it is a piece separately called Tom Bowling. You think I don’t know it’s origin? Are you going to argue that the audience doesn’t enjoy the h*ll out of it whenever it is played? Besides, speaking of ‘out of context’, do you really want to argue the requirements for a quality piece of music according to you?


----------



## DaveM

mikeh375 said:


> *..Edit*...just re-reading your post I felt compelled to add that it is the composer who evaluates first and foremost the success of a composition, not the listener..


That may come as a surprise to publishers, recording companies, radio stations, concertgoers, streaming services, moviegoers and any other category that involves the paying public and any associated target audience of the composition(s). The composer creates to the best of his/her ability. The result may or may not be a success, regardless of how good the composer thought the work was.


----------



## mikeh375

^^^ yeah, you reasonably might have missed the unspoken bit. The composer often balances his/her work between accessibility or not according to their aesthetic standards, ability, individual voice and aims. Considerations like these may well be irrespective of the public's general tastes, unless as you say, the public's approval is a necessary requirement either to the composer, or where accessibility is paramount and expected. The composer calls the shots when it comes to their own music, the public follow or not which either bothers the composer and they change tack, or it doesn't.

Writing solely for favorable public opinion and approval is not the only option, nor indeed is it even considered an option for some and thank God, otherwise concert composers would be still working Alberti bass lines, toiling and yawning over yet more IV, V, I cadences and having to write tunes that have immediate appeal all the time for their masters....well perhaps not literally, but you get the gist I trust. Clearly there's more, much more to be had with music than immediacy, even if it's not to one's taste, as is evidenced by its development to the present day, oh and the genius of great composers, not listeners, who step to their own beat.
YMMV, especially if your ears are more conservative in their likes.


----------



## Forster

DaveM said:


> That was his opinion and I responded to it. It is only clear if you agree with it.


If you like. I don't agree.



DaveM said:


> Out of context? What are you talking about?


Out of the context of the suite of sea songs. Out of the context of the Proms, both their first inclusion and their subsequent annual repetition. Out of the context of the historical associations connected with it. The Fantasia on British Sea Songs is partly included for entirely non-musical reasons.



DaveM said:


> You think I don’t know it’s origin?


I've no idea what you do/don't know. But as I've said before, this isn't just about you and me, but about other readers here who might like to know something about the reason why Tom Bowling is included in a Proms programme, rather than just assume that if it's on a Proms programme, it must be there because of its quality.



DaveM said:


> do you really want to argue the requirements for a quality piece of music according to you?


No. My opinion on quality (and yours) is irrelevant. We would both agree that concert programmes sometimes include music that we think is of dubious quality. What matters is what the programme planners think is quality.

The irony is that since the early Proms concerts were intended to be "pops" concerts they would have included exactly the same kind of "light" material you are arguing should be included in concerts today, such as _Soul of the Age_. Nothing wrong with that - we know it happens all the time now. This year's Proms - I'm sure you already know - includes a programme of video game tunes.

The difference is that concert programmes of film music are clearly signposted as such. It doesn't mean they have been transformed into "concert" pieces of the kind it is argued belong to the definition of "classical music" and from which film soundtracks are excluded. That of course leads us back to the fact that since there is no universally agreed definition of "classical music", it's quite possible for anyone who wishes to, to argue that film music can belong - but not those soundtracks that don't sound like classical of course. 🤷‍♂️


----------



## HansZimmer

DaveM said:


> IMO, those with advanced music-related education deserve a certain amount respect. But the extent to which that education confers on one expertise in all areas of music composition and evaluation has its limits. In the more recent case, the example I posted from the movie, Anonymous, was deemed not good enough to be on the concert stage. Previously, another soundtrack-related work I posted from the Hans Zimmer Pearl Harbor, was, by someone with compositional experience, deemed weak and something that any journeyman composer could come up with in a short time. I have seen numerous comments on that soundtrack on YouTube and none of them come close to criticism, let alone that kind of criticism.


mikeh375 wrote that composing a melody like the one of Pearl Harbor is not so demanding, not that the melody is not good.
EdwardBlast at the beginning of the thread wrote that the last good film composer was Jesus Christ (or something like that) so his reactions to your film scores are obvious.

I suggest that in order to evaluate the quality of musical works inside a determined basket you have to listen to all the pieces inside the basket. For example, if you want to determine what are the best pieces of Mozart you have to listen to every single piece of Mozart: at that point, you are able to say what are the most distinctive pieces inside the basket.

So, in the case of film music, we should probably ask to the experts of cinema (persons who have watched many films and pay attention to the details) which are the distinctive film scores and composers.
I suppose that the film producers stay in the category of "experts", so their judgements might not be so arbitrary as it is portrayed by some persons.

The point of view of a film producer is quite simple: "The scene X must communicate Y, so I need a melody which communicates Y". The composers who are able to satisfy the expectations of film producers in the best way become succesful and they are called for films with a high budget.
A film producer doesn't have to understand the engineering of the music: the techincal aspects are a responsability of the composer. Does the melody have to be complex? No, it must simply work. Sometimes you need a complex melody, while sometimes you need a more simple melody in order to achieve the correct emotional result.

Some persons (like for example Forster) say that they prefer to listen to film scores inside the context, while I prefer to listen to film scores ALONE after I watched the film, because the film is distracting. In my experience, you get the best musical experience with videos like this one AFTER you watched the film: videos which show a live performance together with silent scenes of the film.


----------



## EdwardBast

DaveM said:


> Since you qualify the point as ‘_The two things don’t *necessarily* have much to do with each other.’_, it’s possible that I’m not missing the whole point.
> 
> Your point apparently is:
> 
> 
> *I didn’t miss the point. It implies one of two things or both: That the work is not good enough to appear on a concert stage, but would be fine as soundtrack music (which implies that soundtrack music is by definition of lower quality) OR the work is not good on either count. I don’t agree with either.*
> 
> Edit: Btw, you can’t possibly have missed some of the godawful stuff that can appear on the concert stage these days. Go to a few Los Angeles Phil concerts with a scheduled commissioned work sometime. I’ve been tempted to go to the box office and ask for 10% of my ticket cost refunded.


Edit bit first: You are essentially complaining that a dog show is full of ugly dogs, so why don't we put some pretty cats in the competition.

Bold portion: You're not impressing me with your attempts at logic. Neither of your conclusions follows from your premises. Concert music must be able to hold its own without extramusical content or association. Film music that can't stand well on its own can be a perfect enhancement of or partner in a combined impression with the film it accompanies.


----------



## DaveM

EdwardBast said:


> Edit bit first: *You are essentially complaining that a dog show is full of ugly dogs, so why don't we put some pretty cats in the competition.*
> 
> Bold portion: You're not impressing me with your attempts at logic. Neither of your conclusions follows from your premises. Concert music must be able to hold its own without extramusical content or association. Film music that can't stand well on its own can be a perfect enhancement of or partner in a combined impression with the film it accompanies.


Well maybe both of us will have to work on our logic given the highlighted part above.


----------



## fbjim

EdwardBast said:


> Bold portion: You're not impressing me with your attempts at logic. Neither of your conclusions follows from your premises. Concert music must be able to hold its own without extramusical content or association. Film music that can't stand well on its own can be a perfect enhancement of or partner in a combined impression with the film it accompanies.


In fact being able to stand on its own typically isn't a criteria of good film music, because that's not the purpose of it. Scores that might sound perfectly fine on their own may not work at all in the context of a film, which is part of where this confusion comes from - sometimes good concert music isn't good film music, and vice-versa. 

To put it another way "quality" has nothing to do with being able to stand on its own on a concert stage.


----------



## EdwardBast

fbjim said:


> In fact being able to stand on its own typically isn't a criteria of good film music, because that's not the purpose of it. Scores that might sound perfectly fine on their own may not work at all in the context of a film, which is part of where this confusion comes from - sometimes good concert music isn't good film music, and vice-versa.
> 
> To put it another way "quality" has nothing to do with being able to stand on its own on a concert stage.


I agree with everything in the first paragraph. Your last line doesn't follow from this. Quality is important in being able to stand on its own (as opposed to crawling or puking) on a concert stage.

For Dave: 
Dog show = concert music rep
Ugly dog = bad concert work
Pretty cat = good bit of film music

Does that help?


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

I am not convinced by this demarcating metaphor at all.


----------



## DaveM

EdwardBast said:


> I agree with everything in the first paragraph. Your last line doesn't follow from this. Quality is important in being able to stand on its own (as opposed to crawling or puking) on a concert stage.
> 
> For Dave:
> Dog show = concert music rep
> Ugly dog = bad concert work
> Pretty cat = good bit of film music
> 
> Does that help?


Wife to husband on leaving the concert, “Thank heaven for cats!”


----------



## Luchesi

DaveM said:


> Wife to husband on leaving the concert, “Thank heaven for cats!”


But cats in a dog show? She should've gone to a cat show.


----------



## EdwardBast

VoiceFromTheEther said:


> I am not convinced by this demarcating metaphor at all.


You have passed the first part of the sanity test. Congratulations!


----------



## Forster

HansZimmer said:


> Some persons (like for example Forster) say that they prefer to listen to film scores inside the context, while I prefer to listen film scores ALONE after I watched the film, because the film is distracting. In my experience, you get the best musical experience with videos like this one AFTER you watched the film: videos which show a live performance together with silent scenes of the film.


Yes, I do prefer to listen to film scores "inside the context", but then, I'm not going to the flicks to listen to a film score. It's not the prime purpose of watching a movie. The best cinematic experience in the cinema is to consume the artifact whole (popcorn and all). It is, after all, what cinema is about.


----------



## HansZimmer

EdwardBast said:


> Edit bit first: You are essentially complaining that a dog show is full of ugly dogs, so why don't we put some pretty cats in the competition.
> 
> Bold portion: You're not impressing me with your attempts at logic. Neither of your conclusions follows from your premises. Concert music must be able to hold its own without extramusical content or association. Film music that can't stand well on its own can be a perfect enhancement of or partner in a combined impression with the film it accompanies.


What do you prefer: red children or blue children?

In the reasoning about cats and dogs you are creating imaginary qualities. Infact, the music of films is music and standalone music is music. What do you prefer between music and music?
If you use the conclusion of an argument ("film music has a lower quality") as a premise of the argument, you're building a circular reasoning: Circular reasoning
"Film music can't stand on its own" ---> So, why do many people (me included) like film music outside of the film? Why are there concerts?


----------



## HansZimmer

fbjim said:


> In fact being able to stand on its own typically isn't a criteria of good film music, because that's not the purpose of it. Scores that might sound perfectly fine on their own may not work at all in the context of a film, which is part of where this confusion comes from - sometimes good concert music isn't good film music, and vice-versa.
> 
> To put it another way "quality" has nothing to do with being able to stand on its own on a concert stage.


No, the point is that a melody which works very well inside the film can also be plesant to hear without the film, or AFTER the film without the distraction of the film (the last one is my favourite option).

First of all, once you have a melody you can create as many arrangements of it as you want. Inside the film, you will have to create arrangements with a length and a dramatic arc that fits a specific scene. For the concert you can create new arrangements with the same melody, if it's necessary.
However, many times this is not necessary, because the original arrangements work well for a concert too. It's not that because the length and the dramatic arc were originally adapted for a film scene that they don't make any sense outside.

Which of the two is better: blue children or red children?


----------



## verandai

I'll try to shed some new light on this discussion:

In my opinion, composing music for a film and composing music for itself are two different disciplines. They overlap in various areas, but the goals and restrictions differ:


film music should support the movie and is highly restricted by the timings and atmospheric changes inside the movie. On the other hand, it doesn't have to really follow formal rules
non-film-music normally doesn't have these timing restrictions, but usually has to follow more formal rules. Often atmospheric changes are also supported (especially in programme music like Peer Gynt), but they're not as strapped to timings like in film music
I can also enjoy film music that cannot stand on its own in a concert. But I have the biggest appreciation for film music that I also can enjoy in a concert. I definitely enjoyed a concert where an orchestra played film music of John Williams the whole evening.

Maybe a small comparison can help. I composed this music as an excercise for orchestration, but also tried to support the pictures and follow the atmospheric changes of the tour.


As first step, try to listen to the music-only version with the score
Then (if you can handle listening to it again), the slide-show the music was written for
Without the slide-show, I maybe would have had a similar initial idea, but the result would have been completely different. Here some of the musical ideas I developed especially for the slides:


*timecode**atmospheric moment**musical idea*0:15first view of Montblanc, lit by the sunharmonic change, entry of the flute0:29people walking over the glacier in caravansmotif resembling a dancing march (called "walking motif" from now on)0:35dangerous crevasses are showninsert an extra bar (like a stumble)0:57 and 1:03more of the higher mountains come into lightsublime brass motif1:15 - 1:28slowly reaching the summittrying to do the same musically1:29 - 1:45view from the summit, near and farmusical question and answer game1:46 - 2:12slowly preparing for the descent & first part of descentrepeating the "walking motif" in major & smoother2:13 - 2:30easy part of descent via the glacier (stomping downwards)string pizzicato for the walk, brass motif for the grandness of the glacier2:31we descended via another route, which was partly more challenging than expectedsome kind of dramatic movements and throw-ins2:49Here we could see the route we ascended from the ridge aboveshort entry of the "walking motif" in higher speed3:05Here we realize that the tour is almost over, which makes us both happy and sadtrying to express this mood musically

As I don't have any education / experience regarding film-music-composing, I can only estimate that the professionals would have similar ideas (just on another level).

But it maybe helps to understand, that the results and goals are mostly differing between film-music and the rest.

Best regards, Alex


----------



## HansZimmer

verandai said:


> I'll try to shed some new light on this discussion:
> 
> In my opinion, composing music for a film and composing music for itself are two different disciplines. They overlap in various areas, but the goals and restrictions differ:
> 
> 
> film music should support the movie and is highly restricted by the timings and atmospheric changes inside the movie. On the other hand, it doesn't have to really follow formal rules
> non-film-music normally doesn't have these timing restrictions, but usually has to follow more formal rules. Often atmospheric changes are also supported (especially in programme music like Peer Gynt), but they're not as strapped to timings like in film music
> I can also enjoy film music that cannot stand on its own in a concert. But I have the biggest appreciation for film music that I also can enjoy in a concert. I definitely enjoyed a concert where an orchestra played film music of John Williams the whole evening.
> 
> Maybe a small comparison can help. I composed this music as an excercise for orchestration, but also tried to support the pictures and follow the atmospheric changes of the tour.
> 
> 
> As first step, try to listen to the music-only version with the score
> Then (if you can handle listening to it again), the slide-show the music was written for
> Without the slide-show, I maybe would have had a similar initial idea, but the result would have been completely different. Here some of the musical ideas I developed especially for the slides:
> 
> 
> *timecode**atmospheric moment**musical idea*0:15first view of Montblanc, lit by the sunharmonic change, entry of the flute0:29people walking over the glacier in caravansmotif resembling a dancing march (called "walking motif" from now on)0:35dangerous crevasses are showninsert an extra bar (like a stumble)0:57 and 1:03more of the higher mountains come into lightsublime brass motif1:15 - 1:28slowly reaching the summittrying to do the same musically1:29 - 1:45view from the summit, near and farmusical question and answer game1:46 - 2:12slowly preparing for the descent & first part of descentrepeating the "walking motif" in major & smoother2:13 - 2:30easy part of descent via the glacier (stomping downwards)string pizzicato for the walk, brass motif for the grandness of the glacier2:31we descended via another route, which was partly more challenging than expectedsome kind of dramatic movements and throw-ins2:49Here we could see the route we ascended from the ridge aboveshort entry of the "walking motif" in higher speed3:05Here we realize that the tour is almost over, which makes us both happy and sadtrying to express this mood musically
> 
> As I don't have any education / experience regarding film-music-composing, I can only estimate that the professionals would have similar ideas (just on another level).
> 
> But it maybe helps to understand, that the results and goals are mostly differing between film-music and the rest.
> 
> Best regards, Alex


Yes, they are two different disciplines from the point of view of the composer, but the result for the public is in both cases: MUSIC.


----------



## EvaBaron

HansZimmer said:


> Yes, they are two different disciplines from the point of view of the composer, but the result for the public is in both cases: MUSIC.


But two different kinds of music. Different methods of composing means different kinds of music. Classical music and film music


----------



## DaveM

^^^
Which kind of music has a more different method of composing than CP era classical music: the film music that happens to have melody and harmony that can be played in a standalone form or Avant-garde music that has no melody and no harmony?


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

DaveM said:


> Which kind of music has a more different method of composing than CP era classical music: film music that has melody and harmony that can be played in a standalone form or Avant-garde music that has no melody and no harmony?


A dog that is shaped like a cat versus a dog that is shaped like textbook Picasso. The latter is more artistic, the former is more family-friendly. Or is it a cat that is shaped like a dog? I think we should ditch both and use more inclusive Pleistocene megafauna metaphors from now on.


----------



## DaveM

VoiceFromTheEther said:


> A dog that is shaped like a cat versus a dog that is shaped like textbook Picasso. The latter is more artistic, the former is more family-friendly. Or is it a cat that is shaped like a dog? I think we should ditch both and use more inclusive Pleistocene megafauna metaphors from now on.


What is the point of the above as a response to a post without metaphors?


----------



## mikeh375

verandai said:


> I'll try to shed some new light on this discussion:
> 
> In my opinion, composing music for a film and composing music for itself are two different disciplines. They overlap in various areas, but the goals and restrictions differ:
> 
> 
> film music should support the movie and is highly restricted by the timings and atmospheric changes inside the movie. On the other hand, it doesn't have to really follow formal rules
> non-film-music normally doesn't have these timing restrictions, but usually has to follow more formal rules. Often atmospheric changes are also supported (especially in programme music like Peer Gynt), but they're not as strapped to timings like in film music
> I can also enjoy film music that cannot stand on its own in a concert. But I have the biggest appreciation for film music that I also can enjoy in a concert. I definitely enjoyed a concert where an orchestra played film music of John Williams the whole evening.
> 
> Maybe a small comparison can help. I composed this music as an excercise for orchestration, but also tried to support the pictures and follow the atmospheric changes of the tour.
> 
> 
> As first step, try to listen to the music-only version with the score
> Then (if you can handle listening to it again), the slide-show the music was written for
> Without the slide-show, I maybe would have had a similar initial idea, but the result would have been completely different. Here some of the musical ideas I developed especially for the slides:
> 
> 
> *timecode**atmospheric moment**musical idea*0:15first view of Montblanc, lit by the sunharmonic change, entry of the flute0:29people walking over the glacier in caravansmotif resembling a dancing march (called "walking motif" from now on)0:35dangerous crevasses are showninsert an extra bar (like a stumble)0:57 and 1:03more of the higher mountains come into lightsublime brass motif1:15 - 1:28slowly reaching the summittrying to do the same musically1:29 - 1:45view from the summit, near and farmusical question and answer game1:46 - 2:12slowly preparing for the descent & first part of descentrepeating the "walking motif" in major & smoother2:13 - 2:30easy part of descent via the glacier (stomping downwards)string pizzicato for the walk, brass motif for the grandness of the glacier2:31we descended via another route, which was partly more challenging than expectedsome kind of dramatic movements and throw-ins2:49Here we could see the route we ascended from the ridge aboveshort entry of the "walking motif" in higher speed3:05Here we realize that the tour is almost over, which makes us both happy and sadtrying to express this mood musically
> 
> As I don't have any education / experience regarding film-music-composing, I can only estimate that the professionals would have similar ideas (just on another level).
> 
> But it maybe helps to understand, that the results and goals are mostly differing between film-music and the rest.
> 
> Best regards, Alex


Sort of right Alex. As a cue sheet It does hint at the kind of imposed paradigm shift required by the composer in order to write for the screen as opposed to writing for the concert hall, if a little too detailed in timings. A broader musical brush stroke is often the better choice, the cue (hit) points being fewer and more selective, unless the film is an animation.
I think @HansZimmer says it best in that the public will hear music irrespective of the genesis of a piece. The composer's perspective is totally and utterly different for each discipline.


----------



## Luchesi

DaveM said:


> IMO, those with advanced music-related education deserve a certain amount respect. But the extent to which that education confers on one expertise in all areas of music composition and evaluation has its limits. In the more recent case, the example I posted from the movie, Anonymous, was deemed not good enough to be on the concert stage. Previously, another soundtrack-related work I posted from the Hans Zimmer Pearl Harbor, was, by someone with compositional experience, deemed weak and something that any journeyman composer could come up with in a short time. I have seen numerous comments on that soundtrack on YouTube and none of them come close to criticism, let alone that kind of criticism.
> 
> Perhaps those with advanced music education/experience have a perspective missed by the rest of us, but that doesn’t confer superior expertise in judging a work from the point of view of the audience. I think that the Soul of the Age is a beautiful work with a striking melody. I think an audience would enjoy it if a Yo-Yo Ma walked out onstage and played it with the orchestra as an encore. And I’m willing to bet that it would be enjoyed far more than some of the amelodic commissioned stuff that appears stuck in between works that the audience came to hear so that people don’t get up and leave. Presumably, these commissioned works were picked by people with some music experience.
> 
> Just for interest sake, the following is a, not soundtrack-related, work that is a favorite at the BBC/Royal Albert Hall Proms. It has a number of similarities to the Anonymous movie Soul of the Age work in that both are highly melodic, 3-4 minutes long and scored for cello and orchestra. Apparently it is deemed concert stage worthy:


"IMO, those with advanced music-related education deserve a certain amount respect. But the extent to which that education confers on one expertise in all areas of music composition and evaluation has its limits. "

Yes. I immediately thought they don't have to try to predict whether people will 'like' works or not.


----------



## verandai

mikeh375 said:


> Sort of right Alex. As a cue sheet It does hint at the kind of imposed paradigm shift required by the composer in order to write for the screen as opposed to writing for the concert hall, if a little too detailed in timings. A broader musical brush stroke is often the better choice, the cue (hit) points being fewer and more selective, unless the film is an animation.
> I think @HansZimmer says it best in that the public will hear music irrespective of the genesis of a piece. The composer's perspective is totally and utterly different for each discipline.


I described the timings quite in detail, but luckily I had a little more flexibility while composing, because I could also change the timings themselves, f.e. by adding in an extra picture 

I guess that adds another challenge at composing real film music, because there's less timing flexibility...


----------



## Yabetz

I still don't understand the apparent obsession with classification in this case. I can enjoy great film scores whether or not this person thinks they're "classical" while that other person thinks they're definitely not. I don't quite see what's at stake.


----------



## DaveM

Yabetz said:


> I still don't understand the apparent obsession with classification in this case. I can enjoy great film scores whether or not this person thinks they're "classical" while that other person thinks they're definitely not. I don't quite see what's at stake.


At the very least, the survival of the forum.


----------



## HansZimmer

Luchesi said:


> My point is about intention. The intention of the composer. Composing to advance the art of music, or not? Composing for cinema (cinema as art) comes close, but it's a different intention. A different problem, a different challenge, a different achievement.


There is a great evolution in popular music too, but it's quite obvious that you don't consider popular music as art. By your logic, the trap music must be considered better than the music of John Williams because it's a new thing.

No, a piece of music is not serious if it offers "new music", but it's serious if it's technical. I think you have to be a bit conservative (and not too much progressist) in the field of music if you want to mantain the technical level.

That said, in this discussion someone corrected me by writing that the film music of today is different than the one of the last century, so if this is true we have to conclude that film scores composers also advance the art of music.


----------



## eljr

HansZimmer said:


> No, a piece of music is not serious if it offers "new music", but it's serious if it's technical.


Wrong and wrong. Tt is simple if the artist offered it as serious.

There is no virtue in classical that does not exist in any other music.




> we have to conclude that film scores composers also advance the art of music.


No we don't. A myriad of possibilities exist.


----------



## Bulldog

Yabetz said:


> I still don't understand the apparent obsession with classification in this case. I can enjoy great film scores whether or not this person thinks they're "classical" while that other person thinks they're definitely not. I don't quite see what's at stake.


Nothing is at stake. What we have here is a small number of TC members who want their film music elevated to the classical realm.


----------



## pianozach

And here we are again, unable to agree on how wide the umbrella phrase "_Classical Music_" is.

Some folks prefer a more _exclusionary_ definition, while others prefer a more _inclusionary_ definition. 

There will never be a consensus.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Bulldog said:


> Nothing is at stake. What we have here is a small number of TC members who want their film music elevated to the classical realm.


What do you mean by "elevated"? Are you having an elitist attitude about this? Do you honestly think if Mozart was alive today, he wouldn't have written film music?


----------



## 4chamberedklavier

What's a clear example of music cannot "stand on its own"? What does it even mean? That the music doesn't follow a strict structure? Does that not disqualify all of the fantasies what we already consider classical?


----------



## EdwardBast

hammeredklavier said:


> What do you mean "elevated"? Are you having an elitist attitude about this topic? *Do you honestly think if Mozart was alive today, he wouldn't have written film music?*


What do you mean by "if Mozart were alive today?" Do you mean a genetically identical human who happened to be born in the 1990s? Or more than that? One who magically had the same personality and psychological makeup as 18thc Mozart despite growing up within the last thirty years and necessarily having had vastly different early experiences and an entirely different set of acquintances? One whose father was a composer in the high classical style of his day who promoted him as a child prodigy, home schooled him, dragged him around to musical salons of aristocrats and clergymen? Or do you just mean Mozart transported by time machine with a 250 year obsolete musical knowledge and vocabulary? It seems obvious on its face that Mozart could not be alive today in any meaningful sense. If you disagree, please explain how he could. Statements like yours should probably be given a fancy name and added to the list of fallacies.


----------



## DaveM

Bulldog said:


> Nothing is at stake. What we have here is a small number of TC members who want their film music elevated to the classical realm.


From my point of view, what has been discussed is not that simple. My argument, directed at those who are adamant that no film music should be looked on as a category of classical music, is that if that is so cut and dried, how does some contemporary/modern music (think avant-garde) get to be called CM?


----------



## hammeredklavier

EdwardBast said:


> What do you mean by "if Mozart were alive today?" Do you mean a genetically identical human who happened to be born in the 1990s? Or more than that?


I'm saying there's a lot of stuff in his oeuvre that could be considered as "film music" of the time.


----------



## Yabetz

Bulldog said:


> Nothing is at stake. What we have here is a small number of TC members who want their film music elevated to the classical realm.


The impression I get from some members is that the designation "classical music" is the opposite of elevation.


----------



## HansZimmer

Yabetz said:


> The impression I get from some members is that the designation "classical music" is the opposite of elevation.


Why?


----------



## HansZimmer

EdwardBast said:


> What do you mean by "if Mozart were alive today?" Do you mean a genetically identical human who happened to be born in the 1990s? Or more than that? One who magically had the same personality and psychological makeup as 18thc Mozart despite growing up within the last thirty years and necessarily having had vastly different early experiences and an entirely different set of acquintances? One whose father was a composer in the high classical style of his day who promoted him as a child prodigy, home schooled him, dragged him around to musical salons of aristocrats and clergymen?


It looks a bit like the story of Alan Menken.

_Alan Irwin Menken was born on July 22, 1949, at French Hospital in Manhattan, to Judith and Norman Menken. His father was a boogie-woogie piano-playing dentist, and his mother was an actress, dancer and playwright.[4][5] His family was Jewish.[6] Menken developed an interest in music at an early age, taking piano and violin lessons. He began to compose at an early age.[7] At age nine, at the New York Federation of Music Clubs Junior Composers Contest, his original composition "Bouree" was rated Superior and Excellent by the judges._


----------



## Yabetz

HansZimmer said:


> Why?


Just call your favorite film scores "popular music" and move on.


----------



## pianozach

pianozach said:


> And here we are again, unable to agree on how wide the umbrella phrase "_Classical Music_" is.
> 
> Some folks prefer a more _exclusionary_ definition, while others prefer a more _inclusionary_ definition.
> 
> There will never be a consensus.


And here we are again, unable to agree on how wide the umbrella phrase *"Classical Music"* is.

Some folks prefer a more _*exclusionary*_ definition, while others prefer a more _*inclusionary*_ definition.

*There will never be a consensus.*


----------



## hammeredklavier

If this isn't "classical music", then what is it?-





Discussion of any old non-western music is allowed on this "classical music" forum, btw.








Indian Classical Music (Carnatic Music)


I was born in America, but my parents are from Sri Lanka which is a very similar culture to Indian culture. Popular music at this time is very reminiscent of popular American music in that it is very poppy and highly accessible music. The entire popular arts of modern Indian Culture is being...




www.talkclassical.com


----------



## HansZimmer

Yabetz said:


> Just call your favorite film scores "popular music" and move on.


For me popular music doesn't exist: it's an invented category, just like art music.
The two categories might have had a sense at the times where only classical music was written music, but today the scores are used universally.
So, these categories today are only a snob thing. Names must disappear when they refer to concepts that don't exist anymore.

What it makes still sense today is to simply have different names for different styles of music.
Classical music is simply a style of music like many others (pop, rock, jazz, dance, rap,...) and many film scores are certainly in classical styles, so they are classical music. My view on this subject is very simple and I don't understand all this mental ************.


You asked why we are discussing the subject and you said that categories are irrelevant, but now you are showing that you like categories. I opened this discussion only because I wanted to know the reasonings behind some positions that I've read many times and I have to say that the arguments are very weak.

Just call the film scores with classical language and classical instrumentation "classical music" and move on.


----------



## HansZimmer

pianozach said:


> And here we are again, unable to agree on how wide the umbrella phrase *"Classical Music"* is.
> 
> Some folks prefer a more _*exclusionary*_ definition, while others prefer a more _*inclusionary*_ definition.
> 
> *There will never be a consensus.*


An exclusionary definition must have a sense however.

I have never heard a rap listener who said "this is not rap music but film music because this song has been written for a film".






"Film music" and "music of style X" are simply not mutually exclusive: only between the classical music listeners I've heard the illogical idea that "film music" and "classical music" are mutually exclusive.


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

HansZimmer said:


> I have never heard a rap listener who said "this is not rap music but film music because this song has been written for a film".


That's... actually quite a logic bomb.


----------



## HansZimmer

VoiceFromTheEther said:


> That's... actually quite a logic bomb.


Why?


----------



## Yabetz

HansZimmer said:


> For me popular music doesn't exist: it's an invented category, just like art music.
> The two categories might have had a sense at the times where only classical music was written music, but today the scores are used universally.
> So, these categories today are only a snob thing. Names must disappear when they refer to concepts that don't exist anymore.
> 
> What it makes still sense today is to simply have different names for different styles of music.
> Classical music is simply a style of music like many others (pop, rock, jazz, dance, rap,...) and many film scores are certainly in classical styles, so they are classical music. My view on this subject is very simple and I don't understand all this mental ******.
> 
> 
> You asked why we are discussing the subject and you said that categories are irrelevant, but now you are showing that you like categories. I opened this discussion only because I wanted to know the reasonings behind some positions that I've read many times and I have to say that the arguments are very weak.
> 
> Just call the film scores with classical language and classical instrumentation "classical music" and move on.


I'm saying that for the purposes of this forum, if you label film scores as popular music it will render that music immune to criticism.


----------



## HansZimmer

Yabetz said:


> I'm saying that for the purposes of this forum, if you label film scores as popular music it will render that music immune to criticism.


Why should it be immune to criticism? It's a good thing to criticize film scores and composers, but with intelligent arguments. To say that John Williams, who took a degree in one of the most respected music schools of the USA, has an obsolete musical knowledge or vocabulary, it's stupid and arrogant. And no, John Williams is not the "last composer of the earth". Thomas Newman, Alan Menken, Howard Shore and others also have a high degree in the music field.

I think that a user is free to say that he doesn't like the music of any of them, but he shouldn't end up in defamation towards the composers only because he can't connect with their music.


----------



## EdwardBast

hammeredklavier said:


> I'm saying there's a lot of stuff in his oeuvre that could be considered as "film music" of the time.


There is stuff that could "be considered"  the musical theater and opera of his time, so why film music rather than modern musical theater or opera?


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

HansZimmer said:


> Why?


A down-to-earth comparison that makes the theological disputes look silly and excessive.


----------



## Yabetz

EdwardBast said:


> There is stuff that could "be considered"  the musical theater and opera of his time, so why film music rather than modern musical theater or opera?


What is it exactly about film music that makes it such a special case? There's probably not much as inseparable as the action and the music in Wagner's work, but he did authorize standalone orchestral extracts during his lifetime.


----------



## pianozach

Yabetz said:


> What is it exactly about film music that makes it such a special case? There's probably not much as inseparable as the action and the music in Wagner's work, but he did authorize standalone orchestral extracts during his lifetime.


Film music has its own niche, and the styles in which it exists overlaps styles in both Classical and Popular Music.

Ballet, Musical Theatre, Opera are all niche styles that also overlap. There are "Rock Operas" (Jesus Christ Superstar, Rent). I wouldn't be at all surprised if there was a Rap Ballet. Kanye West wrote a Hip Hop Oratorio (OK, it sucks, but there it is): It's "Classical" because it's an "Orotorio", yet it's all Hip Hoppy.


----------



## Yabetz

hammeredklavier said:


> If this isn't "classical music", then what is it?-
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Part III for violin or viola. Ol' Ben must've never learned the C clef.


----------



## hammeredklavier

EdwardBast said:


> There is stuff that could "be considered"  the musical theater and opera of his time, so why film music rather than modern musical theater or opera?


You think "incidental music" of the past is very much different from "film music" of today in function?


----------



## DaveM

VoiceFromTheEther said:


> A down-to-earth comparison that makes the theological disputes look silly and excessive.


‘theological’?


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

DaveM said:


> ‘theological’?


Definition-/wording-focused, doctrinal, irreconcilable, looped...


----------



## HansZimmer

VoiceFromTheEther said:


> A down-to-earth comparison that makes the theological disputes look silly and excessive.


I missed your point.


----------



## HansZimmer

Bulldog said:


> Nothing is at stake. What we have here is a small number of TC members who want their film music elevated to the classical realm.


A piece of music is not elevated only because is classical. A piece of classical music can be bad. So, if you say that a film score is classical doesn't mean that you are saying that it's good: you are only defining the style.

I elevate some film scores? Yes, but not with the style definition: I elevate them by saying that they are excellent. Other film scores can be classical and bad.

You have to understand that the style has nothing to do with the quality. A pop song can be good and a classical music piece can be bad.


----------



## Luchesi

HansZimmer said:


> A piece of music is not elevated only because is classical. A piece of classical music can be bad. So, if you say that a film score is classical doesn't mean that you are saying that it's good: you are only defining the style.
> 
> I elevate some film scores? Yes, but not with the style definition: I elevate them by saying that they are excellent. Other film scores can be classical and bad.
> 
> You have to understand that the style has nothing to do with the quality. A pop song can be good and a classical music piece can be bad.


If you don't care about the differences it shouldn't matter to you. I just don't like teaching young people that categorizing is unimportant or invalid, because I know that logical categories are helpful for learning.


----------



## Forster

HansZimmer said:


> Just call the film scores with classical language and classical instrumentation "classical music" and *move on*.


Yes, let's, but after adjusting your label to "classical style film music". 😉

The reason that there is no, and will be no consensus about what classical music is, is that there is no sole world authority to define it.

If there is no clear, universally agreed and simple to apply definition of CM, then it's hardly surprising that there is no agreement about what does and does not belong in the category.


----------



## Luchesi

Forster said:


> Yes, let's, but after adjusting your label to "classical style film music". 😉
> 
> The reason that there is no, and will be no consensus about what classical music is, is that there is no sole world authority to define it.
> 
> If there is no clear, universally agreed and simple to apply definition of CM, then it's hardly surprising that there is no agreement about what does and does not belong in the category.


I believe that a musician can look at two scores and determine which is which. Even I can do it. 

A non-musician might be able to do it, by listening. I don't know.


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

Forster said:


> The reason that there is no, and will be no consensus about what classical music is, is that there is no sole world authority to define it.


I think that many actually do form their views based on "authorities". Had Karajan, C. Kleiber, Davis, Mravinsky, and other reputed conductors of the dearly clutched LPs put even just suites by Rózsa, Waxman, or Shostakovich on their albums and in their concerts, there would be no argument.


Luchesi said:


> I believe that a musician can look at two scores and determine which is which.


I see no more difference between a page from a classical film score and a score in a different genre of classical than between pages from a Mendelssohn symphony and pages from a Wagner opera. In both cases it is hard to compare the structural thinking, and easy to compare the rest.


----------



## Forster

VoiceFromTheEther said:


> I think that many actually do form their views based on "authorities". Had Karajan, C. Kleiber, Davis, Mravinsky, and other reputed conductors of the dearly clutched LPs put even just suites by Rózsa, Waxman, or Shostakovich on their albums and in their concerts, there would be no argument.


Oh yes, undoubtedly they do make use of "authorities"...and when orchestras of international renown include film soundtracks in any programme, it gives weight to their claims. I'm not objecting by the way.


----------



## Luchesi

VoiceFromTheEther said:


> I think that many actually do form their views based on "authorities". Had Karajan, C. Kleiber, Davis, Mravinsky, and other reputed conductors of the dearly clutched LPs put even just suites by Rózsa, Waxman, or Shostakovich on their albums and in their concerts, there would be no argument.
> 
> I see no more difference between a page from a classical film score and a score in a different genre of classical than between pages from a Mendelssohn symphony and pages from a Wagner opera. In both cases it is hard to compare the structural thinking, and easy to compare the rest.


Ask other musicians in here if they can determine which is which. If you can't, I don't know why.


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

Luchesi said:


> Ask other musicians in here if they can determine which is which.


For what purpose?


----------



## Yabetz

Luchesi said:


> Ask other musicians in here if they can determine which is which. If you can't, I don't know why.


The distinctions aren't always clear-cut though, and I'm a musician of sorts myself. Is the original soundtrack of _West Side Story _pop or classical? Or just another musical a la Rodgers and Hammerstein? Can a musical be "classical", or is it forever an interloper in the "classical world"? If a musical can't be classical, then how do you characterize those Weill-Brecht collaborations?


----------



## HansZimmer

Luchesi said:


> If you don't care about the differences it shouldn't matter to you. I just don't like teaching young people that categorizing is unimportant or invalid, because I know that logical categories are helpful for learning.


I didn't write that categories are not important. I simply wrote that there are "quality categories" and "style categories". "Classical music" is a style category and not a quality category.

In order to elevate a piece of music, you use the "quality categories". The classical music community put some pieces in the "masterpiece" category and the rock music community does the same with some rock pieces. Both communities have low considerations of some pieces inside their favourite style.


That said, no one here has explained why, speaking of style categories, this piece of John Williams shouldn't be considered classical.






I haven't read any analytical argument, like for example "the structure of any single classical music piece is like this and that piece doesn't follow the structure". The users here only wrote "if the music is written to accompany images is not classical", which is a very weak argument that also disqualify incidental music from the category "classical music".

What about quality categories (which is an other question)? I put the piece in the "very good" category and not only because I like it, but because the orchestration and the score look smart. You see that it's a piece composed and arranged by someone with a solid musical background. 
I wrote in an other discussion that the ability in theme writing for me is one of the most important quality of a composer and I think that John Williams has a great talent in this (like all the most famous film scores composers).


----------



## Forster

^ I don't recognise the notion of quality _categories_, or that this applies to the idea that some listeners want film music to be 'elevated'.


----------



## Luchesi

Yabetz said:


> The distinctions aren't always clear-cut though, and I'm a musician of sorts myself. Is the original soundtrack of _West Side Story _pop or classical? Or just another musical a la Rodgers and Hammerstein? Can a musical be "classical", or is it forever an interloper in the "classical world"? If a musical can't be classical, then how do you characterize those Weill-Brecht collaborations?


If you're talking music with Bernstein and you ask him, is the music to West Side Story classical music? What would he say? What would he want to teach young people?


----------



## Luchesi

HansZimmer said:


> I didn't write that categories are not important. I simply wrote that there are "quality categories" and "style categories". "Classical music" is a style category and not a quality category.
> 
> In order to elevate a piece of music, you use the "quality categories". The classical music community put some pieces in the "masterpiece" category and the rock music community does the same with some rock pieces. Both communities have low considerations of some pieces inside their favourite style.
> 
> 
> That said, no one here has explained why, speaking of style categories, this piece of John Williams shouldn't be considered classical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't read any analytical argument, like for example "the structure of any single classical music piece is like this and that piece doesn't follow the structure". The users here only wrote "if the music is written to accompany images is not classical", which is a very weak argument that also disqualify incidental music from the category "classical music".
> 
> What about quality categories (which is an other question)? I put the piece in the "very good" category and not only because I like it, but because the orchestration and the score look smart. You see that it's a piece composed and arranged by someone with a solid musical background.
> I wrote in an other discussion that the ability in theme writing for me is one of the most important quality of a composer and I think that John Williams has a great talent in this (like all the most famous film scores composers).


Classical music is in a style category. What music is in a quality category?


----------



## Luchesi

VoiceFromTheEther said:


> For what purpose?


Can musicians determine what's stage and screen music by looking at scores? is it that obvious?


----------



## Yabetz

Luchesi said:


> If you're talking music with Bernstein and you ask him, is the music to West Side Story classical music? What would he say? What would he want to teach young people?


What do you think it is?


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

Maybe I'm wrong, but wouldn't Bernstein say something about the history being the judge on the matter? Or "it's just music"?


----------



## Yabetz

I may be wrong, but I don't think Bach, Beethoven, Wagner or Mozart ever categorized their _own _music as "classical".


----------



## Forster

Y


Yabetz said:


> I may be wrong, but I don't think Bach, Beethoven, Wagner or Mozart ever categorized their _own _music as "classical".


You're not wrong, but those seeking the elevation of film music to the status of classical aren't worried about what Wolfie and Ludwig thought.


----------



## Yabetz

Forster said:


> Y
> 
> 
> You're not wrong, but those seeking the elevation of film music to the status of classical aren't worried about what Wolfie and Ludwig thought.


I wasn't either. I'm saying they didn't categorize their music as "classical". And how would that designation be an "elevation" anyway? I think the argument is that some film scores fit into the category of "classical music", and I think some do. I don't understand how that's such a scandalous thought.
What exactly makes this classical music? I call it classical.


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

Yabetz said:


> I may be wrong, but I don't think Bach, Beethoven, Wagner or Mozart ever categorized their _own _music as "classical".


Nor would Berlioz, Mendelssohn, or Mahler. "classical music" used to mean the music of those already gone that was still being performed because it had stood the test of time.


----------



## Yabetz

VoiceFromTheEther said:


> Nor would Berlioz, Mendelssohn, or Mahler. "classical music" used to mean the music of those already gone that was still being performed because it had stood the test of time.


Well yeah but that could apply to Bix Beiderbecke as well. It's tough to nail down.


----------



## Luchesi

Yabetz said:


> What do you think it is?


It's music for the story.


----------



## Luchesi

VoiceFromTheEther said:


> Maybe I'm wrong, but wouldn't Bernstein say something about the history being the judge on the matter? Or "it's just music"?


I can't believe he thought he was composing classical music.


----------



## Luchesi

Yabetz said:


> I may be wrong, but I don't think Bach, Beethoven, Wagner or Mozart ever categorized their _own _music as "classical".


They thought they were composing significant music which would long endure.


----------



## hammeredklavier

----------------------------------------------


----------



## HansZimmer

Forster said:


> ^ I don't recognise the notion of quality _categories_, or that this applies to the idea that some listeners want film music to be 'elevated'.


I don't understand the point of this post. You have to elaborate the concept if you want a comment.


----------



## Forster

HansZimmer said:


> I don't understand the point of this post. You have to elaborate the concept if you want a comment.


It's _your _concept - not mine - it's you that needs to do the elaborating. Quote:



> I didn't write that categories are not important. I simply wrote that there are "quality categories" and "style categories". "Classical music" is a style category and not a quality category.
> In order to elevate a piece of music, you use the "quality categories".


----------



## Forster

Yabetz said:


> [...] And how would that designation be an "elevation" anyway?


Ask those who want the elevation and to whom that is important.


----------



## Krummhorn

Over the years as an admin on this forum I have seen time and again a question in the Identifying Classical Music Fora to name the 'classical piece' in this or that movie. The uneducated outside world seems to think that every time they hear a Violin playing, they assume it's Classical music. 

It's one of my many pet peeves.


----------



## Yabetz

Forster said:


> Ask those who want the elevation and to whom that is important.


I think "elevation" was your term.


----------



## Yabetz

Luchesi said:


> It's music for the story.


So is the music to Tannhäuser.


Krummhorn said:


> Over the years as an admin on this forum I have seen time and again a question in the Identifying Classical Music Fora to name the 'classical piece' in this or that movie. The uneducated outside world seems to think that every time they hear a Violin playing, they assume it's Classical music.
> 
> It's one of my many pet peeves.


But then again the Kurt Weill work I referenced above features a banjo occasionally. What makes it classical?


----------



## HansZimmer

Krummhorn said:


> Over the years as an admin on this forum I have seen time and again a question in the Identifying Classical Music Fora to name the 'classical piece' in this or that movie. The uneducated outside world seems to think that every time they hear a Violin playing, they assume it's Classical music.
> 
> It's one of my many pet peeves.


We don't think that some film scores are classical music only for the instrumentation, but also for the musical language.

I think that no one believes that this piece, for example, is classical music.


----------



## HansZimmer

Luchesi said:


> Classical music is in a style category. What music is in a quality category?


Quality categories: "Horrible", "Quite bad", "Not so good and not so bad", "Good", "Very good", "Excellent".

Style categories: "Classical", "Pop", "Rock, "Jazz", "Blues", "Rap", "Dance",...


So, a film score can be "Classical" and "Horrible" and an other one can be "Pop" and "Excellent".

I don't understand what's so difficult about this elementary concept.


----------



## HansZimmer

Forster said:


> It's _your _concept - not mine - it's you that needs to do the elaborating. Quote:


I don't need to elaborate because it's clear what I'm writing and I don't understand what's your problem with my post.


----------



## HansZimmer

Forster said:


> You're not wrong, but those seeking the elevation of film music to the status of classical aren't worried about what Wolfie and Ludwig thought.


I implore you to stop with the usage of the word "elevating", because it's a strawman.
If you say that a film score belongs to the style category "classical music" you are not elevating it, because it can be bad classical music.
On the other hand, if you say that a film score which belongs to the "pop" style category is as good as a great Mozart's piece, then you are elevating it. However a piece of music, according to me, should be compared to other pieces of music in the same style: it doesn't make so much sense to compare apples and oranges. It's better to create separate charts for the different styles.
In youtube I read someone who was comparing Freddie Mercury to Beethoven, which is an example of elevation.

That said, do I elevate some soundtracks? Yes, because I put them in the quality category "excellent", which is the same quality category in which I put some Mozart's pieces. Doesn't matter if they are classical or not for the purpose of qualitative evaluation. Even if we would conclude that they are not classical (and I consider some of my favourite soundtracks not exactly classical, but crossover), I would still elevate them by saying that they are excellent.


----------



## HansZimmer

A little advertise.

I opened a new poll for the competition about film scores in the Movie Corner: Talkclassical best film score award - 1993

It will close on the next week.


----------



## Forster

Yabetz said:


> I think "elevation" was your term.


No, it wasn't, it was first Bulldog's, then HammeredKlavier asked about it...then you did...then Hans Zimmer elaborated....

[add]

The term has been used before in other threads on the same issue:









Can Film Music be Classical ? Let's settle this...


It should have a beginning, a middle, and an end, and some internal logic to it more than just heightening the emotional effect of what's happening onscreen. (There are some subtler counterexamples, but for a quick answer, it works). Examples of this in the Film World? Any complete film score...




www.talkclassical.com





And the general issue about whether film music counts as classical has been around a long time here:

Are Movie Soundtracks the New Classics? | Classical Music Forum (talkclassical.com)


----------



## Yabetz

Forster said:


> No, it wasn't, it was first Bulldog's, then HammeredKlavier asked about it...then you did...then Hans Zimmer elaborated....
> 
> [add]
> 
> The term has been used before in other threads on the same issue:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can Film Music be Classical ? Let's settle this...
> 
> 
> It should have a beginning, a middle, and an end, and some internal logic to it more than just heightening the emotional effect of what's happening onscreen. (There are some subtler counterexamples, but for a quick answer, it works). Examples of this in the Film World? Any complete film score...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.talkclassical.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the general issue about whether film music counts as classical has been around a long time here:
> 
> Are Movie Soundtracks the New Classics? | Classical Music Forum (talkclassical.com)


No, but you used the term in the same sense that Bulldog did. The OP. didn't and neither really did I, so that's irrelevant.


----------



## Forster

Yabetz said:


> No, but you used the term in the same sense that Bulldog did. The OP. didn't and neither really did I, so that's irrelevant.


Nonsense.


----------



## Forster

HansZimmer said:


> Quality categories: "Horrible", "Quite bad", "Not so good and not so bad", "Good", "Very good", "Excellent".
> 
> Style categories: "Classical", "Pop", "Rock, "Jazz", "Blues", "Rap", "Dance",...
> 
> 
> So, a film score can be "Classical" and "Horrible" and an other one can be "Pop" and "Excellent".
> 
> I don't understand what's so difficult about this elementary concept.


I'd say that quality _categories_ don't exist in the same way that one can categorise music according to certain attributes that might be labelled pop or jazz (etc). We already know what trouble that causes!


----------



## HansZimmer

Forster said:


> I'd say that quality _categories_ don't exist in the same way that one can categorise music according to certain attributes that might be labelled pop or jazz (etc). We already know what trouble that causes!


The quality categories are more subjective.


----------



## Luchesi

hammeredklavier said:


> “We cannot be sure if ‘composing freely’ is a concept that Mozart would have understood or desired: all the evidence is that he yearned to be needed and appreciated—to be asked to write music because people wanted it, to show off the skills of his singers and players as well as possible, to make the most of whatever practical performing circumstances he was faced with. Yes, he wanted his audiences to enjoy his music, and to show by their attention that they were enjoying it. Yes, he wanted his music to be better, cleverer, more passionate, and more memorable than everyone else’s, and probably believed it to be so, but there is not a shred of support for the idea that he ever consciously wrote for some far-distant future.” —Nicholas Kenyon (Faber Pocket Guide to Mozart)


As I think about your quote;
Bach expected a career in music would be making a living with his passion for music. Thoughts about the future?
Mozart grew up poor and he wanted to buy things as soon as he was making money. Going into debt to live in a high style, showing off to his peers with his clever works and superficial appearances. He cared about changing music 'styles' and into the future.
Beethoven, we know his ego and ideals, he expected his works to last a century, I guess. No concepts of recording music or streaming music worldwide.
Wagner was presenting his stories to like minds. He suspected his operas would be discussed and re-discussed for a long time.


----------



## Yabetz

Forster said:


> Nonsense.


Ummm, no.


Forster said:


> I'd say that quality _categories_ don't exist in the same way that one can categorise music according to certain attributes that might be labelled pop or jazz (etc). We already know what trouble that causes!


So what musical attributes in themselves differentiate a Bernard Herrmann score from a Prokofiev ballet?


----------



## SanAntone

Yabetz said:


> Ummm, no.
> So what musical attributes in themselves differentiate a Bernard Herrmann score from a Prokofiev ballet?


Focusing on musical attributes is a red herring. The primary difference between music composed for film and classical music is one of intention of the composer and who is in control of the final product.

Bernard Hermann intended to write music for a specific film, with musical cues of certain lengths and in a style which is driven by the content of the filmed scenes, the director's vision, and style of the movie. The score is an episodic group of short pieces of music which are dependent on the film for their purpose, in which the director retains complete control of the film and all decisions on how much of, and how, the music is used.

Classical music composers intend to write works guided only by their aesthetic decisions and with a concert audience in mind. Their work is an organic whole in which the composer is complete control.


----------



## Forster

Yabetz said:


> Ummm, no.
> So what musical attributes in themselves differentiate a Bernard Herrmann score from a Prokofiev ballet?


Great question. It's why I noted "the trouble".


----------



## mikeh375

Yabetz said:


> ......So what musical attributes in themselves differentiate a Bernard Herrmann score from a Prokofiev ballet?


Timings, orchestral scoring and timbral freedom, Phrase lengths, harmonic language, dynamic freedom, melodic freedom etc. All the musical things that film scoring necessarily restricts in one way or another. Ballet and opera music is technically and aesthetically digetic whilst film score, or rather underscore generally is not and that distinction makes quite a difference creatively for the composer, releasing as it does, many aspects of music from the shackles and expectations of pure utility work.


----------



## DaveM

mikeh375 said:


> Timings, orchestral scoring and timbral freedom, Phrase lengths, harmonic language, dynamic freedom, melodic freedom etc. All the musical things that film scoring necessarily restricts in one way or another..


Everytime I read about the alleged limitations of film music that make it ineligible as classical music, I’ll raise the question as to how does avant-garde music get included. Talk about restrictions: no harmony, no (discernable) melody, limited or no orchestral scoring (since most of it is not composed for orchestra) etc. Again, I don’t have much interest in arguing that film music be labelled CM nor am I really interested in excluding avante-garde, but I don’t get how no one questions avant-garde music being CM (outside of it being PC) while a number of people here have all sorts of reasons to exclude film music. 

Yes, there is the premise that academia has decreed that avant-garde is CM, but IMO that is like a Presidential Executive Order where the people didn’t get a vote.


----------



## SanAntone

DaveM said:


> Everytime I read about the alleged limitations of film music that make it ineligible as classical music, I’ll raise the question as to how does avant-garde music get included. Talk about restrictions: no harmony, no (discernable) melody, limited or no orchestral scoring (since most of it is not composed for orchestra) etc. Again, I don’t have much interest in arguing that film music be labelled CM nor am I really interested in excluding avante-garde, but I don’t get how no one questions avant-garde music being CM (outside of it being PC) while a number of people here have all sorts of reasons to exclude film music.
> 
> Yes, there is the premise that academia has decreed that avant-garde is CM, but IMO that is like a Presidential Executive Order where the people didn’t get a vote.


This is why I don't define classical music by how it sounds but by the intention of the composer.


----------



## Yabetz

mikeh375 said:


> Timings, orchestral scoring and timbral freedom, Phrase lengths, harmonic language, dynamic freedom, melodic freedom etc. All the musical things that film scoring necessarily restricts in one way or another. Ballet and opera music is technically and aesthetically digetic whilst film score, or rather underscore generally is not and that distinction makes quite a difference creatively for the composer, releasing as it does, many aspects of music from the shackles and expectations of pure utility work.


"Timbral freedom"? Herrmann composed the music for _Psycho _just the way he wanted. Anyway any work that is tied to another work of art is going to be similarly "restricted". That includes incidental music, operas and ballets, unless like Wagner the composer also writes the libretto and stage directions. And as I said, even so Wagner authorized orchestral extracts wrenched from their original contexts to be played as standalone music. No film score probably ever matched the action on a stage so closely as Wagner's music for his music-dramas. I just find it puzzling that "film music" is automatically excluded from the "classical world". It actually isn't. Orchestras program concert versions of Hermann and Williams film music, among others. 



SanAntone said:


> This is why I don't define classical music by how it sounds but by the intention of the composer.


"Intention"? Bach didn't sit down and say "I am going to compose some classical music". Bach's _intention _was most likely for his sacred choral music to be performed in a church. His intention was an act of worship.


----------



## SanAntone

Yabetz said:


> "Timbral freedom"? Herrmann composed the music for _Psycho _just the way he wanted. Anyway any work that is tied to another work of art is going to be similarly "restricted". That includes incidental music, operas and ballets, unless like Wagner the composer also writes the libretto and stage directions. And as I said, even so Wagner authorized orchestral extracts wrenched from their original contexts to be played as standalone music. No film score probably ever matched the action on a stage so closely as Wagner's music for his music-dramas. I just find it puzzling that "film music" is automatically excluded from the "classical world". It actually isn't. Orchestras program concert versions of Hermann and Williams film music, among others.
> 
> 
> "Intention"? Bach didn't sit down and say "I am going to compose some classical music". Bach's _intention _was most likely for his sacred choral music to be performed in a church. His intention was an act of worship.


Bach's intention was to execute a serious musical work for the glory of God. This is comparable to a 21st century composer such as Philip Glass writing a serious opera inspired by Buddhism, or John Cage actualizing his Zen beliefs. But very different from Bernard Hermann writing a film score according to the dictates of the director.


----------



## Yabetz

SanAntone said:


> Bach's intention was to execute a serious musical work for the glory of God. This is comparable to a 21st century composer such as Philip Glass writing a serious opera inspired by Buddhism, or John Cage actualizing his Zen beliefs. But very different from Bernard Hermann writing a film score according to the dictates of the director.


Or an extract from an opera or ballet? And the music of Cage or Glass isn't liturgical. Also Bernard Herrmann wasn't totally following the dictates of Alfred Hitchcock. In fact the two parted ways when Hitchcock wanted more of a "pop" feel to his movie scores.


----------



## SanAntone

Yabetz said:


> Also Bernard Herrmann wasn't totally following the dictates of Alfred Hitchcock. In fact the two parted ways when Hitchcock wanted more of a "pop" feel to his movie scores.


I won't argue with you. As a trained composer recognizing the difference is elementary for me. I know the difference in writing within a classical context and not, and can tell you if a composer were to get them confused he would not have a successful career.


----------



## Forster

Yabetz said:


> Also Bernard Herrmann wasn't totally following the dictates of Alfred Hitchcock. In fact the two parted ways when Hitchcock wanted more of a "pop" feel to his movie scores.


...thereby demonstrating that the composer must ultimately satisfy the director with his score.


----------



## mikeh375

Yabetz said:


> "Timbral freedom"? Herrmann composed the music for _Psycho _just the way he wanted. Anyway any work that is tied to another work of art is going to be similarly "restricted". That includes incidental music, operas and ballets, unless like Wagner the composer also writes the libretto and stage directions. And as I said, even so Wagner authorized orchestral extracts wrenched from their original contexts to be played as standalone music. No film score probably ever matched the action on a stage so closely as Wagner's music for his music-dramas. I just find it puzzling that "film music" is automatically excluded from the "classical world". It actually isn't. Orchestras program concert versions of Hermann and Williams film music, among others.
> 
> 
> "Intention"? Bach didn't sit down and say "I am going to compose some classical music". Bach's _intention _was most likely for his sacred choral music to be performed in a church. His intention was an act of worship.


Like @SanAntone , I too am a trained composer and havel also worked in music for film and TV. Rather than spell out another lengthy and repeated exposition of my take on this, please accept my referring you to a few earlier posts of mine in this thread as response to your post...posts 5, 53 and 102.
There is restriction on timbral freedom for underscore especially in that dialogue and sfx normally have priority and scoring cannot be too intrusive as a general rule. This can be done cleverly and sensitively with simpler music and orchestration. Goldsmith was a master of underscore - one engineer used to set levels on the mixing desk at the beginning of a film dub/mixing session and hardly touch them at all afterwards because Goldsmith's music rarely intruded on the more important aspects of audio, giving no reason to 'duck' the music underneath.

Regarding opera, the composer has unlimited freedom re his technical and aesthetic musical choices, including timings. This is not so in film work and worse still, many practical and emotional musical decisions are often finalised by committee during post production. The end result is utility and not music from a deeper introspective and absolute- orientated personal place.
But just to be clear, I am happy to see the best of orchestral film scoring in the concert hall, my comments tell the tale from a composer's pov and that leads to a very different view to those who think a film score comes from the same place as a concert work does within a composer. It doesn't and that matters to me because the end results can be and in fact are, very very different as the Williams example I cited in an earlier post clearly demonstrates.






DaveM said:


> Everytime I read about the alleged limitations of film music that make it ineligible as classical music, I’ll raise the question as to how does avant-garde music get included. Talk about restrictions: no harmony, no (discernable) melody, limited or no orchestral scoring (since most of it is not composed for orchestra) etc. Again, I don’t have much interest in arguing that film music be labelled CM nor am I really interested in excluding avante-garde, but I don’t get how no one questions avant-garde music being CM (outside of it being PC) while a number of people here have all sorts of reasons to exclude film music.
> 
> Yes, there is the premise that academia has decreed that avant-garde is CM, but IMO that is like a Presidential Executive Order where the people didn’t get a vote.


There's nothing 'alleged' about it, you'd understand that if you were experiencing composition from inside of media and then moving onto writing something more 'absolute'. Classification of the Avant Garde is not really relevant here so far as I can tell.


----------



## Forster

DaveM said:


> Talk about restrictions: no harmony, no (discernable) melody, limited or no orchestral scoring (since *most of it is not composed for orchestra*) etc.


But that begs the question, what is avant-garde music?



> Avant-garde music may be distinguished from experimental music by the way it adopts an extreme position within a certain tradition, whereas experimental music lies outside tradition.[2] In a historical sense, some musicologists use the term "avant-garde music" for the radical compositions that succeeded the death of Anton Webern in 1945,[3][_verification needed_] but others disagree. For example, Ryan Minor writes that this period began with the work of Richard Wagner,[4] whereas Edward Lowinsky cites Josquin des Prez.[5] The term may also be used to refer to any post-1945 tendency of modernist music not definable as experimental music, though sometimes including a type of experimental music characterized by the rejection of tonality.[3] A commonly cited example of avant-garde music is John Cage's _4'33"_ (1952),[1] a piece which instructs the performer(s) not to play their instrument(s) during its entire duration.[6] The piece has been described as “not a musical ‘work’ in the normal sense, only an occasion for a Zen-like meditation.”[7]
> 
> Although some modernist music is also avant-garde, a distinction can be made between the two categories. According to scholar Larry Sitsky, because the purpose of avant-garde music is necessarily political, social, and cultural critique, so that it challenges social and artistic values by provoking or goading audiences, composers such as Igor Stravinsky, Richard Strauss, Arnold Schoenberg, Anton Webern, George Antheil and Claude Debussy may reasonably be considered to have been avant-gardists in their early works (which were understood as provocative, whether or not the composers intended them that way), but Sitsky does not consider the label appropriate for their later music.[8] For example, modernists of the post–World War II period, such as Milton Babbitt, Luciano Berio, Elliott Carter, György Ligeti, and Witold Lutosławski, never conceived their music for the purpose of goading an audience and cannot, therefore, be classified as avant-garde. Composers such as John Cage and Harry Partch, on the contrary, remained avant-gardists throughout their creative careers.[8]


Avant-garde music - Wikipedia

(I'm not offering this as a definitive explanation, only an easy starting point.)

Frankly, it's easier to work with the label "film music" than any other because we can at least agree on the one thing that denotes all film music. What's wrong with settling for that and leaving it alone? Why does it _need _to be described as classical when film music is a perfectly serviceable label?


----------



## DaveM

Forster said:


> But that begs the question, what is avant-garde music?
> 
> 
> 
> Avant-garde music - Wikipedia
> 
> (I'm not offering this as a definitive explanation, only an easy starting point.)


After years of talking about it on this forum, I don’t think what we mean by avant-garde music is all that big a mystery.



> Frankly, it's easier to work with the label "film music" than any other because we can at least agree on the one thing that denotes all film music. What's wrong with settling for that and leaving it alone? Why does it _need _to be described as classical when film music is a perfectly serviceable label?


Don‘t ask me. If you read my post closely, arguing in favor of calling film music CM was not part of it.


----------



## Forster

DaveM said:


> After years of talking about it on this forum, I don’t think what we mean by avant-garde music is all that big a mystery.
> 
> 
> Don‘t ask me. If you read my post closely, arguing in favor of calling film music CM was not part of it.


It's not that it's a mystery...it's just it's subject to the same fog of definition as classical itself.

My question wasn't really directed at you, but to those who believe we need to label film music as classical.


----------



## Yabetz

Forster said:


> It's not that it's a mystery...it's just it's subject to the same fog of definition as classical itself.
> 
> My question wasn't really directed at you, but to those who believe we need to label film music as classical.


I don't think we _need _to label it as anything. The question is, what's the objection to labeling it as classical if the term can't be defined with very much precision?


mikeh375 said:


> ...
> Regarding opera, the composer has unlimited freedom re his technical and aesthetic musical choices, including timings.
> ...


Unless we're talking about an avant garde work in which anything goes, that's just not true, if the work is to be coherent. Even Mozart had to tailor the music to fit da Ponte's librettos and the situations depicted.


----------



## Forster

^^ I don't think we need to label it either. No other question required.


----------



## HansZimmer

SanAntone said:


> Focusing on musical attributes is a red herring. The primary difference between music composed for film and classical music is one of intention of the composer and who is in control of the final product.
> 
> Bernard Hermann intended to write music for a specific film, with musical cues of certain lengths and in a style which is driven by the content of the filmed scenes, the director's vision, and style of the movie. The score is an episodic group of short pieces of music which are dependent on the film for their purpose, in which the director retains complete control of the film and all decisions on how much of, and how, the music is used.
> 
> Classical music composers intend to write works guided only by their aesthetic decisions and with a concert audience in mind. Their work is an organic whole in which the composer is complete control.


So, according to you, a part of the definition of classical music should be: "... the musical ideas come only from the mind of one person".
I don't see why in the definition of classical music these details should have a relevance. It seems like you are you trying to overcomplicate the definition until it becomes clumsy.

Imagine that in an opera Mozart has not a great compositional freedom because the libretto writer asks him to write very specific things. According to your definition, we should not consider the final result as "classical music" because in the compositional process the ideas came from more minds.
Furthermore, what you say about film music is true for opera too. If the libretto writer create a drammatic scene, Mozart must write drammatic music for the scene. He can not write happy music only because he is in the mood of writing a happy piece.
I really don't understand your point, because it's obvious that in incidental music the music is functional to a story, so what???

Now, put the concepts in order. The final result is classical music because the libretto writer expects that Mozart write classical music. Similarly, George Lucas explicitly told John Williams that he wanted a classical music score. That's why the score of Star Wars is classical.



SanAntone said:


> This is why I don't define classical music by how it sounds but by the intention of the composer.


It would be the exclusive style of music in which the definition is not based on the musical substance (instrumentation and musical language) and where the style has no name. You are free to support this idea, but before you should tell us how do we have to call the style, otherwise it would be the only style without a name.

However, what I think is that the definitions must remain simple and vague and that overcomplicate them is counterproductive.
You could simply say that a symphony, an opera and a film suite require three different compositionaly approaches, instead of overcomplicating the definition of classical music. I don't see why we can't simply use subcategories (symphony, sonata, opera, cantata, film suite,...) and explain the differences between them.


----------



## mikeh375

..................sorry, duplicate......


----------



## HansZimmer

Yabetz said:


> I don't think we _need _to label it as anything. The question is, what's the objection to labeling it as classical if the term can't be defined with very much precision?


You don't need to label anything because you don't own a classical music radio or a classical music forum.

The owner of this forum for example must decide what's classical music because if you post a piece of music that it's not classical according to him he has to move it in an other section. For example, I posted a videogame soundtrack in this section and a moderator moved it in an other section with the reason: "We don't consider videogame music to be classical because it's not standalone music".

The owner of Classic FM thinks exactly the opposite: the radio promotes videogame and film music because they consider some soundtracks as "classical music". The piece of videogame music which I posted in this forum had been accepted in the Classic FM Hall of Fame.

If you read the OP, the polemic started with a journalist who wrote an article against Classic FM and its choice to promote videogame and film music as classical music. I opened this discussion to know the reasons of the polemic. I suspect that the real reasons are snob and that the argumentation "it's not standalone music" is only a pretext.


----------



## mikeh375

Yabetz said:


> Unless we're talking about an avant garde work in which anything goes, that's just not true, if the work is to be coherent. Even Mozart had to tailor the music to fit da Ponte's librettos and the situations depicted.



If you read my referenced earlier posts, what I'm getting at might make sense. The freedom to create in a more personal language with all of the technical and expressive scope doing so can muster is available (expected even), for concert music, opera and ballet composing, but not for film music, whose requirements and aesthetic reach are limited by the expectations and practicalities of the genre. It's that very curtailed compromise imposed on the film score composer that weakens film music's efficacy and profundity as concert hall music when compared to the classics imv.
The limitations and requirements for a libretto or dance do not impact on creative options anything like they do for a film score. There is no harmonic, contrapuntal nor melodic restriction other than the obvious practicalities and the composer's language, nor is there any restriction on phrase length, dynamics or orchestration, other than being mindful of the voices for balance and clarity. Timings too are not defined in frames per second and every performance can be flexible enough to include individual artistry. However, everyone of these aforementioned aspects of composition are subject to curtailment or are dictated to linearly and emotionally in scoring for film by utility and/or directorial/producer decisions.

I cite again the Williams example I gave in earlier posts. A listen to the first couple of minutes of the concerto should make clear that he is already thinking very differently to his film score work being as he is, free of restriction musically and expressively. As a result, a very different language, paradigm and musical narrative is heard which is more deeply felt and personal and representative of the concept of composition for composition's sake.


----------



## HansZimmer

Forster said:


> ...thereby demonstrating that the composer must ultimately satisfy the director with his score.


Yes, the customer commands. George Lucas explicitly told John Williams that he wanted classical music for Star Wars and for one piece he asked him to copy from Mars of The Planets.

I suppose that the directors who rent John Williams expect that their score sound more or less classical, otherwise they would rent other composers more specialized in other styles.


----------



## mikeh375

^^^ Williams is the one who springs to mind who has demonstrated time after time that he is capable of score writing with much less compromise than many others. "Training well him serves.".... (Yoda at the Star Wars Premiere...).


----------



## HansZimmer

mikeh375 said:


> If you read my referenced earlier posts, what I'm getting at might make sense. The freedom to create in a more personal language with all of the technical and expressive scope doing so can muster is available (expected even), for concert music, opera and ballet composing, but not for film music, whose requirements and aesthetic reach are limited by the expectations and practicalities of the genre. It's that very curtailed compromise imposed on the film score composer that weakens film music's efficacy and profundity as concert hall music when compared to the classics imv.
> The limitations and requirements for a libretto or dance do not impact on creative options anything like they do for a film score. There is no harmonic, contrapuntal nor melodic restriction other than the obvious practicalities and the composer's language, nor is there any restriction on phrase length, dynamics or orchestration, other than being mindful of the voices for balance and clarity. Timings too are not defined in frames per second and every performance can be flexible enough to include individual artistry. However, everyone of these aforementioned aspects of composition are subject to curtailment or are dictated to linearly and emotionally in scoring for film by utility and/or directorial/producer decisions.
> 
> I cite again the Williams example I gave in earlier posts. A listen to the first couple of minutes of the concerto should make clear that he is already thinking very differently to his film score work being as he is, free of restriction musically and expressively. As a result, a very different language, paradigm and musical narrative is heard which is more deeply felt and personal and representative of the concept of composition for composition's sake.


To be honest, a piece for a film scene has only three specific requirements:

A mood: the melody must transmit the right mood
A length: the piece must for example have a duration of 2 minutes and 20 seconds (no more, no less)
A specific drammatic arc: the drammatic arc must be built in a way that makes sense for the scene (the evolution of the melody must follow the evolution of the scene)

It doesn't seem to me that these requirements kill so much the creativity and the freedom of the composer: there is still a great space for them.
Furthermore, there are the end credits and the opening, where the freedom of the composer is greater.

However it's obvious that incidental music is functional, so I agree with the fact that it must be considered a specific category of classical music and that we have to explain the differences between standalone music (symphony, sonata, cantata,...) and incidental music, but I don't agree with the idea that incindental music must be excluded from classical music.
We can use subcategories in order to explain the differences.


----------



## mikeh375

^^^ well yes I agree about the dramatic arc, another restriction on personal expression. Melody isn't the only transmitter of mood or dramatic arc. In fact I'd say harmony is more decisive when it comes to scoring a mood given that it controls tension and release in a more obvious and direct way.
(edited out my misunderstanding of what Hans wrote re duration)


----------



## HansZimmer

mikeh375 said:


> I'm not sure where you get the length of 2 ' 20" from


It's only an example. I wrote "the piece must for example have a duration of 2 minutes and 20 seconds".



> as that is just silly and melody isn't the only transmitter of mood. In fact I'd say harmony is more decisive when it comes to scoring a mood given that it controls tension and release in a more obvious way.


Because it's the melody that it's happy/sad/angry or calming/alarming, don't you think?


----------



## Forster

Perhaps the obvious needs to be stated: a film composer must control _all_ the same elements of music that any other composer must (not just melody), but to the liking of the director.


----------



## mikeh375

HansZimmer said:


> It's only an example. I wrote "the piece must for example have a duration of 2 minutes and 20 seconds".
> 
> Because it's the melody that it's happy/sad/angry or calm/alarming, don't you think?


yes sorry, I edited in an acknowledgement of my misreading of your post above.
I disagree that melody is the only generator of mood. Melody needs definition and harmony provides it, very rarely is it enough for a score. Harmony by supporting melody also helps to define its emotion but harmony does not need melody in order to create emotion.


----------



## HansZimmer

mikeh375 said:


> yes sorry, I edited in an acknowledgement of my misreading of your post above.
> I disagree that melody is the only generator of mood. Melody needs definition and harmony provides it, very rarely is it enough for a score.


If you prefer I can write that the mood is generated from melody+harmony+rythm.


----------



## mikeh375

HansZimmer said:


> If you prefer I can write that the mood is generated from melody+harmony+rythm.


If you add in orchestration and dynamics and the rest of the musical shebang then yeah, why not. None of which is exclusive to film work in generating mood, its just...well...music.


----------



## HansZimmer

Forster said:


> Perhaps the obvious needs to be stated: a film composer must control _all_ the same elements of music that any other composer must (not just melody), but to the liking of the director.


A more general statement: when an artist produces something for a specific customer, the latter can take a part in the artistic ideas. Keep in mind, however, that the film director is an artist as much as the composer (and his point of view is larger than the one of the composer), so the film score is created by two ARTISTS.


----------



## Forster

^ "Keep in mind" that I was merely addressing your assertion that "a piece for a film scene has only three specific requirements."

It doesn't. It has only one: that it satisfy the director.


----------



## Forster

HansZimmer said:


> You don't need to label anything because you don't own a classical music radio or a classical music forum.
> 
> The owner of this forum for example must decide what's classical music because if you post a piece of music that it's not classical according to him he has to move it in an other section. For example, I posted a videogame soundtrack in this section and a moderator moved it in an other section with the reason: "We don't consider videogame music to be classical because it's not standalone music".
> 
> The owner of Classic FM thinks exactly the opposite: the radio promotes videogame and film music because they consider some soundtracks as "classical music". The piece of videogame music which I posted in this forum had been accepted in the Classic FM Hall of Fame.
> 
> If you read the OP, the polemic started with a journalist who wrote an article against Classic FM and its choice to promote videogame and film music as classical music. I opened this discussion to know the reasons of the polemic. I suspect that the real reasons are snob and that the argumentation "it's not standalone music" is only a pretext.


Then let those that _must_ label do so as they wish. We're not obliged to agree with their decisions, or buy from their shop or listen to their station or post on their forum.


----------



## eljr

HansZimmer said:


> I posted a videogame soundtrack in this section and a moderator moved it in an other section with the reason: "We don't consider videogame music to be classical because it's not standalone music".


WOW!

Seems awfully opinionated. 

Honest, stand alone music? 

The Pictures at an Exhibition should not be posted, for example.


----------



## HansZimmer

Forster said:


> ^ "Keep in mind" that I was merely addressing your assertion that "a piece for a film scene has only three specific requirements."
> 
> It doesn't. It has only one: that it satisfy the director.


No, because the real commander is the film.

Cameron in Titanic could ask to James Horner to create a happy piece for the scene in which Jack dies, but he would be a failed film director if he had so silly ideas.
A good director and a good composer both know that the real commander is the film.
However the composer is the specialist of music and the director for sure expects a great artistic initiative from the composer. If I hire a worker I expect him/her to be atonomous and that he/she saves me to think too much about problems and details that belong to his professionality.

Of course the director has the last word, but don't portray film scores composers as puppets with no artistic initiative. It's their task to understand what the director needs.


----------



## Yabetz

Forster said:


> ^^ I don't think we need to label it either. No other question required.


Yes the other question is required when you come across objections to designating any film score as "classical music".

The genre is pretty wide. I notice at this forum that there is a film music subforum and it is not a subforum of "non-classical music". I see no problem at all with considering the work of Hermann et al within the context of film music as a sub-genre of classical music, and apparently whoever set up the forum didn't either. Is it "the same" as symphonic literature? No but then neither are Tchaikovsky ballets.


----------



## Luchesi

Forster said:


> But that begs the question, what is avant-garde music?
> 
> 
> 
> Avant-garde music - Wikipedia
> 
> (I'm not offering this as a definitive explanation, only an easy starting point.)
> 
> Frankly, it's easier to work with the label "film music" than any other because we can at least agree on the one thing that denotes all film music. What's wrong with settling for that and leaving it alone? Why does it _need _to be described as classical when film music is a perfectly serviceable label?


Years ago I had a favorite aunt who loved all kinds of music and I was always fascinated by her because she always had various music styles playing in her house (in the background) when we would go to visit. No one else I knew was like her. I think it affected me deeply, but unconsciously. 

AND if it sounded like classical music to her it was classical music.
Add orchestral strings to 30s/40s old standards and you get classical music. It's a simple world of enjoyment and comfort. It helped her with her various health issues. I wouldn't have debated it with her, even if I was old enough..
For me, if people in authority teach that orchestral sounding music is classical music that's when it becomes an issue with unintended consequences. We can all call our music whatever we want and other people can laugh at us. It's all good. Hopefully young people will pick up on this laughter, because it was all so obvious when I was growing up. That's why everybody got the jokes and slights when Bernstein put on his lectures for children.


----------



## HansZimmer

eljr said:


> WOW!
> 
> Seems awfully opinionated.
> 
> Honest, stand alone music?
> 
> The Pictures at an Exhibition should not be posted, for example.


Someone in this discussion wrote that a static picture is a different thing from a moving picture, but in the case of a videogame, a soundtrack is designed for a static picture. So, what about videogame soundtracks?

Yes, of course the player moves inside the world, but what happens is unpredictable. That's why the composer has to write the score not for a scene, but for an ambient: a static picture.


----------



## Forster

HansZimmer said:


> No, because the real commander is the film.
> 
> Cameron in Titanic could ask to James Horner to create a happy piece for the scene in which Jack dies, but he would be a failed film director if he had so silly ideas.
> A good director and a good composer both know that the real commander is the film.
> However the composer is the specialist of music and the director for sure expects a great artistic initiative from the composer. If I hire a worker I expect him/her to be atonomous and that he/she saves me to think too much about problems and details that belong to his professionality.
> 
> Of course the director has the last word, but don't portray film scores composers as puppets with no artistic initiative. It's their task to understand what the director needs.


Nobody is saying that film composers have no artistic initiative. Of course it is expected that director and composer have a productive relationship.

But the fact is that no matter how much autonomy the composer has, if the director (sometimes the producer/studio) doesn't like what the composer writes, and wants something else, they have the last word.


----------



## HansZimmer

Luchesi said:


> Years ago I had a favorite aunt who loved all kinds of music and I was always fascinated by her because she always had various music styles playing in her house (in the background) when we would go to visit. No one else I knew was like her. I think it affected me deeply, but unconsciously.
> 
> AND if it sounded like classical music to her it was classical music.
> Add orchestral strings to 30s/40s old standards and you get classical music. It's a simple world of enjoyment and comfort. It helped her with her various health issues. I wouldn't have debated it with her, even if I was old enough..
> For me, if people in authority teach that orchestral sounding music is classical music that's when it becomes an issue with unintended consequences. We can all call our music whatever we want and other people can laugh at us. It's all good. Hopefully young people will pick up on this laughter, because it was all so obvious when I was growing up. That's why everybody got the jokes and slights when Bernstein put on his lectures for children.


Strawmen, strawmen and still strawmen!

THIS is not a string cover of a 30s/40s pop song and I still want to understand why it would be not classical music.


----------



## Forster

Yabetz said:


> Yes the other question is required when you come across objections to designating any film score as "classical music".
> 
> The genre is pretty wide. I notice at this forum that there is a film music subforum and it is not a subforum of "non-classical music". I see no problem at all with considering the work of Hermann et al within the context of film music as a sub-genre of classical music, and apparently whoever set up the forum didn't either. Is it "the same" as symphonic literature? No but then neither are Tchaikovsky ballets.


Well by all means ask anyone else who wants to answer the question. I don't feel the need to. I gave my answer back in April - post #39



> In response to your question ("Why do many people think that classical music composed for film scores is not classical music?) I would ask,
> "Why do some people feel the need to argue that "classical" music composed for film scores IS "classical" music?"
> 
> Music composed for films draws on different musical traditions, including that which is considered "classical". To that extent, it can be called classical. I'm not clear what the purpose of the argument is for labelling "classical-for-film" as "classical".


Hans Zimmer's answer - eventually - is that shop keepers, editors of radio stations and owners of forums need to know. I answered that too today.

I think the reasons why some will and some won't count film music as classical - and their underlying motives - have been well-rehearsed since April in this thread. I can't see that there are any more unanswered questions left, though answers given by some members inevitably haven't satisfied everyone.


----------



## Luchesi

HansZimmer said:


> Strawmen, strawmen and still strawmen!
> 
> THIS is not a string cover of a 30s/40s pop song and I still want to understand why it would be not classical music.


JW thinks this is classical music?

An exception like this indicates that there must be some rule to which the case is an exception. And what do cherry-picked exceptions tell us?

But I don't think it's a good exception anyway, because it's very predictable and it seems obvious that it's a backdrop to a scene(s) in a movie which needs dramatic music, for a moviegoing audience.

There’s a fine line here when we’re just listening, but for a student of music - classical music starts with and develops and recapitulates so much more than a piece like this does.


----------



## DaveM

Forster said:


> Well by all means ask anyone else who wants to answer the question. I don't feel the need to. I gave my answer back in April - post #39
> 
> 
> 
> Hans Zimmer's answer - eventually - is that shop keepers, editors of radio stations and owners of forums need to know. I answered that too today.
> 
> I think the reasons why some will and some won't count film music as classical - and their underlying motives - have been well-rehearsed since April in this thread. I can't see that there are any more unanswered questions left.


And yet, here you are still.


----------



## Yabetz

Forster said:


> Well by all means ask anyone else who wants to answer the question. I don't feel the need to. I gave my answer back in April - post #39
> 
> 
> 
> Hans Zimmer's answer - eventually - is that shop keepers, editors of radio stations and owners of forums need to know. I answered that too today.
> 
> I think the reasons why some will and some won't count film music as classical - and their underlying motives - have been well-rehearsed since April in this thread. I can't see that there are any more unanswered questions left, though answers given by some members inevitably haven't satisfied everyone.


With all these "answers" and the thread still going on the answers must've not been all that definitive, huh? Maybe "I can't say for sure...hey, I could be wrong" would be more economical.


----------



## Forster

DaveM said:


> And yet, here you are still.


As are you.


----------



## DaveM

Forster said:


> As are you.


Yes, but I didn’t post to the effect that all questions have been answered as of last April and there’s nothing left to discuss. I’m still here because IMO there are still new viewpoints. So what’s your excuse since your post inferred that it‘s pointless to discuss anything further.


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

Luchesi said:


> it's very predictable


Could you explain what do you mean by that?


----------



## hammeredklavier

A notable use of avant-garde music in film


----------



## HansZimmer

VoiceFromTheEther said:


> Could you explain what do you mean by that?


This is a good question, because in reality, if you look at the score, you see that the theme is not static: there is more development than required for a 3 minutes piece and there is also an interesting dialogue between the bassline and the "highline".


----------



## Forster

DaveM said:


> Yes, but I didn’t post to the effect that all questions have been answered as of last April and there’s nothing left to discuss. I’m still here because IMO there are still new viewpoints. So what’s your excuse since your post inferred that it‘s pointless to discuss anything further.


I need no excuse - any more than you need an excuse for your repetitions of _your _points of view (eg re avant-garde music). We can both hang around and annoy each other for a lot longer I'm sure.


----------



## DaveM

Forster said:


> I need no excuse - any more than you need an excuse for your repetitions of _your _points of view (eg re avant-garde music). We can both hang around and annoy each other for a lot longer I'm sure.


And just when I thought you’d had enough of this thread. Guess not.


----------



## Forster

DaveM said:


> And just when I thought you’d had enough of this thread.


Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the thread...


----------



## Yabetz

Forster said:


> I need no excuse - any more than you need an excuse for your repetitions of _your _points of view (eg re avant-garde music). We can both hang around and annoy each other for a lot longer I'm sure.


He keeps asking the question because there hasn't been an answer. The answer seems to me to be that avant garde is as much a sub-genre vis-a-vis Beethoven et al as film music is. Which isn't saying anything bad about avant garde at all. It just doesn't belong with Bach and Beethoven except by using the umbrella term "classical music". If that umbrella term can contain today's avant garde, it can contain film scores.


----------



## HansZimmer

Luchesi said:


> JW thinks this is classical music?


I suppose that he identifies himself as a classical music composer. I read that George Lucas gave him a list of classical music composers to make him understand what kind of music he expected for Star Wars.
In some cases, he did very specific requests and he told John Williams to take inspiration from The Planets of Gustav Holst (from Mars, more specifically).

In wikipedia, the soundtrack album of Star Wars is categorized as "classical music": Star Wars (soundtrack) - Wikipedia



> An exception like this indicates that there must be some rule to which the case is an exception. And what do cherry-picked exceptions tell us?


I cherry-pick because I'm not saying that all film scores are classical music, but that some of them are.



> But I don't think it's a good exception anyway, because it's very predictable and it seems obvious that it's a backdrop to a scene(s) in a movie which needs dramatic music, for a moviegoing audience.


No, I think that it's not for a specific scene. It's the equivalent of the imperial march but for the good ones (the resistance) and I suppose it is used in many scenes.

However, could you explain why, for example, the first movement of "Eine Kleine Nachtmusik" would be unpredictable and less predictable than the piece of John Williams?


----------



## Luchesi

VoiceFromTheEther said:


> Could you explain what do you mean by that?


It's supposed to be repetitive. It's well-crafted. The effect is achieved. The scene(s) is enhanced, and the audience is moved by the repeating figuration. It's sufficiently memorable. As a classical piece, what would we call it?


----------



## HansZimmer

Luchesi said:


> It's supposed to be repetitive. It's well-crafted. The effect is achieved. The scene(s) is enhanced, and the audience is moved by the repeating figuration. It's sufficiently memorable. As a classical piece, what would we call it?


It's a simple subject which is explored in different ways throghout the piece. The subject is not repeated always in the same way without variations. It's not an uncommon practice in classical music to develop a piece around a simple motif.


----------



## Luchesi

HansZimmer said:


> I suppose that he identifies himself as a classical music composer. I read that George Lucas gave him a list of classical music composers to make him understand what kind of music he expected for Star Wars.
> In some cases, he did very specific requests and he told John Williams to take inspiration from The Planets of Gustav Holst (from Mars, more specifically).
> 
> In wikipedia, the soundtrack album of Star Wars is categorized as "classical music": Star Wars (soundtrack) - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> I cherry-pick because I'm not saying that all film scores are classical music, but that some of them are.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I think that it's not for a specific scene. It's the equivalent of the imperial march but for the good ones (the resistance) and I suppose it is used in many scenes.
> 
> However, could you explain why, for example, the first movement of "Eine Kleine Nachtmusik" would be unpredictable and less predictable than the piece of John Williams?


It's a light, entertaining 4 movement work. Over 20 minutes long. It has more music in it than the March. But it's not a quartet or symphony or lofty variations. It's a fine serenade.


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

Luchesi said:


> As a classical piece, what would we call it?


A fugal march?


----------



## HansZimmer

Luchesi said:


> It's a light, entertaining 4 movement work. Over 20 minites long. It has more music in it than the March. But it's not a quartet or symphony or lofty variations. It's a fine serenade.


1) In the case of Star Wars you have to consider the full suite of the film and not only a single piece. To extract a piece form a film suite is like to extract a movement from a serenade.

2) A serenade is still classical music, so are you saying that classical music can contain lighter works than symphonies of 1 hour?

3) "Eine Kleine Nachtmusik" is not more predictable than many symphonies of Mozart.


----------



## Luchesi

HansZimmer said:


> It's a simple subject which is explored in different ways throghout the piece. The subject is not repeated always in the same way without variations. It's not an uncommon practice in classical music to develop a piece around a simple motif.


Imagine a CM composer putting out this march as a standalone work to represent himself.


----------



## Luchesi

HansZimmer said:


> 1) In the case of Star Wars you have to consider the full suite of the film and not only a single piece. To extract a piece form a film suite is like to extract a movement from a serenade.
> 
> 2) A serenade is still classical music, so are you saying that classical music can contain lighter works than symphonies of 1 hour?
> 
> 3) "Eine Kleine Nachtmusik" is not more predictable than many symphonies of Mozart.


The Mozart was new and sounded new for its time. Very clever and organically developed with many new things in it for the time. Even as a pleasant entertainment composition, where was it in the history? 

Comparing pieces which are far apart in time is helpful to see the achievements in CM, without needing to analyze them into wordy sentences.


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

Luchesi said:


> Imagine a CM composer putting out this march as a standalone work to represent himself.


It has been published as a part of a suite, as would Shostakovich, Vaughan Williams, Chopin etc. do it.


----------



## HansZimmer

Luchesi said:


> Imagine a CM composer putting out this march as a standalone work to represent himself.


Are you saying this piece alone or the full suite to which the piece belongs?

Ok, you don't like the music of Star Wars. Fine. Many other persons however like it and John Williams is a respected composer. It looks like many persons don't agree with your low consideration of the music of John Williams. So what?


----------



## Luchesi

HansZimmer said:


> Are you saying this piece alone or the full suite to which the piece belongs?
> 
> Ok, you don't like the music of Star Wars. Fine. Many other persons however like it and John Williams is a respected composer. It looks like many persons don't agree with your low consideration of the music of John Williams. So what?


I like the music of Star Wars. It's likable.


----------



## HansZimmer

Luchesi said:


> Imagine a CM composer putting out this march as a standalone work to represent himself.


If you think that tunes based on simple themes are bad (but in this case you have to attack the many pieces of classical music that are composed like this, not only film music), there is this piece of Alan Menken, which consists of an elaborated tune which explores many different themes.

This score won the "Best original score" award for good reasons.


----------



## Yabetz

Luchesi said:


> It's supposed to be repetitive. It's well-crafted. The effect is achieved. The scene(s) is enhanced, and the audience is moved by the repeating figuration. It's sufficiently memorable. As a classical piece, what would we call it?


Incidental music, maybe. Here's some more. This isn't "classical"?


----------



## Luchesi

Yabetz said:


> Incidental music, maybe. Here's some more. This isn't "classical"?


The question for me is always, why would I categorize it as classical? Why would we teach young people that it's a classical work? What will happen if we do?
Grown-ups have already made their choices of terms and definitions, and they appreciate CM for their own reasons. Young people can easily be turned off by the dumbing down and relativism all around them. I think hero worship and rankings work quite well for specific age groups (but it's counterproductive for older students).


----------



## mikeh375

Yabetz said:


> Incidental music, maybe. Here's some more. This isn't "classical"?


Compositional and aesthetic parameters and definitions associated with less restrictive composing are clearly evident in Copland's ballet and programmatic music, making it very, very different to film music imv.


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

Luchesi said:


> The question for me is always, why would I categorize it as classical? Why would we teach young people that it's a classical work? What will happen if we do?Grown-ups have already made their choices of terms and definitions, and they appreciate CM for their own reasons. Young people can easily be turned off by the dumbing down and relativism all around them. I think hero worship and rankings work quite well for specific age groups (but it's counterproductive for older students).


Where did "dumbing down" and "relativism" come from now? "Turned off" from what?


----------



## Yabetz

mikeh375 said:


> Compositional and aesthetic parameters and definitions associated with less restrictive composing are clearly evident in Copland's ballet and programmatic music, making it very, very different to film music imv.


I don't know what the problem is with "restrictions". There were restrictions on just about everything Bach composed.


----------



## mikeh375

Yabetz said:


> I don't know what the problem is with "restrictions". There were restrictions on just about everything Bach composed.


I talked about it in post 926 which was incidentally a response to a post by you.


----------



## Yabetz

mikeh375 said:


> I talked about it in post 926 which was incidentally a response to a post by you.


Yes, I read it.


> The limitations and requirements for a libretto or dance do not impact on creative options anything like they do for a film score.


Again I'd have to ask what does of the presence of limitations have to do with determining whether a piece is classical or not? If the criterion you're going to use is whether the composer was allowed to have his or her imagination run completely free in the compositional process, then there's not going to be much "classical" pre-Beethoven. Yes, a film score is different from a symphony, but so is a string quartet. Bach absolutely did not have the compositional freedom to produce something like Cage's _Water Walk. _His options were limited, and really it's operating within limits that often produces the greatest art. Shostakovich and Prokofiev were tightly constricted by the commissars, literally in a life-or-death way.


----------



## HansZimmer

Forster said:


> Nobody is saying that film composers have no artistic initiative. Of course it is expected that director and composer have a productive relationship.
> 
> But the fact is that no matter how much autonomy the composer has, if the director (sometimes the producer/studio) doesn't like what the composer writes, and wants something else, they have the last word.


You are basically exposing the difference between being free professionals/entrepreneurs (and taking the risk of earning no money) and having a safe job where you create something for a free entrepreneur who takes the economical risks. In the second case, you have safe earnings, but you have less freedom because you have to give to your client what he wants.

It's not a question of film music vs standalone music. Imagine that a count ask Mozart to write a piece for his wedding party. Mozart shows him a demo but the count doesn't like it and asks him to write something different. How exactly would the position of Mozart be different in respect to a film score composer? They both have to give to their client what he wants, but you wouldn't say that the final product of Mozart is not classical music because it's a commissioned work. We would certainly put the piece inside the Mozart's catalogue with all other pieces.
Infact, we all know that much of what Mozart wrote was commissioned.


----------



## Yabetz

Forster said:


> Nobody is saying that film composers have no artistic initiative. Of course it is expected that director and composer have a productive relationship.
> 
> But the fact is that no matter how much autonomy the composer has, if the director (sometimes the producer/studio) doesn't like what the composer writes, and wants something else, they have the last word.


The Leipzig town council in Bach's time had that authority as well. They were writing his paycheck.


----------



## mikeh375

Yabetz said:


> Yes, I read it.
> Again I'd have to ask what does of the presence of limitations have to do with determining whether a piece is classical or not? If the criterion you're going to use is whether the composer was allowed to have his or her imagination run completely free in the compositional process, then there's not going to be much "classical" pre-Beethoven. Yes, a film score is different from a symphony, but so is a string quartet. Bach absolutely did not have the compositional freedom to produce something like Cage's _Water Walk. _His options were limited, and really it's operating within limits that often produces the greatest art.



But that is precisely the point. I go to a concert hall to hear the composer as he/she wishes to be heard, ie their own music. For a film composer who is well schooled and able to write for the concert hall too, writing a film score employs a different mindset and technique to what they would write for the concert hall. Resulting music from either film or concert hall paradigms are (depending on the composer), often chalk and cheese and definitely not from the same place within the composer. Now that doesn't always matter to me as a listener, but as a composer, there is a clear and profound expressive difference.
You mention restriction and limits, well of course, that goes without saying really as applying them to creativity is one of the best ways, or perhaps the only way, to compose coherently but those kind of restrictions are not what I mean. The restrictions in film work are of a different kind and much more limiting, impactful and imposing upon a composer's technique and expression, especially if a composer is academically trained and has gone on to develop more individually in their concert hall music. It's reasonable that you might not fully see my point as you have probably not worked as a composer in the two fields under discussion, but as someone who has done both, I can assure you I'm not making this compositionally paradigmatic conflict up. Whether it matters to you as a listener is your call of course.
John Williams is all the proof you need as to what I mean as listening to almost any of his concert music demonstrates very clearly that his mindset is different to his blockbuster mode. I know I keep citing him but for the record again, he is for me a unique case in that his movie work also displays, more than anyone else's, a concert hall sensibility that survives the creative cull of filmwork and this serves his music well when in standalone mode. His film music's durability is a measure of his greatness and technical facility, but even so as I've mentioned, he approaches his concert work very differently.


----------



## Yabetz

mikeh375 said:


> But that is precisely the point. I go to a concert hall to hear the composer as he/she wishes to be heard, ie their own music. For a film composer who is well schooled and able to write for the concert hall too, writing a film score employs a different mindset and technique to what they would write for the concert hall. Resulting music from either film or concert hall paradigms are (depending on the composer), often chalk and cheese and definitely not from the same place within the composer. Now that doesn't always matter to me as a listener, but as a composer, there is a clear and profound expressive difference.
> You mention restriction and limits, well of course, that goes without saying really as applying them to creativity is one of the best ways, or perhaps the only way, to compose coherently but those kind of restrictions are not what I mean. The restrictions in film work are of a different kind and much more limiting, impactful and imposing upon a composer's technique and expression too, especially if a composer happens to be well schooled academically and to have developed more individually in their concert hall music. It's reasonable that you might not see my point as you have probably not worked as a composer in the two fields under discussion, but as someone who has done both, I can assure you I'm not making this compositionally paradigmatic conflict up. John Williams is all the proof you need as listening to almost any of his concert music demonstrates very clearly that his mindset is different to his blockbuster mode. ( I know I keep citing him but for the record again, he is for me a unique case in that his movie work also displays more than anyone else, a concert hall sensibility that serves his music well when in standalone mode).


Which is just to say that film scores are different from a free-rambling rhapsody. It doesn't mean that the free-rambling rhapsody is the only thing that can be considered "classical". What you're saying in the case of John Williams is that it's less classical the more accessible and pleasing it is to an "average listener". The deep, profound and esoteric vs the "blockbuster". The restrictions on Bach in composing the cantatas were different from those imposed on Rameau or Handel. Handel had to be a blockbuster crowd-pleaser too.
I think Copland's film music stands well on its own as well, by the way, which is why there are albums of it. The fact that there were more restrictions placed on Copland in writing it doesn't in itself make it non-classical. It makes it film music in classical style. I just don't see why the aforementioned _Water Walk_ is in the same genre as the St Matthew Passion but the score for _Psycho _isn't. The fact is none of those three are in the same category. They're typical of sub-genres within classical music. They're all quite different.


----------



## HansZimmer

mikeh375 said:


> But that is precisely the point. I go to a concert hall to hear the composer as he/she wishes to be heard, ie their own music. For a film composer who is well schooled and able to write for the concert hall too, writing a film score employs a different mindset and technique to what they would write for the concert hall. Resulting music from either film or concert hall paradigms are (depending on the composer), often chalk and cheese and definitely not from the same place within the composer. Now that doesn't always matter to me as a listener, but as a composer, there is a clear and profound expressive difference.
> You mention restriction and limits, well of course, that goes without saying really as applying them to creativity is one of the best ways, or perhaps the only way, to compose coherently but those kind of restrictions are not what I mean. The restrictions in film work are of a different kind and much more limiting, impactful and imposing upon a composer's technique and expression, especially if a composer is academically trained and has gone on to develop more individually in their concert hall music. It's reasonable that you might not fully see my point as you have probably not worked as a composer in the two fields under discussion, but as someone who has done both, I can assure you I'm not making this compositionally paradigmatic conflict up. Whether it matters to you as a listener is your call of course.
> John Williams is all the proof you need as to what I mean as listening to almost any of his concert music demonstrates very clearly that his mindset is different to his blockbuster mode. I know I keep citing him but for the record again, he is for me a unique case in that his movie work also displays, more than anyone else's, a concert hall sensibility that survives the creative cull of filmwork and this serves his music well when in standalone mode. His film music's durability is a measure of his greatness and technical facility, but even so as I've mentioned, he approaches his concert work very differently.


To be honest, the main difference between the film music of John Williams and his concert music is that the first one is better, but of course I'm speaking about my personal tastes.

I mean, if I want to listen to concert music then I go with Mozart, Beethoven, Mendelssohn, Dvorak, Bach... the concert music of John Williams for me is forgettable.
I feel that the film music of John Williams is more harmonious with the best classical music than his concert music.

Someone with different tastes than mine might have different views, but for me John Williams is the proof that it's not true that you create music of higher quality when you write for the concert hall.


----------



## mikeh375

Yabetz said:


> Which is just to say that film scores are different from a free-rambling rhapsody. It doesn't mean that the free-rambling rhapsody is the only thing that can be considered "classical". What you're saying in the case of John Williams is that it's less classical the more accessible and pleasing it is to an "average listener". The deep, profound and esoteric vs the "blockbuster". The restrictions on Bach in composing the cantatas were different from those imposed on Rameau or Handel. Handel had to be a blockbuster crowd-pleaser too.
> I think Copland's film music stands well on its own as well, by the way, which is why there are albums of it. The fact that there were more restrictions placed on Copland in writing it doesn't in itself make it non-classical. It makes it film music in classical style. I just don't see why the aforementioned _Water Walk_ is in the same genre as the St Matthew Passion but the score for _Psycho _isn't. The fact is none of those three are in the same category. They're typical of sub-genres within classical music. They're all quite different.



Film scores are different in genesis and ultimate application to coherent music written for the concert hall is actually what I'm saying but thanks for trying to twist it. That "free form rhapsody" is being mentioned shows some apparent misunderstanding perhaps. I have also just written that JW is a master and his concert hall sensibility straddles film more than many others who work within film. His work is classical - that's what I'm saying and am not dissing the average listener to whom his work appeals, which includes...me.
You mention Bach again, well as I'm sure you are aware, he had enough freedom (and genius of course), to progress dissonance because of his contrapuntal innovations born of Palestrina's legacy. The choice of notes were his, the phrasing in the music was his, his timings in vocal and instrumental works were not determined to the frame, his harmonic movement was his - I could go on but I'm sure you get the idea. Much of that basic structure and expressive urges in concert hall composition can be denied a composer in film work by varying amounts as the composer conform to the medium, i.e compromise for a music to be decided by committee.

BTW, perhaps its best not to assume that what I'm saying carries any negative implications when it doesn't.


----------



## Yabetz

I'm sorry, but if Ferneyhough's String Quartet No. 6 is "classical music", then so is this :







mikeh375 said:


> Film scores are different in genesis and ultimate application to coherent music written for the concert hall is actually what I'm saying but thanks for trying to twist it.


Not all classical music is written for the "concert hall". The Art of Fugue wasnt.


> Why "free form rhapsody" is being mentioned shows some apparent misunderstanding. I have also just written that JW is a master and his concert hall sensibility straddles film more than many others who work within film. His work is classical - that's what I'm saying and am not dissing the average listener to whom his work appeals, which includes...me.
> You mention Bach again, well as I'm sure you are aware of, he had enough freedom (and genius of course), to progress dissonance because of his contrapuntal innovations born of Palestrina's legacy. The choice of notes were his, the phrasing in the music was his, his timings in vocal and instrumental works were not determined to the frame, his harmonic movement was his - I could go on but I'm sure you get the idea. Much of that basic structure in composition can be denied a composer in film work by varying amounts as they conform to the medium, i.e compromise.
> ...


A film score composer also has compositional choice. It's not as if the director dictates each note of the score.


----------



## mikeh375

Yabetz said:


> I'm sorry, but if Ferneyhough's String Quartet No. 6 is "classical music", then so is this :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not all classical music is written for the "concert hall". The Art of Fugue wasnt.
> *A film score composer also has compositional choice. It's not as if the director dictates each note of the score.*


well yep, Close Encounters is exactly the kind of compositional prowess I've been talking about, no need to apologise, well done.
We should clarify and nail down definitions, my use of the term 'concert hall' is pretty loose but just means music not written for film in the context of this thread, so yeah, TAOF is 'concert'...my bad. It's also an example of music unencumbered by external expectation.
Now as to the bolded. No, a director does not choose _every_ note but will dictate much that might entail changing notes and orchestration and mood and timings etc. That I know.


----------



## Yabetz

mikeh375 said:


> well yep, Close Encounters is exactly the kind of prowess I've been talking about, no need to apologise, well done.
> We should clarify and nail down definitions, my use of the term 'concert hall' is pretty loose but just means music not written for film in the context of this thread, so yeah, TAOF is 'concert'...my bad. It's also an example of music unencumbered by external expectation.
> Now as to the bolded. No, a director does not choose every note but will dictate much that might entail changing notes and orchestration and mood. That I know.


But that's an unjustified dichotomy between "concert hall" and "film score". It's dismissing the medium of film just because it isn't "concert hall". The Art of Fugue does have "external expectation", that expectation being the exploration of fugal techniques that had been around for quite some time.


> No, a director does not choose every note but will dictate much that might entail changing notes and orchestration and mood.


An opera librettist might do the same thing.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Yabetz said:


> Not all classical music is written for the "concert hall". The Art of Fugue wasnt.


It depends on the context. Mozart would have played it in concerts sponsored by von Sweiten for an audience of "Baroque music connoisseurs". Btw, what do you think of-


hammeredklavier said:


> MYTH: counterpoint went obsolete in the middle of the 18th century.
> It never did. (They kept doing it as long as there was demand for it). Even in the most raw form of counterpoint, Classical characteristics (such as clearly-cut phrases in question-answer tonic-dominant structure and gradations of dynamics, etc) were prevalent. For instance, look at the fugues of Haydn Op.20 or
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MH276 (1778)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MH118 (1769)





> "Georg von Pasterwitz (1730-1803). Pasterwitz's surviving oeuvre comprises some 500 works, mostly liturgical pieces and dramatic works for the church. He composed a large number of short contrapuntal pieces for keyboard: 324 were published between 1790 and 1803, and were the only works published during the composer's lifetime. They show him as a competent master of both counterpoint and the keyboard. For the monastery, Pasterwitz regularly composed dramas and dozens of liturgical pieces: masses, offertories, vespers, etc."
> "Franz Joseph Aumann (1728-1797). Aumann's music was a large part of the repertoire at St. Florian in the 19th century, and Anton Bruckner availed himself of this resource for his studies of counterpoint. Bruckner focused a lot of his attention on Aumann's Christmas responsories and an Ave Maria in D major. Bruckner, who liked Aumann's coloured harmony, added in 1879 an accompaniment by three trombones to his settings of Ecce quomodo moritur justus and Tenebrae factae sunt. Aumann's oeuvre also includes instrumental music, such as some of the earliest string quintets."
> "Franz Xaver Richter (1709-1789). The most traditional of the first generation composers of the so-called Mannheim school, he was highly regarded in his day as a contrapuntist. As a composer he was equally at home in the concerto and the strict church style. Mozart heard a mass by Richter on his journey back from Paris to Salzburg in 1778 and called it charmingly written."
> "Adlgasser, Anton Cajetan (b. Inzell, Bavaria, 1 Oct. 1729; d. Salzburg, 22 Dec. 1777). Composer and organist. Studied with Johann Ernst Eberlin in Salzburg and then succeeded him as court and cathedral organist there in 1750. After his death in 1777 while playing the organ (described in a letter by Leopold Mozart), he was succeeded as cathedral organist by W. A. Mozart, who praised him as a master of counterpoint.
> "Leopold Mozart. Of the manuscript compositions by Herr Mozart which have become known, numerous contrapuntal and other church pieces are especially noteworthy."


----------



## mikeh375

Yabetz said:


> But that's an unjustified dichotomy between "concert hall" and "film score". It's dismissing the medium of film just because it isn't "concert hall". The Art of Fugue does have "external expectation", that expectation being the exploration of fugal techniques that had been around for quite some time.
> An opera librettist might do the same thing.


jeez Yabetz, I'm not dismissing the medium of film, c'mon man. It's just a distinction is all. You are splitting hairs re TAOF and opera librettist's. I'm pretty sure you are smart enough to have worked out by now what 'expectations' (to include conformity, market success, plagiarising and pastiche, musical tropes, immediacy of language, etc) meant above.
I worked in film and mainly TV for 30 years, so enough in the way of assumptions thanks.


----------



## Yabetz

hammeredklavier said:


> It depends on the context. Mozart would have played it in concerts sponsored by von Sweiten for an audience of "Baroque music connoisseurs". Btw, what do you think of-


Or he might have just listened to it in his head. The example is interesting but I'm just using Bach as an example.


----------



## Yabetz

mikeh375 said:


> jeez Yabetz, I'm not dismissing the medium of film, c'mon man. It's just a distinction is all. ...


Yes it IS a distinction, just as there is a distinction among Baroque choral works, late 19th century Italian opera and Cage's prepared piano music. They are different forms within the genre of classical music, each with its own techniques and characteristics. What I'm saying is that "film score" cannot be dismissed as "non-classical" just by virtue of its being a film score. If an avant garde piece composed last week can be in the same tradition and genre as Bach, there is nothing prohibiting a film score from being in that same overarching genre.


----------



## mikeh375

^^^sigh. We are on different sides of the fence here, best leave it at that. For the record yet again, I'm happy to see film scores in the concert hall even though they come from a different place creatively to absolute music, opera and ballet - I'm not the enemy of film music.


----------



## Yabetz

mikeh375 said:


> ^^^sigh. We are on different sides of the fence here, best leave it at that. For the record yet again, I'm happy to see film scores in the concert hall even though they come from a different place creatively to absolute music, opera and ballet - I'm not the enemy of film music.


But absolute music, opera and ballet also come from very different creative places. The latter two are almost always (with the exception of the micromanaging Wagner) collaborative, multimedia efforts.


----------



## pianozach

HansZimmer said:


> You are basically exposing the difference between being free professionals/entrepreneurs (and taking the risk of earning no money) and having a safe job where you create something for a free entrepreneur who take the economical risks. In the second case, you have safe earnings, but you have less freedom because you have to give to your client what he wants.
> 
> It's not a question of film music vs standalone music. Imagine that a count ask Mozart to write a piece for his wedding party. Mozart shows his a demo but the count doesn't like it and asks him to write something different. How exactly would the position of Mozart different in respect to a film score composer? They both have to give to their client what he wants, but you wouldn't say that the final product of Mozart is not classical music because it's a commissioned work. We would certainly put the piece inside the Mozart's catalogue with all other pieces.
> Infact, we all know that much of what Mozart wrote was commissioned.


Thank you. Exactly.

What if that same Count asked for a specific group of instruments (e.g., his two sons both play clarinet, his mother plays cello, and he's learning violin. Oh, and his brother plays bassoon, and is a virtuoso on the instrument).


----------



## mikeh375

Yabetz said:


> But absolute music, opera and ballet also come from very different creative places. The latter two are almost always (with the exception of the micromanaging Wagner) collaborative, multimedia efforts.


I've tried to explain how different the compositional process is between media and art music. Not well enough it seems. My point is much deeper than classification because I'm getting down to the level of what goes onto or what is allowed onto a blank manuscript. I've answered you points about opera and ballet but it would entail you reading my posts referenced earlier, the ones near the start of this thread. I'm not going round and round on this again as homemade pizza is imminent.


----------



## Yabetz

mikeh375 said:


> I've tried to explain how different the compositional process is between media and art music. Not well enough it seems. My point is much deeper than classification because I'm getting down to the level of what goes onto or what is allowed onto a blank manuscript. I've answered you points about opera and ballet but it would entail you reading my posts referenced earlier, the ones near the start of this thread. I'm not going round and round on this again as homemade pizza is imminent.


But you see my point _is_ about classification, and the point of the whole thread is that. Anything deeper than that is personal perception.

Bon appetit.


----------



## Yabetz

pianozach said:


> Thank you. Exactly.
> 
> What if that same Count asked for a specific group of instruments (e.g., his two sons both play clarinet, his mother plays cello, and he's learning violin. Oh, and his brother plays bassoon, and is a virtuoso on the instrument).


Yes and that is why Mozart tried and Beethoven succeeded at being a "free agent". It doesn't make things that came before Beethoven non-classical.


----------



## HansZimmer

pianozach said:


> Thank you. Exactly.
> 
> What if that same Count asked for a specific group of instruments (e.g., his two sons both play clarinet, his mother plays cello, and he's learning violin. Oh, and his brother plays bassoon, and is a virtuoso on the instrument).


Is your example a reference to real events?


----------



## Luchesi

VoiceFromTheEther said:


> Where did "dumbing down" and "relativism" come from now? "Turned off" from what?


Good questions. I'd like to hear your thoughts.


----------



## mikeh375

Yabetz said:


> But you see my point _is_ about classification, and the point of the whole thread is that. Anything deeper than that is personal perception.
> 
> Bon appetit.


I admit my perception of what art music is, is defined by my knowledge of what it takes to write it. My view of film music is also defined by my real world knowledge of what it takes to get something approved in that environment. So I wouldn't say my views where coloured just by personal perception.
You know, reading your posts reminds me of a now departed poster for some reason. Pizza was good thanks.


----------



## pianozach

HansZimmer said:


> Is your example a reference to real events?


Only loosely. I couldn't think of an actual example off the top of my head, like some others here might. This sort of detailed music history isn't really my strongest suit.

But there are plenty of examples of commissioned works for specific court orchestras or family members. 

Let's see . . . there's *Mozart's* (_*Kegelstatt) Piano Trio*_, K498, for clarinet, viola and piano in Eb major. It was first performed by his friend Anton Stadleron on clarinet, Mozart on the viola, and his student Franziska von Jacquin on the piano.

There's his *Oboe quartet*, written for his friend Friedrich Ramm to perform to show off the improvements made to the oboe, including an expanded upper range. 

I'm sure that some others here are far more intimate with the Mozart catalog, and can find a few more that would serve as examples.

Then there's *Bach's Brandenburg Concertos*: They were a collection of six instrumental works presented by Bach to Christian Ludwig, Margrave of Brandenburg-Schwedt, presumably as an audition for court composer. I think that the scoring took into account the scope (and limitations) of the musicians regularly used by the court.


----------



## Yabetz

mikeh375 said:


> I admit my perception of what art music is, is defined by my knowledge of what it takes to write it. My view of film music is also defined by my real world knowledge of what it takes to get something approved in that environment. So I wouldn't say my views where coloured just by personal perception.


Unless you have objective qualities in mind, it's going to be personal perception.


> You know, reading your posts reminds me of a now departed poster for some reason. Pizza was good thanks.


Maybe we just have similar views.


----------



## Luchesi

Yabetz said:


> Yes and that is why Mozart tried and Beethoven succeeded at being a "free agent". It doesn't make things that came before Beethoven non-classical.


Long ago I was first given the meaning of classical music as classiest, high class, highest class. Is music for films the highest class? Would audiences know the difference? Would I know the difference? Is there a difference? The (your) answers depend upon a lifetime of experiences (like so many esoteric and impenetrable explorations).
In science we're warned not to be mislead by human psychology. So I want to stick to the comforting feeling that music comes right out of physics, and physics comes right out of 'laws' within quantized space-time. How else could it be?


----------



## Yabetz

Luchesi said:


> Long ago I was first given the meaning of classical music as classiest, high class, highest class.


Good luck with that.


----------



## Luchesi

Yabetz said:


> Good luck with that.


Thanks. Do you start out with different assumptions? Do you have a preconceived structure of thought about the music you follow?


----------



## Luchesi

Yabetz said:


> Which is just to say that film scores are different from a free-rambling rhapsody. It doesn't mean that the free-rambling rhapsody is the only thing that can be considered "classical". What you're saying in the case of John Williams is that it's less classical the more accessible and pleasing it is to an "average listener". The deep, profound and esoteric vs the "blockbuster". The restrictions on Bach in composing the cantatas were different from those imposed on Rameau or Handel. Handel had to be a blockbuster crowd-pleaser too.
> I think Copland's film music stands well on its own as well, by the way, which is why there are albums of it. The fact that there were more restrictions placed on Copland in writing it doesn't in itself make it non-classical. It makes it film music in classical style. I just don't see why the aforementioned _Water Walk_ is in the same genre as the St Matthew Passion but the score for _Psycho _isn't. The fact is none of those three are in the same category. They're typical of sub-genres within classical music. They're all quite different.


The differences are in the scores. It's all there for anyone to see. You can analyze it and reduce them and compare them, and compare with other scores. 'Very objective when it's not about liking or disliking. 

But maybe it's too difficult. We shouldn't have to do all that to get entertainment out of it.


----------



## 4chamberedklavier

At what point does the difference in compositional process become large enough that we cannot consider something part of classical music?


----------



## DaveM

Luchesi said:


> The differences are in the scores. It's all there for anyone to see. You can analyze it and reduce them and compare them, and compare with other scores. 'Very objective when it's not about liking or disliking.
> 
> But maybe it's too difficult. We shouldn't have to do all that to get entertainment out of it.


If the difference that separates film music from classical music is in the score, what are we to do with this?:


----------



## HansZimmer

DaveM said:


> If the difference that separates film music from classical music is in the score, what are we to do with this?:
> 
> View attachment 174043


What's this?


----------



## HansZimmer

Luchesi said:


> Long ago I was first given the meaning of classical music as classiest, high class, highest class. Is music for films the highest class?


It seems that you don't understand the classical music is only a style which can contains excellent music or bad music like any other style. It's a composer or a piece that it's of "high class" or "highest class", not the style in itself.

You should change your statement with something like "Mozart is a composer of the highest class" or "Jupiter is a classical music piece of the highest class".

You could ask if there is any film score composer who is great like Mozart, and in that case I would relaunch with the question "Is there any composer in contemporary classical music who is great like Mozart? Are they better than film scores composers?".

I'm one of the persons who is inclined to think that Mozart has been the greatest composer of the human history, but do we really want to say that John Williams is not a very good composer because he's not as great as Mozart? It's a bit like to tell your son that he sucks as a tennis player because he can not beat Roger Federer.


I think that if someone says that in a determined group of music pieces there are not good pieces it simply means that he has a bias towards the group. Is there a curse that keeps trained and gifted composers away from film music? I don't understand your point of view.

What is your point of evaluation? Do you look at the music of films and you conclude that there is not the Art of Fugue? What's the point in writing similar things for films? The main objective of the film music is to research the highest possible expressivity in instrumental music and the best film score composers have very high skills in this. It's something that requires both artistic and technical skills.
I don't see how they can be seen as a "dumbing down" of the art in music.
Bach might have been a master in writing fugues, counterpoints, and things like that... but some film score composers are probably better than him when it comes to expressivity and we can still read fugues in film scores when it's functional to expressivity.


----------



## SanAntone

_Why do many people think that *classical music composed for film scores* is not classical music?_

The way you've phrased this question assumes that classical music has been composed for film scores. Which I do not think has ever taken place. Even the scores written for films by Shostakovich and other classical composers are not really classical music, precisely because they were written for film and not wholly integrated works for concert performance.

You are getting hung up on how the music sounds as if that defines whether a work is classical or not. You also appear to place a high value on the label "classical music" instead of seeing it for what it is, a taxonomical label. These labels are used to classify large collections of music into manageable blocks for organization of a large body of music. We also use sub classifications like periods, and style: Renaissance, Baroque, Classical, Romantic ...

Saying that a composer wrote film music does in no way judge the quality of his music, nor does calling a work "classical" automatically imply it is better that other music. 

But it is useful to retain these taxonomical labels with as clear as possible dividing lines.


----------



## Luchesi

DaveM said:


> If the difference that separates film music from classical music is in the score, what are we to do with this?:
> 
> View attachment 174043


What are we to do with one page? I don't know. Is that what you think I mean?

We have two scores. One is for a film and one is the highest art for its time. Can we tell which is which? Of course we can.


----------



## DaveM

Luchesi said:


> What are we to do with one page? I don't know. Is that what you think I mean?
> 
> We have two scores. One is for a film and one is the highest art for its time. Can we tell which is which? Of course we can.


I know, not the clearest example to explain the point. It’s a segment of a Ferneyhough work. As I’ve said before, I have no interest in trying to turn back the clock regarding Avante-garde type works being called CM. In a sense it’s like ‘settled law’. But some of that class of music is so obscure that special characters have to be used to explain how to play it. In a previous thread, when the question was asked how can one tell a good avante-garde from a bad, only one person gave an answer (very limited at that) which shows how different that music form is.

So, IMO it rankles that there is some sort of issue about some film music being called ‘classical music-like’ when it sometime bears marked similarities to CM, far more than that ‘other’ music form. Still, I’m just fine with film music being a separate category outside of CM. Overall, I wish that some posters would be more forth-coming about some of the idiosyncrasies and inconsistencies in how classical music is categorized. IMO, it makes the arguments against some film music being under the CM tent less convincing.


----------



## Luchesi

^^^^^^^

It's odd that I'm imagining Beethoven composing for scene clips in a film and being instructed/managed by his cinema-arts bossman. "We need to bring the audience in, we need more big melodies and easy to follow transitions. We don't want to lose the fans or alienate anyone. I mean, 'just the opposite, Ludwig. It's just your job, 5 days a week."

Now my bias is really showing. 

As I've said before, I agree with SanAntone about needing to follow what the composer's intentions are. (We've both been saying this in a few recent threads.) 
When the intentions are to further the art of music by trying new techniques or exploring abstract/esoteric areas (metaphors and representations), then, for me, whether or not it's successful (subjective opinion) is a separate issue.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Luchesi said:


> It's odd that I'm imagining Beethoven composing for scene clips in a film and being instructed/managed by his cinema-arts bossman. "We need to bring the audience in, we need more big melodies and easy to follow transitions. We don't want to lose the fans or alienate anyone. I mean, 'just the opposite, Ludwig. It's just your job, 5 days a week."


Look at this-
Baron Braun (theatre manager): But take the Magic Flute, for instance, now that really did rouse the multitude!
Beethoven: I don't compose for the multitude!
Baron Braun: If we had paid Herr Mozart the same percentage for the receipts of his operas, he would have been a very rich man.
Beethoven: WHAT ARE YOU SAYING?!
Baron Braun: nothing.
Beethoven: I think you should raise your Herr Mozart from the dead, because the performances of this opera are finished!


----------



## Forster

SanAntone said:


> _Why do many people think that *classical music composed for film scores* is not classical music?_
> 
> The way you've phrased this question assumes that classical music has been composed for film scores. Which I do not think has ever taken place.


Whether it has taken place or not depends, of course, on one's definition of CM. At the start, the OP merely mean music that "sounds like" CM, to distinguish it from movies with pop or jazz scores. In which case, "classical music composed for film" has happened many times.



SanAntone said:


> You are getting hung up on how the music sounds as if that defines whether a work is classical or not. You also appear to place a high value on the label "classical music"


The OP is not the only TC member who might be described as "hung up" on this issue. Others too, it seems to me are "hung up" on their preferred definition, seeking to retain a certain purity of CM - though not always for the same definition of CM. Some prioritise purpose in their definition; others form/structure. DaveM's entirely reasonable point is that avant-garde music (however that is defined - we should include "experimental" music too) has been comfortably accommodated in the CM repertoire while simultaneously pushing the boundaries of the more commonly-accepted definitions - so, why not film music?



SanAntone said:


> instead of seeing it for what it is, a taxonomical label. These labels are used to classify large collections of music into manageable blocks for organization of a large body of music. We also use sub classifications like periods, and style: Renaissance, Baroque, Classical, Romantic ...


HZ is well aware of the use of the term as a taxonomical label - in a response to one of my posts, they clearly instanced three situations where such labelling is required.



SanAntone said:


> Saying that a composer wrote film music does in no way judge the quality of his music, nor does calling a work "classical" automatically imply it is better that other music.


I agree that It shouldn't - but sometimes it does. In another thread, the term "commercial music" (music for advertisements) was deliberately used to disparage a particular piece and composer - without consideration of the effectiveness of the music in its purpose to sell a product. "Film music" sometimes gets the same treatment. It's simply not true to say that the use of these labels does not confer - in some people's eyes - a judgement of quality and status.


----------



## SanAntone

Forster said:


> Whether it has taken place or not depends, of course, on one's definition of CM. At the start, the OP merely mean music that "sounds like" CM, to distinguish it from movies with pop or jazz scores. In which case, "classical music composed for film" has happened many times.


What has happened is that superficially derivative orchestral music has been written for film; not actual classical music. However some of these scores have been re-written as suites and are very fine concert pieces, and could be considered classical music.



> The OP is not the only TC member who might be described as "hung up" on this issue. Others too, it seems to me are "hung up" on their preferred definition, seeking to retain a certain purity of CM - though not always for the same definition of CM. Some prioritise purpose in their definition; others form/structure. DaveM's entirely reasonable point is that avant-garde music (however that is defined - we should include "experimental" music too) has been comfortably accommodated in the CM repertoire while simultaneously pushing the boundaries of the more commonly-accepted definitions - so, why not film music?


Because what avant-garde music shares with all classical music is the intention of the composer to write with a purposeful seriousness and produce wholly integrated concert music for the audience that expects those qualities from the music. Actual film music does not fit this description.



> I agree that It shouldn't - but sometimes it does. In another thread, the term "commercial music" (music for advertisements) was deliberately used to disparage a particular piece and composer - without consideration of the effectiveness of the music in its purpose to sell a product. "Film music" sometimes gets the same treatment. It's simply not true to say that the use of these labels does not confer - in some people's eyes - a judgement of quality and status.


If the label "film music" has taken on a connotation of crass commerciality it is because there have been plenty of crassly commercial movies with appropriately crassly commercial music. Which is why in many people's minds calling some a "movie" instead of a "film" makes a distinction related to quality. We ought to be able to talk about high quality music for film on a classical music forum without falling prey to these genre wars.

Still the process, priorities, and purpose, of writing music for movies, or films, is different enough from the process of writing classical music, that I find applying the label "classical music" to it will accomplish nothing but diluting the label and causing confusion.

There is plenty of high quality rock or pop or rap, etc. in which the creator has exhibited many of the same traits as do classical composers - but I would not be for calling the music of Yes "classical music."

Genre labeling should not imply quality - but merely to distinguish one kind of music from another for the purposes of discussion and collection management.


----------



## Otis B. Driftwood

I typically think of film scores being inspired by (in some cases lifted from) classical music, rather than being classical music in and of itself. In other words, derivative in nature.


----------



## Forster

SanAntone said:


> *What has happened is that superficially derivative orchestral music has been written for film; not actual classical music.* However some of these scores have been re-written as suites and are very fine concert pieces, and could be considered classical music.
> 
> 
> 
> Because what avant-garde music shares with all classical music is *the intention of the composer to write with a purposeful seriousness and produce wholly integrated concert music for the audience that expects those qualities from the music.* Actual film music does not fit this description.
> 
> 
> 
> If the label "film music" has taken on a connotation of *crass commerciality* it is because there have been plenty of crassly commercial movies with appropriately crassly commercial music. Which is why in many people's minds calling some a "movie" instead of a "film" makes a distinction related to quality. We ought to be able to talk about high quality music for film on a classical music forum without falling prey to these genre wars.
> 
> Still the process, priorities, and purpose, of writing music for movies, or films, is different enough from the process of writing classical music, that I find applying the label "classical music" to it will accomplish anything but diluting the label and causing confusion.
> 
> There is plenty of high quality rock or pop or rap, etc. in which the creator has exhibited many of the same traits as do classical composers - but I would not be for calling the music of Yes "classical music."
> 
> Genre labeling should not imply quality - but merely to distinguish one kind of music from another for the purposes of discussion and collection management.


Thanks for your reply.

In your first sentence, you presume a definition of CM. But we know that there is no universally agreed definition of CM, though different authorities might offer one and assert theirs is the right one. Part of your definition is "intent"; part is implied by the idea that film music that is orchestral bears some resemblance to, and may have been derived from CM. In other words, it _sounds _like CM.

I'm inclined to agree with your description of avant-garde music (and therefore, CM) but reflecting again on what is written for films, it _could _be applicable, if not in every detail, certainly in part. Setting aside films that we might dismiss as having been churned out for commercial gain rather than artistic intent, no film composer approaches their task without "purposeful seriousness". The audience at a cinema, comparable to the audience at a CM concert, may not come to listen just to the music, but they do expect the music to be a quality component, integrated into the film.

My use of the word "commercial" was specifically the term used as a synonym for an advert. It was not meant to refer to the idea of commercialism.

As for comparisons with rock or pop, unless we begin to explore the _content _differences between CM and rock, it would be fairly straightforward to say of, say, the group Yes that they wrote _Close to the Edge_ with "*the intention [...] to write with a purposeful seriousness and produce wholly integrated concert music for the audience that expects those qualities from the music.*

Lastly, the notion of "quality" is a red herring. For the purposes of this thread, it's reasonable to assume we're trying to compare like with like (ie decent film music with decent CM) and see how close are the similarities.


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> Because what avant-garde music shares with all classical music is the intention of the composer to write with a purposeful seriousness and produce wholly integrated concert music for the audience that expects those qualities from the music. Actual film music does not fit this description.


incidental music written by Beethoven-




isn't "classical music"?


----------



## SanAntone

While those examples by Beethoven might seem on the surface be comparable to film music, they are not. 

With _Egmont_, Beethoven wrote an overture, and then nine pieces some featuring a soprano. These all can and do unction as stand-alone concert pieces. The same is true for _The Ruins of Athens_, which also has been arranged by various other composer into a suite or other kind of concert work.

_King Stephen_ began as an overture and nine vocal pieces but today, and for some time, only the overture is performed.

So, yes, these are all classical works and have no correlation to film music.


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> While those examples by Beethoven might seem on the surface be comparable to film music, they are not. So, yes, these are all classical works and have no correlation to film music.


Incidental music at the time was the equivalent of today's film music. Beethoven would have allowed his music to be splitted, broken up, arranged according to playwrights', theatre directors' wishes if they paid him enough money, just like today's film music.


----------



## SanAntone

hammeredklavier said:


> Incidental music at the time was the equivalent of today's film music. Beethoven would have allowed his music to be splitted, broken up, arranged according to playwrights', theatre directors' wishes if they paid him enough money, just like today's film music.


I don't know what Beethoven thought about this music, nor how it was used - but that is beside the point. I've already posted that even when classical composers such as Shostakovich write for film these are not classical works unless they are arranged as concert suites.

When these works by Beethoven are performed today they are done as stand-alone concert pieces.

This is not a philosophical issue but a practical one. 

If the music from a film is arranged as concert suite, or concertante, or any kind of wholly integrated work, it could be considered as classical music. But as part of the film, made up of short cues to underscore dramatic scenes, it is not a wholly integrated work of concert music, and not classical music.


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> When these works by Beethoven are performed today they are done as stand-alone concert pieces.


So if we reenact the plays today as people of his time would have done, with his music - the Beethoven wouldn't be "classical music".


----------



## DaveM

SanAntone said:


> ..Because what avant-garde music shares with all classical music is the intention of the composer to write with a purposeful seriousness and produce wholly integrated concert music for the audience that expects those qualities from the music. Actual film music does not fit this description..


From reading I’ve done recently, the avante-garde composers have had to depend on commissions and some kind of patronage to survive. I don’t get any impression that they ever wrote the music to meet demands of the audience. These works afaik do not tend to get repeat performances after their original commissions and they don’t show up on pianos in homes. In the CP era, composers had to compose within some constraints in order to please audiences/patrons and have their works published.

Film music, in the end, _does _have to please audiences insofar as it is part of a movie that has to, overall, please the audience. And themes from some movies do show up as sheet music on pianos in homes.


----------



## SanAntone

hammeredklavier said:


> So if we reenact the plays today as people of his time would have done, with his music - the Beethoven wouldn't be "classical music".


I don't we know how the music was used during the original productions - so your example is far to hypothetical for me to respond to.


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> I don't we know how the music was used during the original productions - so your example is far to hypothetical for me to respond to.


Obviously it would have been played as it was originally intended in function, otherwise Beethoven wouldn't have been paid large sums for it.


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

> *Mit Werken von:* John Williams (geb. 1932), Dmitri Schostakowitsch (1906-1975), Carlo Pallavicino (1630-1688), Arvo Pärt (geb. 1935), Franz Liszt (1811-1886), Frederic Chopin (1810-1849), Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (1756-1791), Gustav Mahler (1860-1911), Christoph Graupner (1683-1760), Peteris Vasks (geb. 1946), Johann Sebastian Bach (1685-1750), John Field (1782-1837) und weitere


It seems to be congruent with SanAntone's point about pieces adapted for a concert setting. Williams is not nominated for film cues, but for the record of a performance of concert arrangements.


----------



## Luchesi

Forster said:


> Thanks for your reply.
> 
> In your first sentence, you presume a definition of CM. But we know that there is no universally agreed definition of CM, though different authorities might offer one and assert theirs is the right one. Part of your definition is "intent"; part is implied by the idea that film music that is orchestral bears some resemblance to, and may have been derived from CM. In other words, it _sounds _like CM.
> 
> I'm inclined to agree with your description of avant-garde music (and therefore, CM) but reflecting again on what is written for films, it _could _be applicable, if not in every detail, certainly in part. Setting aside films that we might dismiss as having been churned out for commercial gain rather than artistic intent, no film composer approaches their task without "purposeful seriousness". The audience at a cinema, comparable to the audience at a CM concert, may not come to listen just to the music, but they do expect the music to be a quality component, integrated into the film.
> 
> My use of the word "commercial" was specifically the term used as a synonym for an advert. It was not meant to refer to the idea of commercialism.
> 
> As for comparisons with rock or pop, unless we begin to explore the _content _differences between CM and rock, it would be fairly straightforward to say of, say, the group Yes that they wrote _Close to the Edge_ with "*the intention [...] to write with a purposeful seriousness and produce wholly integrated concert music for the audience that expects those qualities from the music.*
> 
> Lastly, the notion of "quality" is a red herring. For the purposes of this thread, it's reasonable to assume we're trying to compare like with like (ie decent film music with decent CM) and see how close are the similarities.


I use the composer's intentions and what's on the pages in the score. Musicians must know the score intimately in order to play intelligently. 
Otherwise, we have what it sounds like, whether we're moved or not because we like or dislike the pairing of scenes with the notes, or maybe impressively enticing atmospherics? (again, all variously subjective).


----------



## pianozach

VoiceFromTheEther said:


> View attachment 174123
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to be congruent with SanAntone's point about pieces adapted for a concert setting. Williams is not nominated for film cues, but for the record of a performance of concert arrangements.


That is not entirely true. 

Yes, when the soundtrack album of a film is released, that *album* _is_ considered for nomination at The *Grammy Awards*. 

*The Oscars*, on the other hand, nominate the film's *score* _as it is heard in the film_.


----------



## SanAntone

DaveM said:


> From reading I’ve done recently, the avante-garde composers have had to depend on commissions and some kind of patronage to survive. I don’t get any impression that they ever wrote the music to meet demands of the audience. These works afaik do not tend to get repeat performances after their original commissions and they don’t show up on pianos in homes. In the CP era, composers had to compose within some constraints in order to please audiences/patrons and have their works published.


I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Whether a composer ls commissioned or is subsidized by an arts institution or state government does not change the nature of his intention when writing the work. It also does not change the nature of a composer's intention for the work whether it is popular with a mainstream audience or not.

Again to my way of thinking, composers writing for film are paid large amounts to provide suitable musical cues for a movie in which their work is subservient to the director's overall vision of the film whereas a classical composer is exercising his vision for the work, without someone over him he has to satisfy.


----------



## pianozach

SanAntone said:


> I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Whether a composer ls commissioned or is subsidized by an arts institution or state government does not change the nature of his intention when writing the work. It also does not change the nature of a composer's intention for the work whether it is popular with a mainstream audience or not.
> 
> Again to my way of thinking, composers writing for film are paid large amounts to provide suitable musical cues for a movie in which their work is subservient to the director's overall vision of the film whereas a classical composer is exercising his vision for the work, without someone over him he has to satisfy.



_" . . . whereas a classical composer is exercising his vision for the work, without someone over him he has to satisfy."_

Well, probably MOST of the time.

I've mentioned it before, but court composers were always cognizant of pleasing their benefactors, often writing pieces specifically FOR them to play. From Bach to Beethoven. Yes, Beethoven. Remember the Gross Fugue? Rejected, and Beethoven was TOLD to create a different Finale for his string quartet.


----------



## DaveM

SanAntone said:


> ..Again to my way of thinking, composers writing for film are paid large amounts to provide suitable musical cues for a movie in which their work is subservient to the director's overall vision of the film *whereas a classical composer is exercising his vision for the work, without someone over him he has to satisfy.*


That keeps getting repeated as if it’s fact. Do you really believe that traditional composers of the CP era didn’t have to satisfy anyone?


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> a classical composer is exercising his vision for the work, without someone over him he has to satisfy.


something like this isn't "classical music"?







hammeredklavier said:


> Eighteenth-century musicians and theorists recognized three functions of music: to enhance worship in church (ecclesiasticus), to heighten the drama in the theater (itheatralis), and to provide entertainment in the court or chamber (cubicularis). This distinction was maintained well into the last quarter of the eighteenth-century, not only amongst theorists but by the general public as well."


----------



## hammeredklavier

pianozach said:


> From Bach to Beethoven. Yes, Beethoven. Remember the Gross Fugue? Rejected, and Beethoven was TOLD to create a different Finale for his string quartet.


Also, Die Meistersinger was intended to be "easier", after Wagner realized Tristan und Isolde was too experimental for his audience.


----------



## SanAntone

DaveM said:


> That keeps getting repeated as if it’s fact. Do you really believe that traditional composers of the CP era didn’t have to satisfy anyone?


It is quite different writing a work within the period's expectations and writing according to someone else's entire plan, fitting the music to someone else's structure and who has the final word if the music will used at all.

This conversation is silly, with you and others acting like there is no difference between the market and audience expectations that all composers from Bach to John Adams write within and the work-for-hire that film composers are working under.


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> This conversation is silly, with you and others acting like there is no difference between the market and audience expectations that all composers from Bach to John Adams write within and the work-for-hire that film composers are working under.


Yes, all of Bach's music also falls under the three categories of 18th century music function mentioned. - "to enhance worship in church (ecclesiasticus), to heighten the drama in the theater (itheatralis), or to provide entertainment in the court or chamber (cubicularis)".
What about his music intrinsically "sets it apart" from the music of Zelenka, Graupner, Hasse, etc in that regard? I can't understand. Bach wrote the WTC "for the profit and use of musical youth desirous of learning, and especially for the pastime of those already skilled in this study".


hammeredklavier said:


> There was a trend in certain 18th century Germanic composers like-
> "_At the beginning of the nineteenth century, before Berlioz's time, some influential critics - for instance, Julien-Louis Geoffroy - rejected Mozart as a foreigner, considering his music 'scholastic', stressing his use of harmony over melody, and the dominance of the orchestra over singing in the operas - all these were considered *negative features* of 'Germanic' music."_
> Bruckner was interested in the colored harmonies of F.J. Aumann. Whether or not it's just a "style" can be a matter of opinion. For example, this stuff from 1768, with its dark, eerie-sounding 'contrapuntal harmonies' (in its many numbers such as the "Lasse Jesu von dem Leben Christ", "Jesu, der den Tod besiegt", "Es ist nicht g'nug"; I can't post them cause they're blocked on youtube due to copyright) is virtually forgotten.


----------



## hammeredklavier

*Incidental music* https://www.dictionary.com/browse/incidental-music
noun
background music for a film, television programme, etc
music intended primarily to point up or accompany parts of the action of a play or to serve as transitional material between scenes.
in·ci·den·tal mu·sic
/ˈˌinsəˈˌden(t)l ˈmyo͞ozik/
_noun_
music used in a film or play as a background to create or enhance a particular atmosphere.


----------



## DaveM

SanAntone said:


> This conversation is silly, with you and others acting like there is no difference between the market and audience expectations that all composers from Bach to John Adams write within and the work-for-hire that film composers are working under.


What is silly is putting words in my mouth and then coming to a conclusion that suits your perspective. I never said there was no difference. What I’ve said is to the effect that whatever difference exists IMO has not been to an extreme that film music composers have not been able, at times, to compose music that is more CM-like than some forms of contemporary music.


----------



## Prodromides

Seems that 'Yabetz' got banned over such 'silly' conversations.


----------



## Luchesi

DaveM said:


> That keeps getting repeated as if it’s fact. Do you really believe that traditional composers of the CP era didn’t have to satisfy anyone?


I think they did both. They somewhat pleased people who paid or hired or advanced them (many were still puzzled by the harmonies especially), but they also created to further their vision of excellence or universal appeal and timelessness.


----------



## Forster

Beethoven was not a cog in a large machine when he composed. He may have had to please his patrons and, like all artists, had an awareness of audience and what they might like. But that is simply not the same set of circumstances as the film composer who composes - with a greater or lesser degree of creative freedom - to satisfy someone else who has control over the entire operation.


----------



## pianozach

No, but he still composed his works being cognizant of the pressures of having to have his works please enough people that he earned enough to survive.

Yes, he wasn't a "*Court Composer*" in the sense that composers were a hundred years previously.

*Metaphor of the Day*: Whether you are one month pregnant, or eight months pregnant, you are still pregnant. Arguing over "how pregnant" some is a different discussion.

*Metaphor of the Week:* Do you know what they call a medical student that graduates at the bottom of his class?

"Doctor"


----------



## HansZimmer

SanAntone said:


> The way you've phrased this question assumes that classical music has been composed for film scores. Which I do not think has ever taken place. Even the scores written for films by Shostakovich and other classical composers are not really classical music, precisely because they were written for film and not wholly integrated works for concert performance.


What a radical statement "classical music has never been composed for films"! Your probably don't even know all film scores, so how can you make a so absolute statement?

Which part of the definition of classical music says that it is "standalone music for concerts"? This an interesting question, because there is a thing called "incidental music" inside the classical music world.
Do you want to expel incidental music from classical music?



> You also appear to place a high value on the label "classical music" instead of seeing it for what it is, a taxonomical label.


1. Taxonomical labels are used to distinguish a style of music from an other in my dictionary. When I say that the best word to describe the style of some film scores is "classical music" I'm simply using my taxonomical labels.

2. If you think that taxonomy is not so important, then why do you seem to be so worried about it? Why do you want to exclude film music from classical music?



> Saying that a composer wrote film music does in no way judge the quality of his music, nor does calling a work "classical" automatically imply it is better that other music.





SanAntone said:


> Because what avant-garde music shares with all classical music is the intention of the composer to write with a purposeful seriousness


It's funny that in one post you wrote that the taxonomy has nothing to do with quality, while in an other post you seem to state that film music is less serious than avant-garde music.



> Still the process, priorities, and purpose, of writing music for movies, or films, is different enough from the process of writing classical music, that I find applying the label "classical music" to it will accomplish nothing but diluting the label and causing confusion.


The process of writing incidental music is different from the one of writing standalone music, but classical music contains incidental music, so until you won't succeed in expelling incidental music from classical music, the point that you and @Forster put on the table will be useful only to explain the difference between incidental music and standalone music, but not to explain the difference between classical music and other styles of music.

Infact what you are saying is valid for pop music too: what's the difference between composing incidental pop music and standalone pop music? It's exactly the same difference between composing standalone classical music and incidental classical music.
The fans of pop music don't say that it's necessary to create a new taxonomical label for incidental pop music, because to differentiate standalone pop music from incidental pop music there is the word "incidental".



> There is plenty of high quality rock or pop or rap, etc. in which the creator has exhibited many of the same traits as do classical composers - but I would not be for calling the music of Yes "classical music."


This part is absurd. Of course you don't categorize pop, rap or rock pieces as "classical music": if something is pop/rock/rap it means that it's not classical music.
For some film scores the category "classical music" makes sense for the simple fact that they sound like classical music (there is no better taxonomical label than "classical music" to describe their style). If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.



> Again to my way of thinking, composers writing for film are paid large amounts to provide suitable musical cues for a movie in which their work is subservient to the director's overall vision of the film whereas a classical composer is exercising his vision for the work, without someone over him he has to satisfy.


Still, you are speaking about the difference between incidental music and standalone music and not between classical music and other styles of music.

We all know that incidental music must follow a program and that the composer is only a part of a team, in which different professionalities must work together.

What is the point of the statement "the composer can't compose what he wants"? If the film producer tell the composer that he wants classical music for his film, then the composer must write classical music. The point is very simple.


----------



## HansZimmer

So, given my previous post, if we want to do a serious comparison, we should compare incidental music inside classical music with classical film scores.

I would like to read a comparison between the following pieces by @SanAntone and @Luchesi.

The first is a piece of incidental music of Tchaikovsky.
The second one is a piece of the score of The Age of Innocence.

The first question is: why can we call the style of the first piece "classical music" while we can't call as such the style of the second, according to you?
The second question is: why do you think that the incidental music of Tchaikovsky is of higher class in respect to the film score?


----------



## Forster

^^ You might let us know the composer of the Little Women piece, and given us the name of the Tchaikovsky piece, just so we can check the provenance of what we're listening to. The former I've looked up for myself. The latter...?


----------



## SanAntone

HansZimmer said:


> What a radical statement "classical music has never been composed for films"! Your probably don't even know all film scores, so how can you make a so absolute statement?


Because as I have said more than once, classical composers have a different process, intention, and purpose in mind when they compose a classical work from film composers. Film music requires a completely different set of priorities and intentions, and the music is written to fit the action on the screen and is often short segments which if strung together would not create an integrated work. These cues have to be arranged into a concert suite which as I have also said could be considered classical music. This is much like a ballet score which is re-written as a concert suite.

Also, many, many, movies have music which stylistically is nothing like classical music. So what you are really talking about is a subset of all film music.

Finally, you have not explained why it is *important to you* that film music be considered classical music. I think you are hung up on the false dichotomy of high and low art and it is causing you to go on a wild goose chase trying to prove that film music is in fact classical music.

Enjoy the music and don't get hung up on labels.


----------



## DaveM

Forster said:


> ^^ You might let us know the composer of the Little Women piece, and given us the name of the Tchaikovsky piece, just so we can check the provenance of what we're listening to. The former I've looked up for myself. The latter...?


This is a mystery. The picture appears (my guess) to be from the Little Women 2017 Masterpiece Theatre series. The ‘Beth dies’ scene is in episode 3, but this music (titled Beth’s death) doesn’t seem to appear during that scene. Fwiw, the composer for that series is Stuart Earl. At first, I assumed the composer to be Alexandre Desplat who composed the music for the 2019 movie, but that track doesn’t appear in that movie.


----------



## Luchesi

HansZimmer said:


> So, given my previous post, if we want to do a serious comparison, we should compare incidental music inside classical music with classical film scores.
> 
> I would like to read a comparison between the following pieces by @SanAntone and @Luchesi.
> 
> The first is a piece of incidental music of Tciaikovsky.
> The second one is a piece of the score of Little Women.
> 
> The first question is: why can we call the style of the first piece "classical music" while we can't call as such the style of the second, according to you?
> The second question is: why do you think that the incidental music of Tchaikovsky is of higher class in respect to the film score?


Compare the scores of a symphony, quartet or concerto to some film music. It should be easy to see.


----------



## Ethereality

Forster said:


> Beethoven was not a cog in a large machine when he composed. He may have had to please his patrons and, like all artists, had an awareness of audience and what they might like. But that is simply not the same set of circumstances as the film composer who composes - with a greater or lesser degree of creative freedom - to satisfy someone else who has control over the entire operation.


The same can be said of Briccialdi, Boieldieu, Bennett, Bargiel, Barrière, Bottesini, Bowen and Bazzini, yet somehow more people would rather still listen to Barry, Broughton, Badalamenti, Bacalov, Bernstein and Bernstein. What gives? Were these joke composers actually inspired and moved by _silly movies_ to compose great, profound things?


----------



## pianozach

DaveM said:


> This is a mystery. The picture appears (my guess) to be from the Little Women 2017 Masterpiece Theatre series. The ‘Beth dies’ scene is in episode 3, but this music (titled Beth’s death) doesn’t seem to appear during that scene. Fwiw, the composer for that series is Stuart Earl. At first, I assumed the composer to be Alexandre Desplat who composed the music for the 2019 movie, but that track doesn’t appear in that movie.


*It's Tchaikovsky.
The Snow Maiden Op. 12
X. Melodrama









HZ was having us compare Tchaikovsky to Tchaikovsky. I've probably spoiled the fun. 

I'm guessing is that we would all judge the piece identified as "film music" as being lesser than the "incidental music" known to be by Tchaikovsky.*

Or, perhaps not. That incidental music could conceivably be some random music from some random art film. 

When you label something, you judge it by its labelling. If it's labelled "Tchaikovsky", you already "know" something about it before hearing the first note.


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> Because as I have said more than once, classical composers have a different process, intention, and purpose in mind when they compose a classical work from film composers. Film music requires a completely different set of priorities and intentions, and the music is written to fit the action on the screen and is often short segments which if strung together would not create an integrated work. These cues have to be arranged into a concert suite which as I have also said could be considered classical music. This is much like a ballet score which is re-written as a concert suite.


Those process, intention, and purpose make a shallow difference in terms of function of music. Consider, for instance, Baroque composers' self-parody and mass production of works. There's no basis to think - if they had film technology/culture/industry back then, they wouldn't have written music for it the same way film music composers do today to make a living.


----------



## DaveM

pianozach said:


> *It's Tchaikovsky.
> The Snow Maiden Op. 12
> X. Melodrama
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HZ was having us compare Tchaikovsky to Tchaikovsky. I've probably spoiled the fun.
> 
> I'm guessing is that we would all judge the piece identified as "film music" as being lesser than the "incidental music" known to be by Tchaikovsky.*
> 
> Or, perhaps not. That incidental music could conceivably be some random music from some random art film.
> 
> When you label something, you judge it by its labelling. If it's labelled "Tchaikovsky", you already "know" something about it before hearing the first note.


Well, at least I didn’t commit myself on that one (I’m not very familiar with that Tchaikovsky work.).  I’m still wondering where that music actually occurred. I couldn’t find it during any ’Beth’s death’ scene.


----------



## HansZimmer

Forster said:


> ^^ You might let us know the composer of the Little Women piece, and given us the name of the Tchaikovsky piece, just so we can check the provenance of what we're listening to. The former I've looked up for myself. The latter...?


Why does the provenance matter, if the point is to compare music with other music? Simply focus on the music and explain why one of the two is classical music while the other one is not.


----------



## 4chamberedklavier

Is there a definition of "classical music" that we can all agree on? I'm partial to the idea that 'classical' is whatever is performed in a concert hall. In a sense, that means anything could be classical since it is up to the concert organizers to decide which pieces are fit for performance, but that pushes the question further down because what should a concert organizer then use as a basis for determining what "classical" is?


----------



## HansZimmer

pianozach said:


> *It's Tchaikovsky.
> The Snow Maiden Op. 12
> X. Melodrama
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HZ was having us compare Tchaikovsky to Tchaikovsky. I've probably spoiled the fun.
> 
> I'm guessing is that we would all judge the piece identified as "film music" as being lesser than the "incidental music" known to be by Tchaikovsky.*
> 
> Or, perhaps not. That incidental music could conceivably be some random music from some random art film.
> 
> When you label something, you judge it by its labelling. If it's labelled "Tchaikovsky", you already "know" something about it before hearing the first note.


I've edited my post, so now the provenance of the pieces should be clear.


----------



## Ethereality

4chamberedklavier said:


> Is there a definition of "classical music" that we can all agree on? I'm partial to the idea that 'classical' is whatever is performed in a concert hall. In a sense, that means anything could be classical since it is up to the concert organizers to decide which pieces are fit for performance, but that pushes the question further down because what should a concert organizer then use as a basis for determining what "classical" is?


I would just use a benchmark. Whatever has vague similarities to this brief passage 😈😁


----------



## Forster

HansZimmer said:


> Why does the provenance matter, if the point is to compare music with other music? Simply focus on the music and explain why one of the two is classical music while the other one is not.


Because I don't like being tricked, OK?



pianozach said:


> No, but he still composed his works being cognizant of the pressures of having to have his works please enough people that he earned enough to survive.
> 
> Yes, he wasn't a "*Court Composer*" in the sense that composers were a hundred years previously.


I acknowledged that was the case. However, there seems to me to be a clear difference between having to please a patron, and writing to order to meet the requirements for a film. Even during the age of patronage (which was of decreasing importance as the 19thC advanced) leading composers wrote freely as they wished. Of course, some commissions would have been written more considerately of the commissioner, but form what I gather, patrons paid composers to be their general composer because they liked what they composed. Both Beethoven and Haydn came to other arrangements when they found their patron was no longer helping them to do what they wanted.

There seems to be some perception that the film director and composer is the primary partnership in a film's creation, perhaps based on the close relationship between Williams and Spielberg (or Hitchcock and Herrmann). This is not the case, which is why I referred to the idea of a cog in a machine. Production companies put together the team they want, and each individual member has an allotted task and, depending on whether they are a "name" or and unknown, also given a greater or lesser degree of creative autonomy.



Ethereality said:


> The same can be said of Briccialdi, Boieldieu, Bennett, Bargiel, Barrière, Bottesini, Bowen and Bazzini,


Can it? I'm making assumptions about patronage that the more informed here could confirm, or deny.



4chamberedklavier said:


> Is there a definition of "classical music" that we can all agree on?


No. You're welcome to scour the Forum to find any number of threads that have wrestled with this conundrum and see if there has ever been any kind of consensus. One of the intractable issues is, as you've identified, what concert hall programmers agree to put on their programme. Some are happy to put on film suites, others want to promote the most avant-garde of avant-garde - and who's to say they are wrong?

Us.

But then disagreement is the lifeblood of a discussion forum. If everything was readily settled by consensus, it would be a dull place.


----------



## Ethereality

Forster said:


> Can it? I'm making assumptions about patronage that the more informed here could confirm, or deny.


I was addressing the specific comparison you made. We have to use equal scales. Now if money is your factor, then composers like Williams and Beethoven both appear to have utter freedom to pursue what they find best. If you claim it was inherently different, I'd ask for evidence. Or are we going back to the first argument again. You'd rather Williams be inspired by music like Saariaho's rather than the timeless adventures of E.T., Alan Grant, and Luke Skywalker? What is your ideal modern composer?



Ethereality said:


> To define Classical, I would just use a benchmark. Whatever has vague similarities to this brief passage 😈😁


If identified in the above benchmark are:

Wavering, weaving part-writing while still highly sustaining catchiness
Brilliant orchestration, and a bit intensely in choice notes
Then examples of Williams do pose the vague similarity in his own way, compared to a lot of other stuff:


----------



## Ethereality

When we start pulling away from a standard Classical benchmark, into Saariaho and modern what have you's, there can be immense tradeoffs, and hence great music isn't always bound by what I'd identify as the _Classical_ benchmark of sound, but it's important to recognize where the tradeoffs or sacrifices are being made. In the case of film music, it's a lot--but in embracing Williams modern filmy pace, that is described as (1) more focused on clever horizontal development and harmony rather than counterpoint/part-writing, (2) back to the classical origins of simple song-style, (3) considerably better orchestration than most Classical composers, by listening for a new perspective you can appreciate and distinguish truly clear masterpieces within the more popular modern style. Very heavy trade-offs which don't resemble Classical, but profoundly conceptualized by its own field. I just reference the best examples of this I currently thought of:











*Although* Williams' imo quintessential style, is even further removed from Classical, but then how many composers are actually close to great classical?


----------



## Forster

Ethereality said:


> I was addressing the specific comparison you made. We have to use equal scales. Now if money is your factor, then composers like Williams and Beethoven both appear to have utter freedom to pursue what they find best. If you claim it was inherently different, I'd ask for evidence. Or are we going back to the first argument again. You'd rather Williams be inspired by music like Saariaho's rather than the timeless adventures of E.T., Alan Grant, and Luke Skywalker? What is your ideal modern composer?


I'm not sure I understand you. On the issue of "Beethoven", I was using him as a representative composer of CM, working partly under the patronage system. I could have used any number of composers (as you said). My point was simply that CM composers were not subject to the same constraints as film composers.

I'm not sure what is relevant about who Williams is inspired by or who my ideal modern composer is.


----------



## Forster

Ethereality said:


> [...]
> 
> Williams modern filmy pace, that is described as (1) more focused on clever horizontal development and harmony rather than counterpoint/part-writing, (2) back to the classical origins of simple song-style, (3) *considerably better orchestration than most Classical composers*,
> 
> [...]


That's quite a claim that ought to be substantiated.


----------



## Ethereality

Forster said:


> I'm not sure what is relevant about... who my ideal modern composer is.


It seems to me you really haven't thought enough about this subject. I think my question/comment is valid, about how a composer of today's plethora and abundance should conduct themselves, but I'd estimate you don't have any practical example of one? A very fundamental topic to consider nonetheless--the here and now. The reality.



Forster said:


> I'm not sure I understand you. On the issue of "Beethoven", I was using him as a representative composer of CM, working partly under the patronage system. I could have used any number of composers (as you said). My point was simply that CM composers were not subject to the same constraints as film composers.


Yes, I acknowledged this convenient hindsight.


----------



## Forster

Ethereality said:


> It seems to me you haven't thought deeply enough on this subject. I think my question/comment is valid, about how a composer of today's plethora and abundance should conduct themselves, but I'd estimate you don't have any practical example of one? A very fundamental topic to consider nonetheless--the here and now, reality


But what has your question to do with the thread question, which is whether "CM" film music can be considered CM?

I don't actively listen to much CM by today's composers; nor do I listen actively to much film music either, except when watching movies/TV. Having said that, I have listened to - and enjoyed listening to - Max Richter, Emily Howard, Colin Matthews, Thomas Ades and Johan Johansson (alas no longer living).


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

Ethereality said:


> *Although* Williams' imo quintessential style, is even further removed from Classical


Isn't this just a Bartók homage?


----------



## Ethereality

Forster said:


> That's quite a claim that ought to be substantiated.


I wrote most classical composers, not the best ones. I probably could've omitted that item.



Forster said:


> But what has your question to do with the thread question, which is whether "CM" film music can be considered CM?


On that point, just curiosity and analysis, what you consider _sounds_ like Classical today, or more succinctly, what music you merely enjoy nonetheless, that is being composed this century. Judging by your response to HansZimmer, you're not as concerned with analyzing/comparing the little details in mainstream compositional trends from the past into today. You're just settled on, "a soundtrack, or a ballet, is not purely-composed music," and that's enough evidence for you. I can agree with your given assessments for the most part.



Forster said:


> I don't actively listen to much CM by today's composers; nor do I listen actively to much film music either, except when watching movies/TV. Having said that, I have listened to - and enjoyed listening to - Max Richter, Emily Howard, Colin Matthews, Thomas Ades and Johan Johansson (alas no longer living).


Neither me. I truly dislike and loathe a majority of film music. I've enjoyed of a couple of these composers in the past you list. Any piece you enjoyed most?


----------



## HansZimmer

SanAntone said:


> Because as I have said more than once, classical composers have a different process, intention, and purpose in mind when they compose a classical work from film composers. Film music requires a completely different set of priorities and intentions, and the music is written to fit the action on the screen and is often short segments which if strung together would not create an integrated work. These cues have to be arranged into a concert suite which as I have also said could be considered classical music. This is much like a ballet score which is re-written as a concert suite.


We can't communicate if you extract only a single line from a long post and you don't reply to my arguments.

What should I do now to reply to this post? Do I have to repeat what I've alrady written about incidental music inside classical music?


The pieces of film music are connected for the fact that they all belong to the same suite and usually there is a main theme which is used in different ways throughout the suite to create a connection.
However I don't understand your point: do you think that the pieces should be fused together in one unique piece? It's a bit like to say that the four movements of a symphony must be fused together in one unique piece.
It seems to me that many persons in the audience of classical music tend to think that classical music = symphony and that once you have orchestral music you have to place the material inside a symphony in order to obtain classical music.

To say that the different pieces of a suite of a film score must be fused together is like to say that the pieces of "The Snow Maiden" (incidental music of Tchaikovsky) must be fused together in one unique piece.

Now, if you want to communicate, can you explain the difference between this and this?
Isn't what you say about film music also true for the the Snow Maiden of Tchaikovsky? Many different, short and unconnected pieces to accompain a program.

If inside classical music there is incidental music, then it's clear that the definition of classical music can not be "standalone concert piece, like for example a symphony". "Standalone concert pieces" are simply a subset of classical music: they don't represent the ENTIRE repertoire of classical music. Therefore your argument is not valid.



> Also, many, many, movies have music which stylistically is nothing like classical music. So what you are really talking about is a subset of all film music.



Yes, I'm speaking about a subset, which however is quite big. For the competition in the movie corner I'm listening to all film scores which were nominated at the Oscars and I think that for most of them the word "classical music" is the best one to identify the style. I think that the "number one composers" of Hollywood like classical music.



> Finally, you have not explained why it is *important to you* that film music be considered classical music. I think you are hung up on the false dichotomy of high and low art and it is causing you to go on a wild goose chase trying to prove that film music is in fact classical music.
> 
> Enjoy the music and don't get hung up on labels.


It's not important for me. It's apparently important for the author of this polemic article. In the OP I simply ask the reasons of the arguments of the article.

The story is quite simple:

The radio Classic FM promotes videogame and film soundtracks with a classical sound as a part of the classical music repertoire
A writer of The Guardian creates a polemic article in which he basically says that Classic FM sucks because it does this
I open this discussion, in which I ask the reasons of the polemics
Different users in this forum (you included) agree with the writer of The Guardian
A long discussion between the users with opposite views starts

I've already written that for me the category "classical music" defines a style and not a quality, which means that you can say "this film score is classical music and it sucks" and that you can say "this pop film score is better than this other one classical music score".
So, please, don't reply to a strawman. I have never written the category "classical music" defines the quality, while it's true that on the opposite side there are users who clearily think that classical music is intrinsically superior music and they say that film music must not be elevated with the word "classical music".

I can say that for me some soundtracks are "music of the highest class" without the need to put them in the category "classical music": the latter defines the style, not the quality.


----------



## Forster

Ethereality said:


> [...]
> On that point, just curiosity and analysis, what you consider _sounds_ like Classical today, or more succinctly, what music you merely enjoy nonetheless, that is being composed this century. Judging by your response to HansZimmer, you're not as concerned with analyzing/comparing the little details in mainstream compositional trends from the past into today. You're just settled on, "a soundtrack, or a ballet, is not purely-composed music," and that's enough evidence for you. I can agree with your given assessments for the most part.
> 
> Neither me. I truly dislike and loathe a majority of film music. I've enjoyed of a couple of these composers in the past you list. Any piece you enjoyed most?


TBH, I'm not really settled on anything. My argument is that since there is no agreed definition of what CM is, it's not a simple matter to say that film music _isn't_ CM, despite the definitive comments of some members here. (I've never said anything about ballet.)

Matthews - _Turning Point_
Johannson - _Orphée and _OST for _Arrival _
Howard - _Calculus of the Nervous System_
Ades - _Exterminating Angel_
Richter - _The Blue Notebooks_ and _Memoryhouse_


----------



## HansZimmer

Luchesi said:


> Compare the scores of a symphony, quartet or concerto to some film music. It should be easy to see.


No, it's your job to demonstrate your argument and it doesn't make sense to compare a film score with a symphony. We must compare film scores with classical incidental music.

This is the introduction of The Snow Maiden (incidental music of Tchaikovsky).






This is the main theme of the score of the film The Age Of Innocence (composer: Elmer Bernstein).






I'll wait for your analytical comparison in terms of style and quality:

Why is the first one classical music? Why is the second one not classical music?
Why is the quality of the first one higher than the one of the second one?


----------



## Luchesi

HansZimmer said:


> We can't communicate if you extract only a single line from a long post and you don't reply to my arguments.
> 
> What should I do now to reply to this post? Do I have to repeat what I've alrady written about incidental music inside classical music?
> 
> 
> The pieces of film music are connected for the fact that they all belong to the same suite and usually there is a main theme which is used in different ways throughout the suite to create a connection.
> However I don't understand your point: do you think that the pieces should be fused together in one unique piece? It's a bit like to say that the four movements of a symphony must be fused together in one unique piece.
> It seems to me that many persons in the audience of classical music tend to think that classical music = symphony and that once you have orchestral music you have to place the material inside a symphony in order to obtain classical music.
> 
> To say that the different pieces of a suite of a film score must be fused together is like to say that the pieces of "The Snow Maiden" (incidental music of Tchaikovsky) must be fused together in one unique piece.
> 
> Now, if you want to communicate, can you explain the difference between this and this?
> Isn't what you say about film music also true for the the Snow Maiden of Tchaikovsky? Many different, short and unconnected pieces to accompain a program.
> 
> If inside classical music there is incidental music, then it's clear that the definition of classical music can not be "standalone concert piece, like for example a symphony". "Standalone concert pieces" are simply a subset of classical music: they don't represent the ENTIRE repertoire of classical music. Therefore your argument is not valid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I'm speaking about a subset, which however is quite big. For the competition in the movie corner I'm listening to all film scores which were nominated at the Oscars and I think that for most of them the word "classical music" is the best one to identify the style. I think that the "number one composers" of Hollywood like classical music.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not important for me. It's apparently important for the author of this polemic article. In the OP I simply ask the reasons of the arguments of the article.
> 
> The story is quite simple:
> 
> The radio Classic FM promotes videogame and film soundtracks with a classical sound as a part of the classical music repertoire
> A writer of The Guardian creates a polemic article in which he basically says that Classic FM sucks because it does this
> I open this discussion, in which I ask the reasons of the polemics
> Different users in this forum (you included) agree with the writer of The Guardian
> A long discussion between the users with opposite views starts
> 
> I've already written that for me the category "classical music" defines a style and not a quality, which means that you can say "this film score is classical music and it sucks" and that you can say "this pop film score is better than this other one classical music score".
> So, please, don't reply to a strawman. I have never written the category "classical music" defines the quality, while it's true that on the opposite side there are users who clearily think that classical music is intrinsically superior music and they say that film music must not be elevated with the word "classical music".
> 
> I can say that for me some soundtracks are "music of the highest class" without the need to put them in the category "classical music": the latter defines the style, not the quality.


 Does comparing incidental music from a CM composer help or hurt your argument?


----------



## Luchesi

4chamberedklavier said:


> Is there a definition of "classical music" that we can all agree on? I'm partial to the idea that 'classical' is whatever is performed in a concert hall. In a sense, that means anything could be classical since it is up to the concert organizers to decide which pieces are fit for performance, but that pushes the question further down because what should a concert organizer then use as a basis for determining what "classical" is?


Just like any of the arts, there is high art, high goals, intentionally high achievements, and then there's the arts that have other functions in society, pop, dance, cinema, jingles, the jazz tradition, novelty songs and nursery songs...


----------



## HansZimmer

Luchesi said:


> Does comparing incidental music from a CM composer help or hurt your argument?


I don't understand your question.


----------



## Luchesi

HansZimmer said:


> I don't understand your question.


Maybe you're making the point that the intentions of composers of incidental music and the composers of film music are so similar. Down through history there's been a need for this type of composing. But the new technology (cinema, video games, VR, laser light shows/fireworks) has blurred the lines.


----------



## Forster

Luchesi said:


> Maybe you're making the point that the intentions of composers of incidental music and the composers of film music are so similar. Down through history there's been a need for this type of composing. But the new technology (cinema, video games, VR, laser light shows/fireworks) has blurred the lines.


More likely, the proliferation of "non-classical" blurred the lines. By "non-classical" I mean both that which some refuse to accept belongs to the hallowed halls of CM because it doesn't fit with CM conventions (eg the atonal, the avant-garde etc); and the explosion of popular music.

Early filmmakers would often simply use CM for their soundtracks (extracts of Wagner, Tchaikovsky etc). Now they can draw on a much wider pool of genres and-sub-genres to suit their purpose. Writers for TV, dance, ballet, opera and shows have the same resources available to them.


----------



## HansZimmer

Luchesi said:


> Maybe you're making the point that the intentions of composers of incidental music and the composers of film music are so similar.


The point is not about the intention, but about the musical nature of the result. It's better that we compare apples with apples and not apples with oranges. 

Many symphonies are long works with four long movements. Incidental music, on the other hand, is usually a long suite with many short pieces that are intended to accompany a program. Film music not only is structurally similar to incidental classical music, but they both have similar goals: communicate the emotions that the staff of the program wants to communicate to the public.

I see that you like abstract speeches and you don't want to speak about concret examples and concrete comparison. With this approach I don't think that this discussion will produce anything useful.


----------



## Luchesi

Forster said:


> More likely, the proliferation of "non-classical" blurred the lines. By "non-classical" I mean both that which some refuse to accept belongs to the hallowed halls of CM because it doesn't fit with CM conventions (eg the atonal, the avant-garde etc); and the explosion of popular music.
> 
> Early filmmakers would often simply use CM for their soundtracks (extracts of Wagner, Tchaikovsky etc). Now they can draw on a much wider pool of genres and-sub-genres to suit their purpose. Writers for TV, dance, ballet, opera and shows have the same resources available to them.


Yes, many brains have been working for decades on the attractiveness and effectiveness of other types of music. (When do you think the peak was - or is popular music still peaking?) And for reasons we understand, those types have become more attractive while modern music has become less attractive within the wider audience.

Anyone who wants to study music can still do so in the same manner that it used to be approached. You start with old music and the basic physics, and then you can hopefully see how the various offerings of modern music have grown directly out of music theory (just as the old music had). Very few people want to invest the time and effort - which is understandable because of all the different pursuits we can follow these days, due to ever advancing technology. But having conceded that, I don't know of any other subject that is so rewarding to study for a whole lifetime (because the subject seems to grow and evolve with the individual, through life's stages).


----------



## HansZimmer

Forster said:


> More likely, the proliferation of "non-classical" blurred the lines. By "non-classical" I mean both that which some refuse to accept belongs to the hallowed halls of CM because it doesn't fit with CM conventions (eg the atonal, the avant-garde etc); and the explosion of popular music.
> 
> Early filmmakers would often simply use CM for their soundtracks (extracts of Wagner, Tchaikovsky etc). Now they can draw on a much wider pool of genres and-sub-genres to suit their purpose. Writers for TV, dance, ballet, opera and shows have the same resources available to them.


It's true, of course, that with the birth of many styles of music the film producers started to use a bit of everything for the scores.

The score of Pulp Fiction, based on Rock & Roll, is a good example.







However, the point of this discussion is to say that the tradition of "incidental classical music" is still alive in Hollywood, along with the rest.
The Age of Innocence is a good example.


Now, to summarize the arguments of this discussion...

If "classical music" is the music of highest class/quality, then the category is very subjective... and categories can not be too much subjective. However, I think that some film scores are "music of the highest class" and not only becase I like them, but because they also require high technical skills for the production.

If "classical music" is defined by the intent and the intent can not be to compose music for a program, then we must expel incidental music from classical music. Best wishes with this, because some of the most beloved works of Tchaikovsky belong to incidental music and ballets.

I don't know what's the point about the fact that a composer of film music can not do everything he wants because he is a part of a team and not the producer of the entire program.
This would imply that classical music can not be the result of a team work, which would be a quite strange definition.

However, my point is that if the team decides that for a scene a waltz is needed, then the intention of the composer will be to compose a waltz.
The intention of this piece is so clear that the title is The Grand Central Waltz.






If the team agree about the fact that the score must be based on classical music, then the intention of the composer will be to produce classical music.


That said, I think that the most useful definition is the one based on the style/tradition. Why are waltzes "classical music"? Because they belong to the tradition of classical music. The mental ************ about intention and things like that are not necessary at all to recognize the musical tradition for what it is.
Doesn't matter if you compose a waltz for a film/videogame/program or if you compose it only because you want to create a waltz: a waltz is a waltz, period.


----------



## Luchesi

HansZimmer said:


> The point is not about the intention, but about the musical nature of the result. It's better that we compare apples with apples and not apples with oranges.
> 
> Many symphonies are long works with four long movements. Incidental music, on the other hand, is usually a long suite with many short pieces that are intended to accompany a program. Film music not only is structurally similar to incidental classical music, but they both have similar goals: communicate the emotions that the staff of the program wants to communicate to the public.
> 
> I see that you like abstract speeches and you don't want to speak about concret examples and concrete comparison. With this approach I don't think that this discussion will produce anything useful.


I don't have anything useful to say about incidental music. It's not very interesting. And for me, film music is only interesting as it fulfills its role, and how it does that. 

But because of your threads I'm realizing that unlike other folks - I don't enjoy spending hours watching other people's stories unravel in a film (with an excellent film I really can't be doing something else at the same time). So films are a very small part of my life. With video games you're doing something, you're not just passively watching and 'admiring' the stories of a story-teller. 

The old question, "How many original stories about humans and human relationships are there?"


----------



## Forster

HansZimmer said:


> I don't know what's
> the point about the fact that a composer of film music can not do everything he wants because he is a part of a team


The point is that it shows that the film composer does not have anything like the same degree of creative control as a typical composer of classical music.

And this is one way in which film music is not deemed to be "classical".

You can disagree with this idea, but I struggle to believe that you don't know what's the point.


----------



## Forster

Luchesi said:


> I don't have anything useful to say about incidental music. It's not very interesting. And for me, film music is only interesting as it fulfills its role, and how it does that.
> But because of your threads I'm realizing that unlike other folks - I don't enjoy spending hours watching other people's stories unravel in a film (with an excellent film I really can't be doing something else at the same time). So films are a very small part of my life. With video games you're doing something, you're not just passively watching and 'admiring' the stories of a story-teller.
> The old question, "How many original stories about humans and human relationships are there?"


This is a side issue, but there are hundreds, if not thousands of movies that have been found not only entertaining but meaningful experiences. I've quite lost count of the number I've seen since I've been a fan of cinema. I still have an appetite, even after 50+ years.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Forster said:


> The point is that it shows that the film composer does not have anything like the same degree of creative control as a typical composer of classical music.


John Williams bringing Stravinskian techniques to film by his own will. A Baroque composer churning things out to meet the demands of his patron/employer under the common practice of the time. Which one had/has more creative control over his work?


----------



## Luchesi

Forster said:


> This is a side issue, but there are hundreds, if not thousands of movies that have been found not only entertaining but meaningful experiences. I've quite lost count of the number I've seen since I've been a fan of cinema. I still have an appetite, even after 50+ years.


I value your posts, so I need recommendations from you.


----------



## Luchesi

hammeredklavier said:


> John Williams bringing Stravinskian techniques to film by his own will. A Baroque composer churning things out to meet the demands of his patron/employer under the common practice of the time. Which one had/has more creative control over his work?


But for me, it's about Beethoven's or Schubert's or Chopin's situation vs JW's.


----------



## Forster

hammeredklavier said:


> John Williams bringing Stravinskian techniques to film by his own will. A Baroque composer churning things out to meet the demands of his patron/employer under the common practice of the time. Which one had/has more creative control over his work?


Try following the entirety of contributions in this thread, explaining in greater detail, the point I have repeated briefly here. Your "exceptions" don't really counter what is true for the bulk of the film industry and was true (and continues) to be true for the bulk of composers of classical music.


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

Forster said:


> Try following the entirety of contributions in this thread, explaining in greater detail, the point I have repeated briefly here. Your "exceptions" don't really counter what is true for the bulk of the film industry and was true (and continues) to be true for the bulk of composers of classical music.


Why is "the bulk" so important? Why not stick to the Waxman, Herrmann, Williams scores?


----------



## Forster

VoiceFromTheEther said:


> Why is "the bulk" so important? Why not stick to the Waxman, Herrmann, Williams scores?


"The bulk" is important because it describes the generality of the position for film composers, rather than the exceptions. John Williams reportedly never had a score rejected, so it could be argued that he had complete artistic control over his film work. This may be true, but it's not representative of the experience for the majority of film composers.

I should add that what I am arguing for is an accurate distinction between the extent of artistic freedom (and therefore the nature of their product) enjoyed by CM composers generally, and those who compose for film. Whether this constitutes a legitimate argument for/against film music being classed as CM is another matter.

I should also add that in several threads about film music, I have argued that judgement about the genre should not rest on the reputations of a handful of well-known composers. There are countless film composers (well, I suppose you could count them if you wanted to exhaust the lists in Wiki or IMDB) who've done decent work and are doing decent work now that aren't Steiner, Korngold, Herrmann, Barry, Goldsmith, Williams, Zimmer etc.

Our experience of CM would be impoverished if the only composers we ever talked about were Bach, Beethoven and Mozart.


----------



## Forster

Luchesi said:


> I value your posts, so I need recommendations from you.


Well that's tricky, as the point I was making was about the extent of my experience and having lost count of the movies I've seen.

This week, I watched _M _and _Calvary_. I would recommend both, but for different reasons. One has historical significance (_M_) as well as some striking images (and no music) and the other an intriguing story, a score by Patrick Cassidy and a melancholic exploration of the meaning of religion, life, priesthood, Catholicism....

I used to say that my favourite film was _2001: A Space Odyssey_. I now have a (shifting) Top Ten (as others here have a shifting Top Ten composers or symphonies). Here's a list I compiled a few years ago. _2001 _is only "No. 1" because it was the first film I entered. If I were to pick a No 1 now, it would probably be _The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp_. It has beautiful cinematography, a luminous Deborah Kerr, a funny and fitting score by Allan Gray and an outstanding performance by Roger Livesey.

MyMovies: Must See - IMDb

And my movie blog

Alexander's Film Blog (alexandersblog.net)

Of recent movies, I'd recommend both _1917 _and _Dunkirk_, _Green Book_ and _The Farewell_ , _Inception _and _The Irishman, Litttle Women, Knives Out_


----------



## HansZimmer

Luchesi said:


> I don't have anything useful to say about incidental music. It's not very interesting. And for me, film music is only interesting as it fulfills its role, and how it does that.


I have no problems with the fact that you you don't find incidental music interesting, but if you deny that it's a form of serious art only because you have no interests for it then I have something to say.

To use music for communicate something in a very direct way requires artistic and technical talent, if you want to do this at the state of the art. The composers who are skilled and specialized in this are as much as respectable as they are the symphonists.


----------



## HansZimmer

Forster said:


> MyMovies: Must See - IMDb


This is a quite good list, but there is not "Schindler's List", "Downfall", "Bridge of Spies", "Balloon", "Titanic", "The Departed", "Rules of Engagement", "Shawshank Redemption", "Forrest Gump", "The Rainmaker", "Inglorious Basterds", "The Legend of 1900", "Escape Room", "Insidious", "Fractured", "Argo", "Voces", "Upgrade", "Ex Machina", "Joker", "The Two Popes" , "Take Shelter", "Adidas Vs Puma", "Richard Jewell", "Open Grave", "The Last Full Measure", "10 Cloverfield Lane", "1408", "Dark Skies", "Big Bad Wolves", "Born on the Fourth of July", "The Devil All The Time", "Land Of Mine", "The Awakening", "Just Mercy", "Sphere", "Sully".

In this forum we must also mention "Amadeus" and "Mozart, more than a prince".


Speaking of series, "_*La Révolution française*_" is highly recommended.


----------



## HansZimmer

Luchesi said:


> But because of your threads I'm realizing that unlike other folks - I don't enjoy spending hours watching other people's stories unravel in a film (with an excellent film I really can't be doing something else at the same time). So films are a very small part of my life.


The good films don't speak about the ordinary life, but about chaotic situations, and that's why they are interesting.



> With video games you're doing something, you're not just passively watching and 'admiring' the stories of a story-teller.


I like videogames, but most of them are really only GAMES (simple and pure entertainment). They don't contain culture. Among the best films there is a lot of culture and deepness.
A series like "_*La Révolution française*_" is pedagogical.

In other words, while most videogames belong to the field of simple entartainment, there are many films who can claim a position inside of ART. I consider "Schindler's List" as a representative example of ART in Cinema.


----------



## HansZimmer

Forster said:


> "The bulk" is important because it describes the generality of the position for film composers, rather than the exceptions. John Williams reportedly never had a score rejected, so it could be argued that he had complete artistic control over his film work. This may be true, but it's not representative of the experience for the majority of film composers.


This is a logical fallacy, because the OP doesn't say that all film scores can be classified as classical music, but that SOME can be classified as such. You can not speak about of the bulk to dismiss the argument: we have to speak about concrete examples.

That said, I don't think that the artistic freedom of the composer is relevant in the definition of classical music. I think that if a Beethoven's fan had kidnapped Beethoven and forced him to compose a tenth symphony with a spirit like "Eroica" we wouldn't exclude it from the repertoire of classical music.
Why? Because the intention of Beethoven would have been to compose a piece of classical music, as requested by the kidnapper.

The film score composers are certainly more free than Beethoven in a similar situation and some of them probably get a lot of freedom from the film producer, who tell them "it's your job".
However, the point is that the result of the production is classical music if the intention of the composer is to compose classical music. In some film scores the intention of the composer is clear.

For example, in this case the intention of the composer is really evident, since the title is "The Grand Central Waltz".


----------



## Forster

HansZimmer said:


> This is a quite good list, but there is not [...]


You're right - there is not. All sorts of movies are not on that list, and I wouldn't include on my list, some of the ones you'd like to add - so, make your own list. I didn't make it explicit, but having already said I've watched countless movies, can't remember them all, the IMDB list was not meant to be exhaustive - it was the first 40 that came to mind back when I was thinking of them off the top of my head.



HansZimmer said:


> This is a logical fallacy, because the OP doesn't say that all film scores can be classified as classical music, but that SOME can be classified as such. You can not speak about of the bulk to dismiss the argument: we have to speak about concrete examples.
> 
> That said, I don't think that the artistic freedom of the composer is relevant in the definition of classical music. I think that if a Beethoven's fan had kidnapped Beethoven and forced him to compose a tenth symphony with a spirit like "Eroica" we wouldn't exclude it from the repertoire of classical music.
> Why? Because the intention of Beethoven would have been to compose a piece of classical music, as requested by the kidnapper.
> 
> The film score composers are certainly more free than Beethoven in a similar situation and some of them probably get a lot of freedom from the film producer, who tell them "it's your job".
> However, the point is that the result of the production is classical music if the intention of the composer is to compose classical music. In some film scores the intention of the composer is clear.
> 
> For example, in this case the intention of the composer is really evident, since the title is "The Grand Central Waltz".





HansZimmer said:


> This is a logical fallacy, because the OP doesn't say that all film scores can be classified as classical music, but that SOME can be classified as such. You can not speak about of the bulk to dismiss the argument: we have to speak about concrete examples.
> 
> That said, I don't think that the artistic freedom of the composer is relevant in the definition of classical music. I think that if a Beethoven's fan had kidnapped Beethoven and forced him to compose a tenth symphony with a spirit like "Eroica" we wouldn't exclude it from the repertoire of classical music.
> Why? Because the intention of Beethoven would have been to compose a piece of classical music, as requested by the kidnapper.
> 
> The film score composers are certainly more free than Beethoven in a similar situation and some of them probably get a lot of freedom from the film producer, who tell them "it's your job".
> However, the point is that the result of the production is classical music if the intention of the composer is to compose classical music. In some film scores the intention of the composer is clear.
> 
> For example, in this case the intention of the composer is really evident, since the title is "The Grand Central Waltz".





HansZimmer said:


> This is a logical fallacy, because the OP doesn't say that all film scores can be classified as classical music, but that SOME can be classified as such. You can not speak about of the bulk to dismiss the argument: we have to speak about concrete examples.


No logical fallacy. I wasn't talking about all scores. I thought it obvious - given the exchanges we're already had - that we _know _we are talking not about ALL scores, but only those which might be deemed "classical."

In any case, I was talking about the generality of film soundtrack production, and the extent which composers have autonomy, considering that they are subservient to the director (etc etc etc)



HansZimmer said:


> That said, I don't think that the artistic freedom of the composer is relevant in the definition of classical music.


That's fine.



HansZimmer said:


> I think that if a Beethoven's fan had kidnapped Beethoven and forced him to compose a tenth symphony with a spirit like "Eroica" we wouldn't exclude it from the repertoire of classical music.






HansZimmer said:


> The film score composers are certainly more free than Beethoven in a similar situation


You're seriously offering the concept that film composers have greater freedom to compose what they want than Beethoven would have done...had he been kidnapped by a fan???


----------



## HansZimmer

Forster said:


> You're right - there is not. All sorts of movies are not on that list, and I wouldn't put some of the ones you'd like to add - so, make your own list. I didn't make it explicit, but having already said I've watched countless movies, can't remember them all, the IMDB list was not meant to be exhaustive - it was the first 40 that came to mind back when I was thinking of them off the top of my head.


I know, but I was simply suggesting to @Luchesi other films that there are not in the list.



> You're seriously offering the concept that film composers have greater freedom to compose what they want than Beethoven would have done...had he been kidnapped by a fan???


I was simply trying to say that in order to show your coherence about this point you should say that if Beethoven would have been forced to compose a tenth symphony you wouldn't consider the piece as "classical music".
Maybe a more realistic example is this one: a count asks Beethoven to compose a tenth symphony and in order to be sure that the piece will satisfy his personal tastes he writes a list of specific requests. Beethoven can't refuse the offer because the count is willing to pay him a lot of money. Although he is not in the mood of composing a symphony, he puts all the effort necessary to do his job well (as any serious worker does).
Wouldn't the result be classical music? Yes, it would be classical music for the simple fact that the count wants classical music, so the intention of Beethoven would be to compose classical music, but apparently, according to your point of view, it shouldn't be considered "classical music".


----------



## 4chamberedklavier

I'm starting to think that the term "classical music", if not used in a historical sense, is not a very useful classification. I'm not too fond of the term 'art music' either, since it implies that musicians who aren't in the 'classical' circle don't care about the artistry of their music.

Perhaps something like, 'long-form acoustic instrumental music' would be better for what people generally think of classical music? (I'm 1/2 joking)


----------



## Forster

HansZimmer said:


> I know, but I was simply suggesting to @Luchesi other films that there are not in the list.
> 
> 
> 
> I was simply trying to say that in order to show your coherence about this point you should say that if Beethoven would have been forced to compose a tenth symphony you wouldn't consider the piece as "classical music".
> Maybe a more realistic example is this one: a count asks Beethoven to compose a tenth symphony and in order to be sure that the piece will satisfy his personal tastes he writes a list of specific requests. Beethoven can't refuse the offer because the count is willing to pay him a lot of money. Although he is not in the mood of composing a symphony, he puts all the effort necessary to do his job well (as any serious worker does).
> Wouldn't the result be classical music? Yes, it would be classical music for the simple fact that the count wants classical music, so the intention of Beethoven would be to compose classical music, but apparently, according to your point of view, it shouldn't be considered "classical music".


No, not according to _my_ point of view. I've been trying to clarify one of the points that has been made by others. I remain agnostic.


----------



## HansZimmer

4chamberedklavier said:


> I'm starting to think that the term "classical music", if not used in a historical sense, is not a very useful classification.


If what you mean is that "classical music" is only the music of the classical period and around that period (baroque and romantic), then a such thing as "contemporary classical music" can not exist, but we have already decided that it exists.
We still don't know how much relevant will be Philip Glass for the history of western music. This means that a classical music composer in reality is simply someone that he is inspired by the music of the classical period (and around), so if a film music composer is inspired by classical music, he is a classical music composer.

Taking into account the observations here above, it seems correct to me to say that classical music is simply a musical tradition/style/culture (like rock music) that can be alive for an infinite time.


----------



## HansZimmer

4chamberedklavier said:


> Perhaps something like, '*long-form* acoustic instrumental music' would be better for what people generally think of classical music? (I'm 1/2 joking)


----------



## Luchesi

I wonder why someone would want to call film music classical music. I missed the reasons. Was it posted early in the thread?


----------



## HansZimmer

Luchesi said:


> I wonder why someone would want to call film music classical music. I missed the reasons. Was it posted early in the thread?


The correct question is "why someone would want to call "classical music" the film music WHICH SOUNDS LIKE CLASSICAL MUSIC" and the question contains the answer.
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

Duck test - Wikipedia

The Duck Test is a logic and pragmatic approach to classificate things, so the right question is "why someone would want to exclude from classical music the film music that sounds like classical music?".


In this forum we are only making a discussion about this subject for the purpose of simple fun, but if you own a classical music station you have to clarify to yourself what is classical music in order to choose what you will transmit.
Classic FM decided to promote soundtracks with the classical style and to accept them in the competition Classic FM Hall of Fame.
A writer of The Guardian attacked Classic FM for it's legitimate and reasonable choice and this discussion is based on that polemic.

I simply agree with the approach of Classic FM, because I do the same thing in my computer: I have a folder called "Classical Music" in which I save all the pieces that I classificate as "classical music" with the Duck Test, without any discrimination based on who is the composer and for what did he compose the piece. So, once the playlist starts, a piece of John Williams can come right after a piece of Mozart (although 95% of pieces in the folder are of Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, Vivaldi, Mendelssohn and others historic composers and only 5% of them come from films or videogames).

This is all.


----------



## Luchesi

^^^^^^^

Okay, no one can argue about what you think it sounds like. You want categories that mean something to you.

Electric Light Orchestra intended to sound like easy listening classical music. They used famous themes from the past. It didn't fool any musicians at the time.


----------



## fbjim

4chamberedklavier said:


> I'm starting to think that the term "classical music", if not used in a historical sense, is not a very useful classification. I'm not too fond of the term 'art music' either, since it implies that musicians who aren't in the 'classical' circle don't care about the artistry of their music.
> 
> Perhaps something like, 'long-form acoustic instrumental music' would be better for what people generally think of classical music? (I'm 1/2 joking)


A great reason for this confusion is that "classical music" isn't an aesthetic descriptor, nor is film music - yet the criteria people bring up are entirely based on aesthetics, e.g. "it 'sounds like' classical music". 

Classical music is loosely defined but generally refers to a series of composition and performance traditions. Because these traditions aren't _necessarily_ tied to aesthetics, that can result in classical music which sounds almost nothing like the "if-you-looked-it-up-in-the-dictionary" definition of classical music. You don't even have to go to modern stuff for this - a Bach toccata on an organ sounds basically nothing like a Verdi aria, yet both are classical music. 

Film music is obviously more strictly defined, but once again the descriptor has nothing to do with aesthetics in itself. Howard Shore is film music, but so is Trent Renzor. 

The problem is people are drawing comparisons between the two with aesthetic criteria when neither descriptor has anything to do with aesthetics, at least in a direct sense. Certainly things in genres can share aesthetic similarities because of a shared context, but that doesn't make the criteria based in aesthetics. 

For an easier metaphor, a lot of electronic music is repetitive dance music because the tools for making electronic music are very good at that, and because of the contexts of which mainstream electronic music became popular, but nothing about the term "electronic music" _necessitates_ that it be repetitive dance music.


----------



## fbjim

to wit, the problem with the duck test is that "sounds like classical music" is only one part of it. There's also "acts like" and when the context of the music is entirely different, it arguably fails the test. A bottle of vodka might look like a bottle of fancy mineral water but they don't "act" the same (and if they do, you've got a really strong liver)


----------



## DaveM

Luchesi said:


> ^^^^^^^
> 
> Okay, no one can argue about what you think it sounds like. You want categories that mean something to you.
> 
> Electric Light Orchestra intended to sound like easy listening classical music. They used famous themes from the past. It didn't fool any musicians at the time.


No, no, no. Jeff Lynne didn’t use famous themes from the past (you must be thinking of Eric Carmen) and he never intended ELO to be ‘easy listening music’. His original band, ‘The Move’ was a traditional rock band (listen to the original Jeff Lynne ‘Do Ya’ below). The principle behind Jeff Lynne’s ELO was to use some classical-like instrumentation (cellos prominent) and have the music be highly melodic. There was no attempt to fool anyone.

Listen at 1:40 where Jeff Lynne transitions to a melodic sequence:


----------



## EdwardBast

Yabetz said:


> With all these "answers" and the thread still going on the answers must've not been all that definitive, huh? Maybe "I can't say for sure...hey, I could be wrong" would be more economical.


No, it could just be that a number of contributors haven't understood the answers. To repeat my point of view: The only viable definition of classical music is the institutional definition. This is elaborated in posts 12, 24, 41, and 61. No one has raised a serious objection to this definition.


----------



## Luchesi

DaveM said:


> No, no, no. Jeff Lynne didn’t use famous themes from the past (you must be thinking of Eric Carmen) and he never intended ELO to be ‘easy listening music’. His original band, ‘The Move’ was a traditional rock band (listen to the original Jeff Lynne ‘Do Ya’ below). The principle behind Jeff Lynne’s ELO was to use some classical-like instrumentation (cellos prominent) and have the music be highly melodic. There was no attempt to fool anyone.
> 
> Listen at 1:40 where Jeff Lynne transitions to a melodic sequence:


I remember ELO being recommended to me by my friends, because, like you mention, strings were heard. They thought it sounded like CM, compared to rock albums they had been collecting at that time in the early 70s.


----------



## hammeredklavier

EdwardBast said:


> The only viable definition of classical music is the institutional definition.


So this would be classical music-


----------



## pianozach

EdwardBast said:


> No, it could just be that a number of contributors haven't understood the answers. To repeat my point of view: The only viable definition of classical music is the institutional definition. This is elaborated in posts 12, 24, 41, and 61. No one has raised a serious objection to this definition.


It could also be that a number of contributors have been asking the wrong questions.


----------



## HansZimmer

fbjim said:


> A great reason for this confusion is that "classical music" isn't an aesthetic descriptor


So, what's the name of the aesthetic? I'm asking this from the beginning of this discussion and no one was able to give an answer.


----------



## HansZimmer

Luchesi said:


> Electric Light Orchestra intended to sound like easy listening classical music. They used famous themes from the past. It didn't fool any musicians at the time.


I don't know the group. Can you give an example of a piece of their repertoir that sounds like classical music?


----------



## HansZimmer

fbjim said:


> a Bach toccata on an organ sounds basically nothing like a Verdi aria, yet both are classical music.


Because they are different subgenres of classical music. "Classical music" is a wide category that contains different things, but the different things have a common denominator in aesthetic elements.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Is there any European music that's hundreds of years old and yet is still not "classical music"?


----------



## pianozach

HansZimmer said:


> I don't know the group. Can you give an example of a piece of their repertoir that sounds like classical music?


Electric Light Orchestra is a rock group with a bit of a Beatles vibe, and with two or three orchestral string instruments that are part of the arrangements (rather than syrupy background).


----------



## Ethereality

fbjim said:


> to wit, the problem with the duck test is that "sounds like classical music" is only one part of it. There's also "acts like" and when the context of the music is entirely different, it arguably fails the test. A bottle of vodka might look like a bottle of fancy mineral water but they don't "act" the same (and if they do, you've got a really strong liver)


I'm not sure anyone has debated about the way something looks at first, versus the way it actually acts. Despite having a film composer as my favorite, I've never argued any film music is classical, but what would be interesting to compare is the way both forms act in a grander existential context, ie. which non-Classical works have the same overall quality as Classical ones, if any. I'm reminded of that poll comparing Schubert to The Beach Boys and numerous people on here voted for The Beach Boys work as their favorite. The problem with rating composers like John Williams is that many people surveyed about their music will also be rating imagery and effectiveness of the movies they're part of. I see that as an objective problem with dubious results, not a subjective problem. I would never want to live without the full context of something like these epic scenes, sounds and physical interactions that go on until he enters the fountain fairy's presence, despite none of them ever achieving the same greatness on their own. Hence something like a video game or movie is sometimes argued as a greater form art by combining mediums. Many would say video games or VR is the greatest form of art, because it activated all senses and mental and physical interactions, and I even hear people argue that 2D/overhead games are better than 3D games, because you can take in more around you. Hence I wonder if Bach and Mozart are a kind of 2D, hyper-focused classical on those dimensions, and thus, the context and limitations of the art is what determines it as greater than other mediums, not how many dimensions the artwork captures. Every type of artwork is different, so it's easier comparing a film composer to a Classical composer.


----------



## DaveM

pianozach said:


> Electric Light Orchestra is a rock group with a bit of a Beatles vibe, and with two or three orchestral string instruments that are part of the arrangements (rather than syrupy background).


I just would emphasize that the above is not an original ELO song using an actual classical theme, but a cover of the famous song by Chuck Berry who did use one. I’ve really come to dislike that song, partly because it was used to introduce every one of the Judge Judy shows rising to the level of Beethoven music abuse..


----------



## Forster

EdwardBast said:


> No, it could just be that a number of contributors haven't understood the answers. To repeat my point of view: The only viable definition of classical music is the institutional definition. This is elaborated in posts 12, 24, 41, and 61. No one has raised a serious objection to this definition.


It could just be that contributors have rejected the answer...or forgotten it, given the length of this thread!

Anyway, looking back at post 12, EB said...



EdwardBast said:


> Film music is classical music when and if it is routinely performed in classical music concerts, joins the standard repertoire classical music students must learn, is published and edited like other classical music, and so on. There is no impediment to film music being classical music other than these simple institutional requirements. [...]


Broadly speaking, this seems to me an acceptable definition, and as a set of institutional conditions for film music to meet in order to be considered CM, they actually seem quite achievable. It certainly gets round the "problem" of avant-garde music "sounding nothing like CM" (to some ears). As EB says, there were no _serious _objections to this definition, but there were counter-definitions over which there was much wrangling. What objections were raised were, it seems to me, claims that some film music was already meeting some, if not all of the requirements, or that ballet didn't.

The idea that "there is no impediment to film music being classical" suggests that either or both of two conditions are met. First, that institutions start to include film music as part of the repertoire. Second, that sufficient film music meets whatever conditions are set by the institutions for inclusion.

We know that concert halls and orchestras increasingly include some film music in their programmes. Does anyone know of any film music that is part of the repertoire that students must learn?


----------



## DaveM

Just for giggles: Here’s a rather nice ELO song. Would you guess that it might have come from the late 70s or maybe the 80s? Does it sound like a song that Paul McCartney might have sung on an album back then? Well maybe, but actually, it’s an original Jeff Lynne ELO song from 2016:


----------



## Ethereality

Well, the definition of Classical is already in the name, so I don't see a debate being held here. If an original style is formed in this lifetime, regardless if in symphonic material, it can't yet be Classical, but instead time will tell. Whereas if a composer today is following after the current Classical model, it by association can't be anything else, regardless of whether they will stand on their own. This is why I don't care for or use popular, inferior genre names like "Classical." Perhaps most composers fall somewhere in between Classical and their own genre. Last.fm used to have track tags where you could type in random words you want to become music, like "foresty, melancholic, cello, starbucks" and it would find the best-match tracks based on where people tagged those in pieces. (People use it for silly things.) I think this system should've been kept around and developed more, as much as any free speech platform nowadays. It's a big shame to our falling era. We'll be lucky to even have a search bar soon, rather, we're so thankful to have relevant content pre-chosen for us. No, I'd rather associate a work of art with objective descriptors of its sounds, the explicit mechanisms adopted by its branch. This will allow any useful cross-genre comparisons like I did with Beethoven and John Williams, but will mainly help paint the realistic picture of the associative differences in their schools.


----------



## HansZimmer

Ethereality said:


> these epic scenes, sounds and physical interactions


Have you ever heard the version of "The Dark World" theme contained in the soundtrack album? The OST of The Legend of Zelda is good, but in the soundtrack albums the quality is further increased.


----------



## HansZimmer

Ethereality said:


> Despite having a film composer as my favorite


Who?


----------



## HansZimmer

pianozach said:


> Electric Light Orchestra is a rock group with a bit of a Beatles vibe, and with two or three orchestral string instruments that are part of the arrangements (rather than syrupy background).


Thanks. 

@Luchesi, I brought as an example of classical music in film scores the pieces here below and you compare them to a rock group which uses some strings in rock arrangements? Is it too much to ask a bit of intellectual honesty in this discussion?


----------



## mikeh375

HansZimmer said:


> Have you ever heard the version of "The Dark World" theme contained in the soundtrack album? The OST of The Legend of Zelda is good, but in the soundtrack albums the quality is further increased.


Cliche upon cliche to my ears.
It got me thinking that at least music written away from media is not so reliant on samples and the limited musical articulations they offer, compared to the diversity, creative scope and flexibility of a real orchestra. Said sample articulations have evolved to play a major role in influencing the style of orchestration _and composition_ in much media music, including film because of their ability to render a mock-up of the music written that is convincing enough to give a director an indication of the final music and to approve it. This before money is spent on an actual scoring/recording session with a real orchestra. However, practical though they may be, samples can only achieve a sort of realism and sound 'good' if they are used as purposed. As such the articulations available tend to dominate much of the composing and that articulation list is far from exhaustive at present, as indeed is the dynamic layering.
Non-media orientated or originated music has no such restriction or external influence and for me, as one who still uses samples to render music, their use and influence upon the composing is yet another major reason I see and have experienced a big distinction between writing a 'classical' work and a piece of media music.


----------



## HansZimmer

Forster said:


> Broadly speaking, this seems to me an acceptable definition, and as a set of institutional conditions for film music to meet in order to be considered CM


I reject this parameter, because there is no other genre of music in which an elite decides which pieces belong to the genre and which ones don't belong to it. I don't think that elitism is a good road: in this forum many users use the word in a pejorative way, which means that even the audience of classical music (me included) doesn't like this attitude.



> It certainly gets round the "problem" of avant-garde music "sounding nothing like CM"


Avant-garde music is not classical music. It's a subcategory of "art music" like classical music.

This table helps a lot to clarify definitions and categories. "Musica colta" is the italian translation of "art music". Aant-garde music is listed there along with classical music, but it's not classical music.
So yes, the word "classical music" still defines a tradition/aesthetic.













> We know that concert halls and orchestras increasingly include some film music in their programmes. Does anyone know of any film music that is part of the repertoire that students must learn?


I relaunch with another question: is the symphony 6 of the nine years old Mozart a part of the repertoire that students must learn? How many orchestras include the piece in their concert programs?


----------



## Forster

HansZimmer said:


> I reject this parameter, because there is no other genre of music in which an elite decides which pieces belong to the genre and which ones don't belong to it.


So, if not "an elite", who decides?



HansZimmer said:


> Avant-garde music is not classical music. It's a subcategory of "art music" like classical music.


Says who? You, again.



HansZimmer said:


>


Fascinating - but where does this come from? Who says this analysis is right? You?



HansZimmer said:


> [...] is the symphony 6 of the nine years old Mozart a part of the repertoire that students must learn? How many orchestras include the piece in their concert programs?


Why? Of what relevance is this question?

Going back to the "elite", have you checked out what your supposed "elite" actually includes as repertoire? Do you know if all musical institutions include exactly the same compositions in their repertoire? What freedoms are students given to select their own pieces for any part of the course of study?

I don't know the answer to any of these questions, but I think that the Royal Academy of Music, for example, is entitled to declare what constitutes the repertoire that their students will study and perform. That would be no different from any other institute of learning declaring the content of their programmes of study whether it's music, engineering, molecular biology, English literature etc etc etc.


----------



## Forster

To answer my own question, here is an excerpt from the programme of study for graduate courses at an "elite" institution.



> *GRMUS 641T — The American Symphony: Ives to Corigliano*
> 
> This course focuses on some of the major American orchestral works of the 20th century, including notable symphonies, concertos, and works for large instrumental forces that have contributed significantly to music written today. Using photos of composer manuscripts, sketches, letters, and other primary source materials retrieved from the Library of Congress, many of which remain undigitized, the course delves deeply into the realm of compositional process as it relates uniquely to each composer. Lectures will apply basic and more advanced theoretical principles to music often neglected in general analytic studies. *Works are covered in chronological order, retracing the development of American concert music from its Eurocentric beginnings to its wide-ranging influences including jazz, musical theatre, and film*.


and another from the same institution...

*



GRMUS 662P — Composing for Visual Media

Click to expand...

*


> _Prerequisite: GRMUS 660P._ For students interested in learning the fundamental skills needed to compose and produce music for visual media including film, television, games and emerging art forms. Topics include creative collaboration with directors and visual artists, traditional and emerging art forms, diverse styles of music composition and production, and analysis of masterworks of professional composers. Students will be required to compose and produce original scores to excerpts from feature films, documentaries, and other filmed media.


----------



## HansZimmer

mikeh375 said:


> Cliche upon cliche to my ears.


The cliches have the function to create the basic style, but around the common denominators of the style there is a large space for individual creativity. You don't find the melody and all the rest in the pack of chips.

The Rococo (which was the cultural context that formed Mozart) is also full of cliché and this is perfectly normal: how can you say that 20 pieces of music all belongs to the rococo artistic movement if there are not cliches (common denominators) that group them in the same stylistic category?

Unlike you, I don't believe that an artistic product has no value if it doesn't break the rules of the expected style. Sometimes an artist simply wants to show how good he/she is in writing a piece inside a determined style.


I think that your problem is simply that, unlike me, you don't like the style of what you call "media music". That's fine. There also persons who don't like the rococo style. It's only a question of tastes.
Fortunately, I can appreciate different styles, from rococo to soundtracks. If you are able to appreciate many different styles you have more choice and your musical experience is richer.


----------



## mikeh375

HansZimmer said:


> Unlike you, I don't believe that an artistic product has no value if it deson't break the rules of the expected style. Sometimes an artist simply wants to show how good he/she is in writing a piece inside a determined style.
> 
> I think that your problem is simply that, unlike me, you don't like the style of what you call "media music". That's fine. There also persons who don't like the rococo style. It's only a question of tastes.
> Luckily I'm not so picky and so Ican appreciate different styles, from rococo to media music style.


errmm Hans, that is not me at all and nothing could be further than the truth. I'd have thought that was clear given my opinions on Zimmer (mostly favourable) and Williams for example and the fact that I made a living within media music so I get the idea of and have used, musical tropes. Unlike you, I have a little more knowledge about the topic in hand than you, so please do keep up dear boy and come to more appropriate and accurate assumptions.
I note you have nothing to say about the influence of samples on film music. Shame that, but not surprising given your lack of experience and know how. One can't overestimate their undermining impact on compositional creativity in media music.


----------



## HansZimmer

mikeh375 said:


> errmm Hans, that is not me at all and nothing could be further than the truth. I'd have thought that was clear given my opinions on Zimmer (mostly favourable) and Williams for example and the fact that I made a living within media music.


I know, but your statements are contrasting. You jump from a position of "I like soundtracks" to the position of "Soundtracks suck" in the later post.

I think that you should clarify your position, because it's a bit ambiguous.


----------



## EdwardBast

hammeredklavier said:


> So this would be classical music-


What makes you think so?


----------



## mikeh375

HansZimmer said:


> I know, but your statements are contrasting. You jump from a position of "I like soundtracks" to the position of "Soundtracks suck" in the later post.
> 
> I think that you should clarify your position, because it's a bit ambiguous.


There'll be no clarification for you from me as my position is perfectly clear. Perhaps you should read more carefully the nuance in my posts coming as they do from someone - a composer - who was on the inside. If not then don't rely on assumptions from ignorance or projection regarding me in your following posts.


----------



## EdwardBast

Forster said:


> It could just be that contributors have rejected the answer...or forgotten it, given the length of this thread!
> 
> Anyway, looking back at post 12, EB said...
> 
> Broadly speaking, this seems to me an acceptable definition, and as a set of institutional conditions for film music to meet in order to be considered CM, they actually seem quite achievable.


Yes, achievable, especially if one is talking about the light classical circuit. Beyond that is more difficult.

Stylistic definitions of classical music don't work because, as I pointed out in #24, there is no stylistic feature shared by all instances of classical music. Definitions based on instrumentation or technology don't work because all kinds of instruments have been used in classical music, as well as all manner of generated sound, tape and digital manipulation, and so on. The institutional definition is just the last one standing.


----------



## HansZimmer

mikeh375 said:


> Perhaps you should read more carefully the nuance in my posts coming as they do from someone - a composer - who was on the inside. If not then don't rely on assumptions from ignorance or projection regarding me in your following posts.


To be honest, to continuosly highlight that you are a composer everytime that you give a judgement to a piece of music looks very much as an Argument from authority .

It's the public that decides what is good and what's not good, not the composers. Mozart had not the power to self-declare as the "greatest composer". The public elevated him to that position.

There are not objective criterias to determine which are the good pieces above a certain level of technical quality. You use "clichés" as a pejorative term but I don't think it is, because as I wrote their function is to define the basic style. The question is "do you like the style?".


----------



## mikeh375

There you go with assumptions again. Me saying I'm a composer is simply a fact, nothing more and it's a relevant one I believe, given that I was in the industry. I have a particular and maybe unique in these parts, viewpoint that is pertinent to the thread and one that understands the inner workings of scoring and composing. Now you can call it what you want and I'm sorry if my relating to you said knowledge or insights keeps bursting your bubble about the business and status of film scoring, but there it is. I'm not apologising for knowing my shtit.
Nor am I arguing from any authority, I'm just telling it as it is in the real world, in a land far far away from the stylistic classifications of film music fans.


----------



## HansZimmer

mikeh375 said:


> There you go with assumptions again. Me saying I'm a composer is simply a fact, nothing more and it's a relevant one I believe, given that I was in the industry. I have a particular and maybe unique in these parts, viewpoint that is pertinent to the thread and one that understands the inner workings of scoring and composing. Now you can call it what you want and I'm sorry if my relating to you said knowledge or insights keeps bursting your bubble about the business and status of film scoring, but there it is. I'm not apologising for knowing my shtit.
> Nor am I arguing from any authority, I'm just telling it as it is in the real world, in a land far far away from the stylistic classifications of listeners.


I'm not saying that it's not a fact that you are a composer, but any negative judgement you give to a piece is only a personal opinion. Your emotions are not more relevant than mine. If a piece triggers my emotions, for me it's a good piece. The rest is not really relevant.


----------



## Forster

HansZimmer said:


> I'm not saying that it's not a fact that you are a composer, but any negative judgement you give to a piece is only a personal opinion. Your emotions are not more relevant than mine. If a piece triggers my emotions, for me it's a good piece. The rest is not really relevant.


Aren't we all giving only personal opinions? Except when we're offering facts. And you now readily admit that it all boils down to what works for you.

😁


----------



## mikeh375

HansZimmer said:


> I'm not saying that it's not a fact that you are a composer, but any negative judgement you give to a piece is only a personal opinion. Your emotions are not more relevant than mine.


..which is why in post 1,120, which has apparently burst another bubble, I said "cliche upon cliche"......._."to my ears." _
You really must try to read and understand more carefully for the sake of a decent or at the very least, sensible conversation.


----------



## HansZimmer

Forster said:


> Aren't we all giving only personal opinions? Except when we're offering facts. And you now readily admit that it all boils down to what works for you.
> 
> 😁


Of course, I've always said that in the notion of "quality" there is a lot of subjectivity and this is why to define "classical music" as the "music of highest quality" can not obviously bring us to an objective category. Everyone would have his personal category of classical music.

On the other hand, a definition based on generic stylistic traits ("generic" because many different styles are in the category) is much more objective.


----------



## Forster

HansZimmer said:


> To be honest, to continuosly highlight that you are a composer everytime that you give a judgement to a piece of music looks very much as an Argument from authority .


I'm not sure you've fully understood the 'argument from authority'. Plainly, someone who has never listened to film music or classical music will have no basis on which to make a reliable pronouncement about their relative merits. Someone who has listened to much of both is in a better position to argue soundly, provided that they offer more evidence than just, "I've listened to lots of FM and CM." That would indeed be a fallacious argument.

Mike is not offering his credentials as a composer as his _only _evidence in support of his arguments. Therefore, IMO, he is not offering a fallacious argument.


----------



## Forster

HansZimmer said:


> Of course, I've always said that in the notion of "quality" there is a lot of subjectivity and this is why to define "classical music" as the "music of highest quality" can not obviously bring us to an objective category. Everyone would have his personal category of classical music.
> 
> On the other hand, a definition based on generic stylistic traits ("generic" because many different styles are in the category) is much more objective.


And even more objective are the criteria offered by @EdwardBast . Which brings me back to my last couple of substantive posts which I hope you intend to respond to.


----------



## HansZimmer

Forster said:


> I'm not sure you've fully understood the 'argument from authority'. Plainly, someone who has never listened to film music or classical music will have no basis on which to make a reliable pronouncement about their relative merits. Someone who has listened to much of both is in a better position to argue soundly, provided that they offer more evidence than just, "I've listened to lost of FM and CM." That would indeed be a fallacious argument.


It's true that you have to listen to every single piece of Mozart to say what are the good ones, but your conclusion about what are the best pieces of Mozart is still subjective.

Two persons who are both experts of Mozart's music can go to completely different conclusions about the subject, because they have two different brains which feel different emotions.


----------



## Forster

HansZimmer said:


> It's true that you have to listen to every single piece of Mozart to say what are the good ones, but your conclusion about what are the best pieces of Mozart is still subjective.


No, you don't. You can listen to as few as you wish and still declare your opinion about which are the good ones. And if you offer sound supporting evidence, your opinion might be regarded as less subjective than just "the ones that move me emotionally are the best".


----------



## HansZimmer

Forster said:


> And if you offer sound supporting evidence, your opinion might be regarded as less subjective than just "the ones that move me emotionally are the best".


Well, a trained composer can analyze the piece and explain how the whole thing is built, but once you have all the elements on the table, the judgement you give to them is subjective.

Take for example the posts of Tolkieburger against the score of the Lion King: he wrote that you hear the percussions every 2 seconds and that they are boring. The former is a fact, but the latter is an opinion. When it comes to analyze objective elements, a composer is more prepared than a normal person, but in his judgements about the objective elements he/she is only a human like any other.

As I said there is also nothing wrong in the clichés. Tolkieburger wrote that they are an error, but I don't agree. You can use some clichés because your intention is to create a piece inside a determine stylistic group, but there is always a large space for individual creativity. The melody and the rest of things are not self-creating.


----------



## Ethereality

HansZimmer said:


> Have you ever heard the version of "The Dark World" theme contained in the soundtrack album? The OST of The Legend of Zelda is good, but in the soundtrack albums the quality is further increased.
> 
> youtube. com/watch?v= Ye5TV9pa_4Y


Ah. Cool.

Although unfortunately this misses the third verse.



HansZimmer said:


> Who?


I have in my avatar that Brahms and John Williams are my favorite composers, but I illustrated why the latter is not Classical:



Ethereality said:


> Well, the definition of Classical is already in the name, so I don't see a debate being held here. If an original style is formed in this lifetime, regardless if in symphonic material, it can't yet be Classical, but instead time will tell. Whereas if a composer today is following after the current Classical model, it by association can't be anything else, regardless of whether they will stand on their own. This is why I don't care for or use popular, inferior genre names like "Classical." Perhaps most composers fall somewhere in between Classical and their own genre. Last.fm used to have track tags where you could type in random words you want to become music, like "foresty, melancholic, cello, starbucks" and it would find the best-match tracks based on where people tagged those in pieces. (People use it for silly things.) I think this system should've been kept around and developed more, as much as any free speech platform nowadays. It's a big shame to our falling era. We'll be lucky to even have a search bar soon, rather, we're so thankful to have relevant content pre-chosen for us. No, I'd rather associate a work of art with objective descriptors of its sounds, the explicit mechanisms adopted by its branch. This will allow any useful cross-genre comparisons like I did with Beethoven and John Williams, but will mainly help paint the realistic picture of the associative differences in their schools.


Maybe in 100 years he's famous enough to be considered Classical. I usually say 150 years minimum after a composer's death, because the past 100 years aren't psychologically fully sorted out yet with all the new genres and styles that came about, but Williams composed a few Classical-sounding things so the chance is perhaps? more likely.


----------



## HansZimmer

Forster said:


> So, if not "an elite", who decides?


In the rock music there is not an elite who decides which are the pieces inside the category. If this works for every genre of music I don't see why it shouldn't work in classical music too. If someone says that it doesn't work, it simply means that he wants elitism in classical music. Some others persons reject elitism (many users in this forum reject it).

There is a theory called "The wisdom of the crowd" which says that the crowd is smarter than a single expert: Wisdom of the crowd
If you apply the theory in music, the audience of classical music can decide what is and what is not classical music, which pieces are good and which pieces are not, in a better way than a single expert of music.


----------



## mikeh375

HansZimmer said:


> There is a theory called "The wisdom of the crowd" which says that the crowd is smarter than a single expert: Wisdom of the crowd
> If you apply the theory in music, the audience of classical music can decide what is and what is not classical music, which pieces are good and which pieces are not, in a better way than a single expert of music.


I'll stick to my own opinions and Virgil Thomson's.....
"Music in any generation is not what the public thinks of it but what the musicians make of it"


----------



## fbjim

I'd say it's both, both performance/composition traditions, and the societal context of listeners matter a great deal for attempting to define genre.


----------



## Luchesi

HansZimmer said:


> Thanks.
> 
> @Luchesi, I brought as an example of classical music in film scores the pieces here below and you compare them to a rock group which uses some strings in rock arrangements? Is it too much to ask a bit of intellectual honesty in this discussion?


I think it's as straightforward as finding out what the composer's intentions were for a work. If they shy away from the label CM then we shouldn't push it.


----------



## EvaBaron

HansZimmer said:


> In the rock music there is not an elite who decides which are the pieces inside the category. If this works for every genre of music I don't see why it shouldn't work in classical music too. If someone says that it doesn't work, it simply means that he wants elitism in classical music. Some others persons reject elitism (many users in this forum reject it).
> 
> There is a theory called "The wisdom of the crowd" which says that the crowd is smarter than a single expert: Wisdom of the crowd
> If you apply the theory in music, the audience of classical music can decide what is and what is not classical music, which pieces are good and which pieces are not, in a better way than a single expert of music.


If you follow the wisdom of the crowd, the top selling music isn’t garbage


----------



## HansZimmer

EvaBaron said:


> If you follow the wisdom of the crowd, the top selling music isn’t garbage


The wisdom of the crowd can not be based in sellings, views and things like that. It must be based on ratings.

Despacito has 1.73 points on 5 here: Despacito by Luis Fonsi (Single, Reggaetón): Reviews, Ratings, Credits, Song list - Rate Your Music

On the other hand, the Goldberg Variations of Glenn Gould have 3.90 on 5 in the same website: The Goldberg Variations by Glenn Gould

Schindler's List has 9 points on 10 in IMDB: Schindler's List (1993) - IMDb


----------



## Forster

C'mon Hans. What about my post that shows film music being studied at educational establishments? Never mind the logical fallacy of the Wisdom of Ad Populum.


----------



## DaveM

Forster said:


> C'mon Hans. What about my post that shows film music being studied at educational establishments? Never mind the logical fallacy of the Wisdom of Ad Populum.


How is the ‘fallacy of the Wisdom of Ad Populum’ logical? One can allege that it is a fallacy, but I don’t recall the premise that it is logical. One could say that music that is popular is often good music.


----------



## HansZimmer

Forster said:


> C'mon Hans. What about my post that shows film music being studied at educational establishments? Never mind the logical fallacy of the Wisdom of Ad Populum.


What do I have to say about film music studied in universities? I think that it's quite obvious that a fully formed composer also studies incidental and programmatic music, not only the symphonies and the sonata form. As I said, film scores must be compared to incidental and programmatic music and not to traditional symphonies, because they are definitely a cinematic adaptation of that old art.


----------



## Forster

DaveM said:


> How is the ‘fallacy of the Wisdom of Ad Populum’ logical? One can allege that it is a fallacy, but I don’t recall the premise that it is logical. One could say that music that is popular is often good music.


It's a joke, Dave...remember those? The Argumentum Ad Populum is a logical fallacy. As far as I can see, Hans' "Wisdom of the Crowd" is the same thing. I just jammed the two together for fun.

Never mind.


----------



## Forster

HansZimmer said:


> What do I have to say about film music studied in universities? I think that it's quite obvious that a fully formed composer also studies incidental and programmatic music, not only the symphonies and the sonata form. As I said, film scores must be compared to incidental and programmatic music and not to traditional symphonies, because they are definitely a cinematic adaptation of that old art.


Right, so, that's one of the conditions EB provided in his definition of CM. We know concert halls programme film music too (though not yet as "routinely" as a Tchaikovsky symphony). That's another condition. So, your objections to EB's definition of CM should be resolved, yes? The third condition was that the music should be published.

John Williams: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone: Orchestra | Musicroom.com

Ta-da!

So, FM can be considered CM as all EB's conditions are being met. Happy?

(Why do I think not?)


----------



## mikeh375

HansZimmer said:


> What do I have to say about film music studied in universities? I think that it's quite obvious that a fully formed composer also studies incidental and programmatic music, not only the symphonies and the sonata form. As I said, film scores must be compared to incidental and programmatic music and not to traditional symphonies, because they are definitely a cinematic adaptation of that old art.


Comparing film scores to a 'classical' definition of incidental and programmatic music as a justification to their validity as the free ranging, unimpeded expression one might reasonably expect from a master composer of 'serious' or personal music, ( to include when they write for ballet and opera), is rather tenuous and does nothing for the OP's point of view except demonstrate the shallowness of the conjecture as it stands imv.

All film music is written under a kosh, some koshes are big, some smaller, but all koshes limit the musical imagination of the composer in an extraneous, non-musical way in varying degrees from the technical to the expressive. The kosh will also curtail freedom of choice concerning language and the individual parameter settings a composer might concoct when writing absolute music or other forms not related to film. The differences between the freedom of compositional parameters available in the two disciplines is also the difference between how incidental music for an opera is written - with a freer hand - as opposed to the more restricted film cue. Consider Britten's 'Sea Interludes' for example. Here we have incidental music that has no restrictions other than perhaps timing (loose of course, not to the frame) and a freely chosen emotional intent. The orchestration is free, the language is free, the development of material, its dynamics and gestures are free and so on. Many of these freedoms are not always available to the film scorer or if they are, they are in a varied, limited and often inhibited form. None of this might matter to a listener but it makes a big difference for the art and artifice involved and any aesthetics in the eventual music written. The excellence and refinement associated with the greats of the Canon is shoe-horned into more expressively harmful, demanding and unfamiliar external strictures.

The comparison of FM to concert orientated incidental and programmatic music is therefore for me, bogus and utterly superficial and it fails to get to the creative roots, genesis and purpose of FM. YYMV of course, but for me I prefer my absolute music to be just that.
Oh and just for the OP, I'm happy to hear and enjoy the best of film music alongside Beethoven in a concert but I'm also capable of making an important distinction between the two disciplines of composing that stops me granting any equivalence in intent between them...because there isn't any unless one considers exceptions like Williams who blurs the distinctions better than most.


----------



## EdwardBast

Forster said:


> Right, so, that's one of the conditions EB provided in his definition of CM. We know concert halls programme film music too (though not yet as "routinely" as a Tchaikovsky symphony). That's another condition. So, your objections to EB's definition of CM should be resolved, yes? The third condition was that the music should be published.
> 
> John Williams: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone: Orchestra | Musicroom.com
> 
> Ta-da!
> 
> So, FM can be considered CM as all EB's conditions are being met. Happy?
> 
> (Why do I think not?)


Musical scholars now routinely study and publish analyses of film music, pop music, progressive rock, hip hop, and many other styles, but they study these styles as film music, pop, rock, and hip hop, not as classical music. Film music is played in classical concert halls, but such performances are generally understood to be in the light classical category, events meant to put new butts in seats with the hope of converting the owners of said butts into appreciators of "more serious" music. Music composed by committee, in which orchestrators and other minions contribute to the finished product, are never going to be taken as seriously as those completed by the vision and labor of one individual.

Some film music has made it into the light classical repertoire. Some undoubtedly could be crafted into orchestral suites that might hold their own against similar examples from ballets, operas, and suites by accepted classical composers. Time will tell.

Edit: What Mike said ^ ^ ^


----------



## mikeh375

...and what EdwardB said...


----------



## 4chamberedklavier

EdwardBast said:


> Musical scholars now routinely study and publish analyses of film music, pop music, progressive rock, hip hop, and many other styles, but they study these styles as film music, pop, rock, and hip hop, not as classical music. Film music is played in classical concert halls, but such performances are generally understood to be in the light classical category, events meant to put new butts in seats with the hope of converting the owners of said butts into appreciators of "more serious" music. Music composed by committee, in which orchestrators and other minions contribute to the finished product, are never going to be taken as seriously as those completed by the vision and labor of one individual.
> 
> Some film music has made it into the light classical repertoire. Some undoubtedly could be crafted into orchestral suites that might hold their own against similar examples from ballets, operas, and suites by accepted classical composers. Time will tell.
> 
> Edit: What Mike said ^ ^ ^


I understand the value of letting composers have creative freedom, but is committee-composed music really that distinguishable from music composed by one individual? I can see how a "by-committee" approach can be detrimental to something like, say, a film, since the clashing visions would make for a very messy movie with an incoherent plot & theme, but is the effect necessarily the same in music? I think people here can pretty much agree that no style of music is superior to another & that taste is subjective. So if music composed by committee is messy & inconsistent, is that not a style in itself that some people would appreciate? Who are we to say that it's not something worthy of serious consideration?

I think the strongest argument against by-committee music's "seriousness" is the constant use of cliches, however.


----------



## mikeh375

The point is that music for a film _is_ largely created and/or influenced by committee. That committee is made up of non musicians in the director and producer(s) who have the final creative control in many aspects over what one can consider compositional matters.


----------



## EdwardBast

4chamberedklavier said:


> I understand the value of letting composers have creative freedom, but is committee-composed music really that distinguishable from music composed by one individual? I can see how a "by-committee" approach can be detrimental to something like, say, a film, since the clashing visions would make for a very messy movie with an incoherent plot & theme, but is the effect necessarily the same in music? I think people here can pretty much agree that no style of music is superior to another & that taste is subjective. So if music composed by committee is messy & inconsistent, is that not a style in itself that some people would appreciate? Who are we to say that it's not something worthy of serious consideration?
> 
> I think the strongest argument against by-committee music's "seriousness" is the constant use of cliches, however.


In film credits one can get away with attributing the score to a single composer even if orchestrators and others complete and retouch the music, although the musical staff no doubt will be recognized somewhere in the credits. If such a work by committee were offered as an independent classical work, no program annotator or liner note writer with scholarly integrity would make such a concession. The working method itself marks the work as something irregular and counter institutional. It's somewhat like the difference between the attribution Rembrandt vs. Studio of Rembrandt on a painting.


----------



## Luchesi

4chamberedklavier said:


> I understand the value of letting composers have creative freedom, but is committee-composed music really that distinguishable from music composed by one individual? I can see how a "by-committee" approach can be detrimental to something like, say, a film, since the clashing visions would make for a very messy movie with an incoherent plot & theme, but is the effect necessarily the same in music? I think people here can pretty much agree that no style of music is superior to another & that taste is subjective. So if music composed by committee is messy & inconsistent, is that not a style in itself that some people would appreciate? Who are we to say that it's not something worthy of serious consideration?
> 
> I think the strongest argument against by-committee music's "seriousness" is the constant use of cliches, however.


"I think people here can pretty much agree that no style of music is superior to another & that taste is subjective."

Style? A student of music will want to learn about the history of form and harmony, etc.. But why would anyone else care? Just listening is enough for many people. Subjectivity is enough. 
I've wondered about the different types of music lovers since I was a teenager. It's a large and interesting subject. And now we've gotten as far as no 'style' of music is better than others.


----------



## HansZimmer

mikeh375 said:


> Comparing film scores to a 'classical' definition of incidental and programmatic music as a justification to their validity as the free ranging, unimpeded expression one might reasonably expect from a master composer of 'serious' or personal music, ( to include when they write for ballet and opera), is rather tenuous and does nothing for the OP's point of view except demonstrate the shallowness of the conjecture as it stands imv.


The problem is that my definition of classical music is exclusively based on what you can hear (and read in the score), so the rest of the things, about which many users are speaking, for me are not relevant in any way for the definition. What is around the work ("the piece is written by committee" and things like that) is not the work, it's not the musical substance, namely what we can hear when listening to a piece of music.

I have no problems in believing what you say as a worker of the sector, namely that the composer of a film score has not complete artistic freedom, but what does this have to do with the definition of "classical music", which is the point of this discussion?

What I'm saying is very simple: I hear the songs in the Lion King and I recognize the "pop" style (I'm using the word "pop" to indicate the music style of Eltohn John, not as a synonimous of "popular music"). I hear some film scores and I recognize the "classical" style. This is the simple musical substance about which I'm speaking.
For me "classical music" defines a musical aesthetic and I'm a bit perplexed when I read users like @fbjim who say that the definition has nothing to with the aesthetic, because I personally listen to classical music for the simple fact that I like a determined aesthetic (and I prefer it more than the aesthetic of other musical styles).

In this discussion no one has spoken about the musical substance. I found the best contribution to the subject in youtube. Someone wrote that many film scores have the same aesthetic of classical music, but that since they don't follow the typical forms of classical music (sonata form, rondo, theme and variations, minuetto & trio/scherzo, fugue,...) they are not in reality classical music (although they sound like it for untrained ears that can hear only the superficial elements).
Although the comment of that guy is interesting because he speaks about the musical substance (what we can hear and read), he clearily forget that programmatic and incidental classical music is also composed in a free form, because the development of the melody must follow a narrative and not a matematical scheme.

It deson't make sense to write a rondo for a film scene: the melody must be free to evolve along the story. It can not be on a leash of mathematical schemes.

So, this is the fundamental reason for which I'm comparing film music to programmatic/incidental classical music: a simple technical reason.

So, my conclusion is that "classical music" only defines a superfical aesthetic and NOT the form. Symphony is a form. Sonata is a form. Concerto is a form. Classical music is not a form, because not only it contains symphonic poems, incidental music and things like that, but it also contains songs, song-like instrumental pieces, and many others things...
With the so many things that classical music contains, it's impossible to not find a place in the category for film scores that have the classical aesthetic.

All that said, we must note that the different kinds of pieces that classical music contains require different skills.
A composer of incidental/programmatic/film music must be able to understand what kind of music requires a determined part of the narrative, to write effective and emotional melodies that communicate what it must be communicated and to write effective drammatic arcs with emotionally powerful climaxes.

I don't understand how some persons (I'm not speaking of you) can be so superficial to say that film music composers suck because they don't write fugues. A part from the fact that this is not true (because for example John Williams write fugues in action/chaotic scenes), all major film music composers have skills that are beyond the excellence in the aspects of music listed in the last paragraph.
It seems that some persons in the classical music audience think that a serious composer is only someone who is good at playing with form, texture and things like that.
I'm sorry for them if they are not able to understand other artistic aspects of music, the ones that are more important in programmatic/incidental/film music.


----------



## HansZimmer

fbjim said:


> to wit, the problem with the duck test is that "sounds like classical music" is only one part of it. There's also "acts like" and when the context of the music is entirely different, it arguably fails the test. A bottle of vodka might look like a bottle of fancy mineral water but they don't "act" the same (and if they do, you've got a really strong liver)


Could you please explain why this waltz doesn't act like a waltz?


----------



## Luchesi

HansZimmer said:


> The problem is that my definition of classical music is exclusively based on what you can hear (and read in the score), so the rest of the things, about which many users are speaking, for me are not relevant in any way for the definition. What is around the work ("the piece is written by committee" and things like that) is not the work, it's not the musical substance, namely what we can hear when listening to a piece of music.
> 
> I have no problems in believing what you say as a worker of the sector, namely that the composer of a film score has not complete artistic freedom, but what does this have to do with the definition of "classical music", which is the point of this discussion?
> 
> What I'm saying is very simple: I hear the songs in the Lion King and I recognize the "pop" style (I'm using the word "pop" to indicate the music style of Eltohn John, not as a synonimous of "popular music"). I hear some film scores and I recognize the "classical" style. This is the simple musical substance about which I'm speaking.
> For me "classical music" defines a musical aesthetic and I'm a bit perplexed when I read users like @fbjim who say that the definition has nothing to with the aesthetic, because I personally listen to classical music for the simple fact that I like a determined aesthetic (and I prefer it more than the aesthetic of other musical styles).
> 
> In this discussion no one has spoken about the musical substance. I found the best contribution to the subject in youtube. Someone wrote that many film scores have the same aesthetic of classical music, but that since they don't follow the typical forms of classical music (sonata form, rondo, theme and variations, minuetto & trio/scherzo, fugue,...) they are not in reality classical music (although they sound like it for untrained ears that can hear only the superficial elements).
> Although the comment of that guy is interesting because he speaks about the musical substance (what we can hear and read), he clearily forget that programmatic and incidental classical music is also composed in a free form, because the development of the melody must follow a narrative and not a matematical scheme.
> 
> It deson't make sense to write a rondo for a film scene: the melody must be free to evolve along the story. It can not be on a leash of mathematical schemes.
> 
> So, this is the fundamental reason for which I'm comparing film music to programmatic/incidental classical music: a simple technical reason.
> 
> So, my conclusion is that "classical music" only defines a superfical aesthetic and NOT the form. Symphony is a form. Sonata is a form. Concerto is a form. Classical music is not a form, because not only it contains symphonic poems, incidental music and things like that, but it also contains songs, song-like instrumental pieces, and many others things...
> With the so many things that classical music contains, it's impossible to not find a place in the category for film scores that have the classical aesthetic.
> 
> All that said, we must note that the different kinds of pieces that classical music contains require different skills.
> A composer of incidental/programmatic/film music must be able to understand what kind of music requires a determined part of the narrative, to write effective and emotional melodies that communicate what it must be communicated and to write effective drammatic arcs with emotionally powerful climaxes.
> 
> I don't understand how some persons (I'm not speaking of you) can be so superficial to say that film music composers suck because they don't write fugues. A part from the fact that this is not true (because for example John Williams write fugues in action/chaotic scenes), all major film music composers have skills that are beyond the excellence in the aspects of music listed in the last paragraph.
> It seems that some persons in the classical music audience think that a serious composer is only someone who is good at playing with form, texture and things like that.
> I'm sorry for them if they are not able to understand other artistic aspects of music, the ones that are more important in programmatic/incidental/film music.


I'd like to hear you talk about another technical subject in the same manner as you talk about this. Visual arts, architecture, dance, poetry, literature? You might have the same opinions. 
I can understand that we don't need to be serious about traditional categories if we're never going to need to use them.
The reality is, especially with music, we can be superficial and still appreciate the art. But then there's the other extended dimensions of studying, learning, playing, performing, composing and criticism. You can't be superficial and make much progress in these. But again, only a musician would care to put in the time and effort.

We could have subjectivity debates between only non-musicians, I guess.


----------



## DaveM

mikeh375 said:


> …The comparison of FM to concert orientated incidental and programmatic music is therefore for me, bogus and utterly superficial and it fails to get to the creative roots, genesis and purpose of FM. YYMV of course, but for me I prefer my absolute music to be just that.
> Oh and just for the OP, I'm happy to hear and enjoy the best of film music alongside Beethoven in a concert but *I'm also capable of making an important distinction between the two disciplines of composing that stops me granting any equivalence in intent between them...because there isn't any *unless one considers exceptions like Williams who blurs the distinctions better than most.


Well, since that position is being repeated over and over, I’ll repeat what I find to be a conundrum that a film music work alongside Beethoven is de facto (the mentioned exception notwithstanding) not granted any equivalence in intent while a work that to many in a typical audience sounds like nails on a blackboard is.


----------



## atsizat

What is not classical about these music pieces of Ennio Morricone?


----------



## hammeredklavier

mikeh375 said:


> unimpeded expression one might reasonably expect from a master composer of *'serious' or personal music*,


Graupner's 1400 cantatas, Telemann's 1000 cantatas, Vivaldi's 500 concertos — are they "personal" music?


----------



## fbjim

HansZimmer said:


> Could you please explain why this waltz doesn't act like a waltz?


It was neither performed, nor composed in the context of classical music composition.


----------



## fbjim

DaveM said:


> Well, since that position is being repeated over and over, I’ll repeat what I find to be a conundrum that a film music work alongside Beethoven is de facto (the mentioned exception notwithstanding) not granted any equivalence in intent while a work that to many in a typical audience sounds like nails on a blackboard is.


Because it has nothing to do with aesthetics. Any argument based on aesthetics as a _primary_ determination for what classical music is, or isn't is going to be flawed, because classical music refers to an ongoing tradition of performance and composition traditions (which can evolve over time), and not aesthetics.


----------



## EdwardBast

HansZimmer said:


> The problem is that my definition of classical music is exclusively based on what you can hear (and read in the score), so the rest of the things, about which many users are speaking, for me are not relevant in any way for the definition. What is around the work ("the piece is written by committee" and things like that) is not the work, it's not the musical substance, namely what we can hear when listening to a piece of music.
> 
> I have no problems in believing what you say as a worker of the sector, namely that the composer of a film score has not complete artistic freedom, but what does this have to do with the definition of "classical music", which is the point of this discussion?
> 
> What I'm saying is very simple: I hear the songs in the Lion King and I recognize the "pop" style (I'm using the word "pop" to indicate the music style of Eltohn John, not as a synonimous of "popular music"). I hear some film scores and I recognize the "classical" style. This is the simple musical substance about which I'm speaking.
> For me "classical music" defines a musical aesthetic and I'm a bit perplexed when I read users like @fbjim who say that the definition has nothing to with the aesthetic, because I personally listen to classical music for the simple fact that I like a determined aesthetic (and I prefer it more than the aesthetic of other musical styles).
> 
> In this discussion no one has spoken about the musical substance. I found the best contribution to the subject in youtube. Someone wrote that many film scores have the same aesthetic of classical music, but that since they don't follow the typical forms of classical music (sonata form, rondo, theme and variations, minuetto & trio/scherzo, fugue,...) they are not in reality classical music (although they sound like it for untrained ears that can hear only the superficial elements).
> Although the comment of that guy is interesting because he speaks about the musical substance (what we can hear and read), he clearily forget that programmatic and incidental classical music is also composed in a free form, because the development of the melody must follow a narrative and not a matematical scheme.
> 
> It deson't make sense to write a rondo for a film scene: the melody must be free to evolve along the story. It can not be on a leash of mathematical schemes.
> 
> So, this is the fundamental reason for which I'm comparing film music to programmatic/incidental classical music: a simple technical reason.
> 
> So, my conclusion is that "classical music" only defines a superfical aesthetic and NOT the form. Symphony is a form. Sonata is a form. Concerto is a form. Classical music is not a form, because not only it contains symphonic poems, incidental music and things like that, but it also contains songs, song-like instrumental pieces, and many others things...
> With the so many things that classical music contains, it's impossible to not find a place in the category for film scores that have the classical aesthetic.
> 
> All that said, we must note that the different kinds of pieces that classical music contains require different skills.
> A composer of incidental/programmatic/film music must be able to understand what kind of music requires a determined part of the narrative, to write effective and emotional melodies that communicate what it must be communicated and to write effective drammatic arcs with emotionally powerful climaxes.
> 
> I don't understand how some persons (I'm not speaking of you) can be so superficial to say that film music composers suck because they don't write fugues. A part from the fact that this is not true (because for example John Williams write fugues in action/chaotic scenes), all major film music composers have skills that are beyond the excellence in the aspects of music listed in the last paragraph.
> It seems that some persons in the classical music audience think that a serious composer is only someone who is good at playing with form, texture and things like that.
> I'm sorry for them if they are not able to understand other artistic aspects of music, the ones that are more important in programmatic/incidental/film music.


The word "aesthetic" as you've used it is just a vague, undefined placeholder for "style"; And the argument from style is dead for reasons that have been stated over and over in the preceding pages but which you apparently have failed to comprehend. There is no _classical aesthetic_ or _classical style_ (in the broad sense, that is, when the terms refer to Western Art Music in general) because there is nothing uniting all instances of western art music styles or aesthetic qualities.

In short, you've written thousands upon thousands of words in this thread but haven't yet developed a recognizable clue about the central issues involved.


----------



## DaveM

fbjim said:


> Because it has nothing to do with aesthetics. Any argument based on aesthetics as a _primary_ determination for what classical music is, or isn't is going to be flawed, because classical music refers to an ongoing tradition of performance and composition traditions (which can evolve over time), and not aesthetics.


So says you. Let’s remind of the definition of aesthetics: _appreciation/principles of beauty and artistic taste_. One could say that this ‘_nothing to do with aesthetics’_ is like telling the audience ‘look you ignorant, musically uneducated minions, that beautifully melodic film music suite you just heard is not to be confused with classical music, but that screeching amelodic piece that followed should be because we from our academic perch on high say so.’

One can keep repeating some variation of ‘_classical music refers to an ongoing tradition of performance and composition traditions (which can evolve over time), and not aesthetics._’ as if the audience will be force-fed to accept it as fact, but, from my experience, the audience is not having it and makes its judgment based more on what it hears.


----------



## fbjim

DaveM said:


> So says you. Let’s remind of the definition of aesthetics: _appreciation/principles of beauty and artistic taste_. One could say that this ‘_nothing to do with aesthetics’_ is like telling the audience ‘look you ignorant, musically uneducated minions, that beautifully melodic film music suite you just heard is not to be confused with classical music, but that screeching amelodic piece that followed should be because we from our academic perch on high say so.


Is there an argument here, or are you just being contrary


----------



## Luchesi

Here's a film from Mozart's 21st concerto.

It's a little unusual but I like the cinema effects.


----------



## DaveM

fbjim said:


> Is there an argument here, or are you just being contrary


The argument is obvious. You made a statement that you considered fact and I responded to it. Do you consider someone not agreeing with you as being contrary?


----------



## hammeredklavier

Luchesi said:


> Here's a film from Mozart. It's a little unusual but I like the cinema effects.


www.youtube.com/watch?v=XT62KLvzGZU&t=16m
www.youtube.com/watch?v=XT62KLvzGZU&t=25m30s


----------



## 4chamberedklavier

Surely the music played in concert halls wasn't just chosen arbitrarily? Maybe in theory, you could say classical music's definition isn't based on aesthetics, but I'd assume that it's different in practice. It's not as if concert halls play anything under the sun.


----------



## Luchesi

hammeredklavier said:


> www.youtube.com/watch?v=XT62KLvzGZU&t=16m
> www.youtube.com/watch?v=XT62KLvzGZU&t=25m30s


A film version of an opera, but I haven't seen separate instrument players being presented like this. But maybe there's more like this on YouTube.


----------



## Forster

EdwardBast said:


> Music composed by committee, in which orchestrators and other minions contribute to the finished product, are *never going to be taken as seriously* as those completed by the vision and labor of one individual.


And there's the cause of the angst evident in the posts of some TC members. If FM were recognised for, and accepted for what it is, and the snooty didn't look down it, and the ever-hopeful didn't aspire to elevate it, threads like this would be so much shorter.



EdwardBast said:


> Some film music has made it into the light classical repertoire. Some undoubtedly could be crafted into orchestral suites that might hold their own against similar examples from ballets, operas, and suites by accepted classical composers. Time will tell.


Quite. You offered a definition of CM. I showed, for HZ's benefit, how some FM is beginning to meet the conditions in your definition and offered hope that, for those to whom this is sooo important, progress is being made. Time will tell where this leads in the future. Perhaps scores by Nicholas Britell, Steven Price, Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross, and Hildur Guðnadóttir will be "taken as seriously" as other parts of the CM repertoire.

However, HZ doesn't like your definition, so he doesn't like my exemplification of it. 🤷‍♂️


----------



## mikeh375

hammeredklavier said:


> Graupner's 1400 cantatas, Telemann's 1000 cantatas, Vivaldi's 500 concertos — are they "personal" music?


HK, in no particular order and not being exclusive to the composers you mention, did they have to...

a) Curtail their phrase lengths, be they vocal or instrumental in nature, over and above what they deemed appropriate for their music (or text) and do so for totally non-musical reasons.
b) Were the forms used determined by extraneous factors other than text, ritual or dance? (Surely these are three non-musical determinants we can agree are acceptable and legitimate in a discussion concerming the canon because the musical treatment of each is fully under the control of the composer).
c) Were they asked to create durations precise to the second or less?
d) Did they have a non-musician looking over their shoulder as they write and telling them that they do not like particular moments or perhaps even larger sections of work, and that the composer _will have to change them?_ This in spite of the fact that the composer may have felt that the passages in question were some of the best he/she'd written? In short, was their music macro/micro-managed by a non-musician, including notes, harmonies and instrumentation?
e) Was their use of dynamics and textural considerations (counterpoint etc.), dictated to by anything other than their own expressive requirements and the styles of the day?
f) Was Vivaldi et al, shown a manuscript by a rival contemporary or perhaps an earlier composer and told to write something as close as possible to said piece and risk not getting paid if they refused?
g) Was the emotional arc of their work dictated to by anything other than accepted determinants and/or their own expressive intent?
h) Was their instrumentation curtailed for any other reasons beyond the practical? Were they not free to score as they saw fit _within a work, _with what was available?
i) Did the technology of the day, i.e. the Quill, dictate the kind of music they wrote? (Do not underestimate the influence of samples and a DAW on film music).
j) Was their lofty status in the genre they worked in ever achieved by a composer not trained to the accepted standards of the time?...just askin' a loaded and perhaps controversial question for now as I'm not sure, but I'm betting you'll know.
k)...bored now.

Now tell me, if you answer all of the above in favour of the composer then, yes, It's my contention that their music will likely be closer to what I expect and like to hear in a so called 'classical', 'arty' or whatever you wish to call the genre, context. But if your answers largely favour external influences, then I believe that the composer's personal expression is compromised, or perhaps less contentiously, not the same as it would be under different circumstances. The provenance of the resulting musics is important to me, knowing how different the musical results are depending upon circumstance. I prefer to hear a composer creating their personal version of the wondrous, beautiful, powerful and moving, bringing to bear their complete technical and musical arsenal to achieve it and with their wits, experience, imagination, invention and instincts all unimpaired. I believe that amount of artistic freedom is what's required to achieve the refinement seen in the great Canon. Talking of refinement could be risky here but I do believe it is a quality that is hard won for any composer in any genre, even without the stylistic expectations and restrictions seen in media work. I also think that refinement is not neccessarily a given, nor actually even a necessity for a lot of film music. It's also fair to say that refinement _is_ found in film scoring too, of course it is, there are excellent composers ploughing their trade and some even manage to innovate. But there are also some not so excellent composers at work too, who are over-reliant on technology rather than musical know-how.
.
YMMV regarding my definitions and parameters and maybe even in the definition and significance of what it takes to create or classify so called 'refined' music.


----------



## atsizat

HansZimmer said:


> Could you please explain why this waltz doesn't act like a waltz?


Sounds very much it was composed in 19th century by a romantic era composer. I don't see any difference. None.


----------



## janxharris

Forster said:


> Perhaps scores by Nicholas Britell, Steven Price, Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross, and Hildur Guðnadóttir will be "taken as seriously" as other parts of the CM repertoire.


Could you give specific examples please Forster?


----------



## fbjim

4chamberedklavier said:


> Surely the music played in concert halls wasn't just chosen arbitrarily? Maybe in theory, you could say classical music's definition isn't based on aesthetics, but I'd assume that it's different in practice. It's not as if concert halls play anything under the sun.


Music composed and performed under the same set of traditions will naturally develop and converge on aesthetic and stylistic trends and tenets, but these are sort of a "second order" thing. They don't exist because they're inherent to classical music- they exist because music written around the same time, by composers in the same or similar cultural backgrounds, and for similar audiences is likely to have a shared sense of aesthetics. This is an effect, not a cause. 



As for "in theory" versus "in practice" - this question is about "in theory". A genre is not a literal thing, it exists only in the realm of theory. In practice very few people care about this.


----------



## fbjim

DaveM said:


> The argument is obvious. You made a statement that you considered fact and I responded to it. Do you consider someone not agreeing with you as being contrary?


"your argument sounds vaguely snooty and a theoretical 'audience' hates you" is not a valid argument.


----------



## Forster

janxharris said:


> Could you give specific examples please Forster?


Scores from films I've seen - which is, IMO, how such music should be consumed - include _The Big Short_ (Britell), _Gravity _(Price), and _The Social Network, Mank, Soul, Bird Box_ (Reznor and/or Ross). I've not seen _Chernobyl _or _Joker _(Guðnadóttir) but have sampled these on YTB. I included her as she was an Oscar winner.

Let me stress that I'm not saying that these scores must be considered "classical music", only that they represent the current art of mainstream film score composition.


----------



## HansZimmer

EdwardBast said:


> The word "aesthetic" as you've used it is just a vague, undefined placeholder for "style"; And the argument from style is dead for reasons that have been stated over and over in the preceding pages but which you apparently have failed to comprehend. There is no _classical aesthetic_ or _classical style_ (in the broad sense, that is, when the terms refer to Western Art Music in general) because there is nothing uniting all instances of western art music styles or aesthetic qualities.
> 
> In short, you've written thousands upon thousands of words in this thread but haven't yet developed a recognizable clue about the central issues involved.





fbjim said:


> Music composed and performed under the same set of traditions will naturally develop and converge on aesthetic and stylistic trends and tenets, but these are sort of a "second order" thing. They don't exist because they're inherent to classical music- they exist because music written around the same time, by composers in the same or similar cultural backgrounds, and for similar audiences is likely to have a shared sense of aesthetics. This is an effect, not a cause.


Your argumentation is that since, for example, an organ fugue sounds different than an aria, then classical music can not be considered an aesthetic. We will call this one "the horizontal issue of classification".
I want to add an other problem, namely the "vertical issue of classification": a piece of Holst sounds different than a piece of Mozart of the same genre (what does a symphony of Mozart have to do with "The Planets"?), so how can the music of both be classified as "classical"?

The answer is that all genres of music have these "classification issues". We can speak about pop music, if you want (remember that "pop" is a style of music born in 1950 and not a synonym of "popular music").

This song of Eltohn John is classified as "pop"...






... and this song of the group Aqua is also classified as "pop"...






... but they sound very different, don't you think?

This is the vertical issue of pop: in 1950 you knew what pop was, but with the evolution of music we now have many different things inside the genre and we don't exactly understand what is the common denominator in terms of aesthetic.

How do we solve the problem? It's really simple: we created a new subcategory of "pop" called "europop". "Barbie girl" is europop. Then we created a new subcategory for the pop of 1950 called "traditional pop". "Your song" of Elton John is traditional pop.

So, this how you resolve the vertical issue in classical music: you say that Mozart belongs to the rococo artistic movement (or galant music, or viennese classicism, whatever you want) while other classicla music composers belong to other movements.


Now, in 2300 pop music will probably have collected so many subcategories that it will be difficult to say what is the common denominator of the big category "pop". Classical music is old and so it probably already suffers of this problem.
So, you are quite right when you say that "classical music" doesn't really define an aesthetic: it is a musical tradition/culture that contains many different stylistic categories. We will probably have to say the same thing about "pop" in 2300: it will be no more a stylistic category, but a musical tradition containing many different stylistic categories.


What about the "horizontal issue"? In a pop album you could find a piece in which the singer is accompanied by an electric guitar and an other one where it's accompanied by an orchestra. Of course the two pieces will sound different.
The issue has been resolved by saying that the piece with the electric guitar is "pop rock" and the one with the orchestra is "orchestral pop".

In classical music the issue has already been resolved with the names we give to different kind of pieces: it is obvious that an "aria" sounds different than an "organ fugue", infact they have different names.


All that said, you say that a film score sounds like classical music because it has the same aesthetic of one the many aesthetic categories inside classical music. It's easy.

If you want you can refuse the idea that classical music has anything to do with the aesthetic, but it's not how the brain of people work. We are here because we like at least one of the many aesthetic categories inside classical music.

I read many threads in this forum that ask "why is the audience of classical music becoming smaller and smaller?". I have to agree with @DaveM: if the persons of today like classical music of films and there is an elite that decides that film music must not be played in classical music concerts while other modern classical music that the persons of today find unappealing (if not horrible) it's accepted, then it's obvious that you will lose the audience.

To put film music in concert programs where there is only film music instead of Mozart mixed with John Williams doesn't help in any way to attract people towards Mozart's music.

This croatian man, called "Hauser", who organizes concerts where he plays classical music mixed with classical film music, is doing much more to keep classical music alive than the snobs (as well as John Williams). If it were only for snobs, classical music would already be dead.


----------



## pianozach

I've been following this thread with amusement, occasionally putting in a couple of cents worth.

Everyone has made some good points, although there have been some pretty petty, duff, and irrelevant points along the way.

I'm enticed, again, to make a minor comment, based on my agreement with *HZ*'s comment about how it ISN'T about "form", as there is plenty of Classical Music DOESN'T follow the rigid forms of rondo, sonata, symphony, etc. In fact, the "forms" were under attack from within almost as soon as they were established. 

But here's the thing . . . I think that far too much time is being wasted in these attempts to include, exclude, and define the parameters of the discussion. Does it really, in the long run, _matter_?

Enjoy what you enjoy.


----------



## mikeh375

pianozach said:


> But here's the thing . . . I think that far too much time is being wasted in these attempts to include, exclude, and define the parameters of the discussion. *Does it really, in the long run, matter?*


Of course it doesn't matter....until you have to write the bloody stuff. For then you need to know and understand quite a few parameters.


----------



## fbjim

It matters about as much as a classic rock station playing 80s pop music.


----------



## HansZimmer

fbjim said:


> It matters about as much as a classic rock station playing 80s pop music.


With the difference that 80s pop music is not stylistically coherent with rock, while the soundtracks promoted by Classic FM are stylistically harmonious with the rest.


----------



## Luchesi

Forster said:


> And there's the cause of the angst evident in the posts of some TC members. If FM were recognised for, and accepted for what it is, and the snooty didn't look down it, and the ever-hopeful didn't aspire to elevate it, threads like this would be so much shorter.
> 
> 
> 
> Quite. You offered a definition of CM. I showed, for HZ's benefit, how some FM is beginning to meet the conditions in your definition and offered hope that, for those to whom this is sooo important, progress is being made. Time will tell where this leads in the future. Perhaps scores by Nicholas Britell, Steven Price, Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross, and Hildur Guðnadóttir will be "taken as seriously" as other parts of the CM repertoire.
> 
> However, HZ doesn't like your definition, so he doesn't like my exemplification of it. 🤷‍♂️


FM will somehow become CM in the future. That's an interesting thought, but how does a film score ever satisfy a serious student of music? Don't you need a background in cinema arts to appreciate the goals of excellence in a film score, in addition to knowing what the long history of music has been?

This is a big subject and the notions get larger and larger.. Thanks. Some film scores are intriguing and some are easily dismissed. What else can we say? Saying that they're CM, or they sound like CM, doesn't change anything. The music predictively follows the script. And I might be wrong, because I don't care much about incidental music from the past, but I don't think it follows a script like a film score is required to do. 
We can always find some opposing examples. They're not enough to change the categories.


----------



## DaveM

mikeh375 said:


> Of course it doesn't matter....until you have to write the bloody stuff. For then you need to know and understand quite a few parameters.


I recently took a deep dive into the challenges of composers trying to break into the film music business and those who made over the last 40 years. I found it interesting how the business has changed over the last decade or so with companies such as Netflix putting billions into movies. The pay is apparently less per movie for music these days, but there are more movies being made. There was a consistency in what the general requirements are for a film composer besides skill in composing: be flexible, ready to make changes with limited available time and, above all, be easy-going with producers and directors.

In any event, having somewhat educated myself in the ‘life’ of a film composer, I have the highest respect for you and the others who have broken into the business either now or in the past. It is a heckuva challenge and not for the faint of heart. While I may have some different views than you it doesn’t change the underlying respect.


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

Luchesi said:


> how does a film score ever satisfy a serious student of music?


A good test who is serious and who merely pretends to be.


----------



## Luchesi

VoiceFromTheEther said:


> A good test who is serious and who merely pretends to be.


I was thinking of students in the future.


----------



## Forster

HansZimmer said:


> [...]
> 
> I have to agree with @DaveM: if the persons of today like classical music of films and there is an elite that decides that film music must not be played in classical music concerts while other modern classical music that the persons of today find unappealing (if not horrible) it's accepted, then it's obvious that you will lose the audience.


You have yet to demonstrate that there is an "elite" at work here. It's already been shown that FM is being programmed by concert halls and played by major orchestras. It's already been shown that FM is being studied at reputable academic institutions. (My previous post citing the content of study programmes were from the Juilliard School.) So far, no-one has been able to answer my question about the extent of the teaching of specific pieces of FM to those learning in such institutions to play specific instruments.

In other words, while the business of classifying music is alive and well in certain circumstances as you rightly point out, the elites that once might have strictly controlled admission to the hallowed halls of CM are losing their grip. I suspect they lost it many decades ago as each successive wave of change in what constitutes CM assaulted the ivory towers they lived in.


----------



## Forster

Luchesi said:


> FM will somehow become CM in the future. That's an interesting thought, but how does a film score ever satisfy a serious student of music? Don't you need a background in cinema arts to appreciate the goals of excellence in a film score, in addition to knowing what the long history of music has been?


I'm not suggesting that FM "will become" CM. I'm observing that there is evidence that FM is becoming an acceptable part of the CM repertoire as studied and performed in schools, unis and concert halls.

I would hope that any study of FM will include an understanding of cinema arts - at least sufficient to understand how the one fits with the other. As for any other background study, I know that finding out more about the music I listen to - who wrote it, why, when etc - can enhance my understanding. If that applies to CM, why wouldn't it apply to FM?



Luchesi said:


> Some film scores are intriguing and some are easily dismissed.


Obviously, not all FM is worthy of study. But how much CM has been dismissed over the centuries? Hummel and Spohr may be listened to by enthusiasts, but the general CM listener is likely to dismiss them in favour of the John Williamses of the CM world. 😉

Lastly, what I found out about the programmes of study at the Juilliard School shows that what is studied there is "music". Doubtless the term "CM" gets an airing, but I suspect that the idea that some conservative listeners cling on to about strictly controlled criteria and categories is on the way out there. The ivory tower is perhaps more enlightened than the average TC member?


----------



## mikeh375

DaveM said:


> I recently took a deep dive into the challenges of composers trying to break into the film music business and those who made over the last 40 years. I found it interesting how the business has changed over the last decade or so with companies such as Netflix putting billions into movies. The pay is apparently less per movie for music these days, but there are more movies being made. There was a consistency in what the general requirements are for a film composer besides skill in composing: be flexible, ready to make changes with limited available time and, above all, be easy-going with producers and directors.
> 
> In any event, having somewhat educated myself in the ‘life’ of a film composer, I have the highest respect for you and the others who have broken into the business either now or in the past. It is a heckuva challenge and not for the feint of heart. While I may have some different views than you it doesn’t change the underlying respect.


That's very nice of you Dave. I realise my viewpoint is probably not useful to anyone who wants to categorise FM as 'classical' and I might have been better off ignoring this thread. Anyways, no hard feelings even if I seemed to get a little tetchy at times. The thing is, I really do think the best of FM is a shot in the arm to the mausloeums that are concert halls. Deciding on what is the 'best of' is another matter.


----------



## HansZimmer

EdwardBast said:


> In film credits one can get away with attributing the score to a single composer even if orchestrators and others complete and retouch the music, although the musical staff no doubt will be recognized somewhere in the credits. If such a work by committee were offered as an independent classical work, no program annotator or liner note writer with scholarly integrity would make such a concession. The working method itself marks the work as something irregular and counter institutional. It's somewhat like the difference between the attribution Rembrandt vs. Studio of Rembrandt on a painting.


In many soundtracks the composer is also the conductor, so it's not true that the arranger is always a third person. For example, in the soundtrack albums of John Williams you see "Music composed and CONDUCTED by John Williams".

Even if we accepted your argument that a piece is classical music only if there is only one composer behind it, many film scores couldn't be disqualified from the category with this criteria, because they are composed and arranged by the same person, who also has the full control over the execution/recording.


----------



## HansZimmer

mikeh375 said:


> HK, in no particular order and not being exclusive to the composers you mention, did they have to...
> 
> a) Curtail their phrase lengths, be they vocal or instrumental in nature, over and above what they deemed appropriate for their music (or text) and do so for totally non-musical reasons.
> b) Were the forms used determined by extraneous factors other than text, ritual or dance? (Surely these are three non-musical determinants we can agree are acceptable and legitimate in a discussion concerming the canon because the musical treatment of each is fully under the control of the composer).
> c) Were they asked to create durations precise to the second or less?
> d) Did they have a non-musician looking over their shoulder as they write and telling them that they do not like particular moments or perhaps even larger sections of work, and that the composer _will have to change them?_ This in spite of the fact that the composer may have felt that the passages in question were some of the best he/she'd written? In short, was their music macro/micro-managed by a non-musician, including notes, harmonies and instrumentation?
> e) Was their use of dynamics and textural considerations (counterpoint etc.), dictated to by anything other than their own expressive requirements and the styles of the day?
> f) Was Vivaldi et al, shown a manuscript by a rival contemporary or perhaps an earlier composer and told to write something as close as possible to said piece and risk not getting paid if they refused?
> g) Was the emotional arc of their work dictated to by anything other than accepted determinants and/or their own expressive intent?
> h) Was their instrumentation curtailed for any other reasons beyond the practical? Were they not free to score as they saw fit _within a work, _with what was available?
> i) Did the technology of the day, i.e. the Quill, dictate the kind of music they wrote? (Do not underestimate the influence of samples and a DAW on film music).
> j) Was their lofty status in the genre they worked in ever achieved by a composer not trained to the accepted standards of the time?...just askin' a loaded and perhaps controversial question for now as I'm not sure, but I'm betting you'll know.
> k)...bored now.


Remember that the soundtracks of the films are usually pubblicated in musical albums as standalone music.

I'm mounting the videos for the score of "Schindler's List" for the competition in the Movie Corner and I can tell you that the pieces of the suite don't fit the scenes. Why? Because they are longer than the scenes. So, for example I had to put a fixed image at the end of this video, as you can see after 2:28.






The version in the film is shorter and therefore it fits the scene.

I also think that in the soundtrack album there are pieces who have not been used in the film.

So, the problem is resolved: the soundtrack version contained in the album is classical music because the composer regains the control of the music and he has the chance to freely rework the pieces.


----------



## Luchesi

Forster said:


> I'm not suggesting that FM "will become" CM. I'm observing that there is evidence that FM is becoming an acceptable part of the CM repertoire as studied and performed in schools, unis and concert halls.
> 
> I would hope that any study of FM will include an understanding of cinema arts - at least sufficient to understand how the one fits with the other. As for any other background study, I know that finding out more about the music I listen to - who wrote it, why, when etc - can enhance my understanding. If that applies to CM, why wouldn't it apply to FM?
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, not all FM is worthy of study. But how much CM has been dismissed over the centuries? Hummel and Spohr may be listened to by enthusiasts, but the general CM listener is likely to dismiss them in favour of the John Williamses of the CM world. 😉
> 
> Lastly, what I found out about the programmes of study at the Juilliard School shows that what is studied there is "music". Doubtless the term "CM" gets an airing, but I suspect that the idea that some conservative listeners cling on to about strictly controlled criteria and categories is on the way out there. The ivory tower is perhaps more enlightened than the average TC member?





Forster said:


> I'm not suggesting that FM "will become" CM. I'm observing that there is evidence that FM is becoming an acceptable part of the CM repertoire as studied and performed in schools, unis and concert halls.
> 
> I would hope that any study of FM will include an understanding of cinema arts - at least sufficient to understand how the one fits with the other. As for any other background study, I know that finding out more about the music I listen to - who wrote it, why, when etc - can enhance my understanding. If that applies to CM, why wouldn't it apply to FM?
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, not all FM is worthy of study. But how much CM has been dismissed over the centuries? Hummel and Spohr may be listened to by enthusiasts, but the general CM listener is likely to dismiss them in favour of the John Williamses of the CM world. 😉
> 
> Lastly, what I found out about the programmes of study at the Juilliard School shows that what is studied there is "music". Doubtless the term "CM" gets an airing, but I suspect that the idea that some conservative listeners cling on to about strictly controlled criteria and categories is on the way out there. The ivory tower is perhaps more enlightened than the average TC member?


I'm thinking we experience music differently. To me, music is a game when you’ve found a piece that either evokes the pure senses or the notes are very clever (historically, mathematically).

At the very top of my list of why I appreciate CM is the view I have that JC Bach’s music became Mozart’s music, which helped Beethoven later on, and then Brahms and his generation tried to bring Beethoven up to his day. After that there's the logical sequence of impressionism, chromaticism to the end of tonality. Of course, there's other important composers in other short lines of descent.

We can't do this for appreciation in film music. We can kinda do it in jazz and popular music.

JW should be well-liked. Especially when that’s his intention.

I think that first you have to know, understand and work with the categories, but after that you can do away with the labels. I do it at work since I know that we ALL know what we're talking about. The labels fall away, they don't have to be jettisoned.

added;
I meant to explain that it's just the notes and the rhythms and the harmonies and the developing forms that I'm talking about. How did each generation move from the music they grew up with and then make their new music from the latest things in music which inspired their maturing minds? With just notes and all the accompanying details, that's what's so fascinating to me.


----------



## HansZimmer

Luchesi said:


> I'm thinking we experience music differently. To me, music is a game when you’ve found a piece that either evokes the pure senses or the notes are very clever (historically, mathematically).


It looks like the description of a lot of film music.



> We can't do this for appreciation in film music.


Why not? I think that you should speak for yourself.



> We can kinda do it in jazz and popular music.


It seems that you don't realize that film music is not a style of music and it simply uses existing styles of music: pop, rock, jazz, classical,...

Jazz






Hispanic/cuban music






Pop






Classical music







So, @fbjim is right when he says that "film music" is not a musical style. It's obvious that it's not: it simply uses existing styles of music, including classical music.

And about the supposed inferiority of film music... come on Luchesi, there isn't any objective element to say that film music is in any way inferior in respect to the rest. You are only speaking about your personal bias!


----------



## Forster

HansZimmer said:


> (remember that "pop" is a style of music born in 1950 and not a synonym of "popular music").


Is it? Says who?



HansZimmer said:


> This song of Eltohn John is classified as "pop"...
> 
> [...]
> 
> ... and this song of the group Aqua is also classified as "pop"...
> 
> [...]
> 
> ... but they sound very different, don't you think?
> 
> This is the vertical issue of pop: in 1950 you knew what pop was, but with the evolution of music we now have many different things inside the genre and we don't exactly understand what is the common denominator in terms of aesthetic.
> 
> How do we solve the problem? It's really simple: we created a new subcategory of "pop" called "europop". "Barbie girl" is europop. Then we created a new subcategory for the pop of 1950 called "traditional pop". "Your song" of Elton John is traditional pop.


There is no problem. The term 'popular' music can be used to cover all music that aims to satisfy a mass audience (unlike CM, Jazz, Blues and Folk which aims to satisfy an audience with specified tastes.) It is _usually _short (of course there are exceptions), with a focus on lyrics and/or hummable melodies and/or catchy rhythms.

You've heard of Ivor Novello? It's no accident that the Ivor Novello Awards annually celebrate the best in popular music, named after a man who wrote and performed in musical theatre since the early 20th C (his first hit, _Keep The Home Fires Burning_ was written in 1914).

You can see the list of winners over the years on Wiki. Here's the 1970s for example

List of Ivor Novello Award winners and nominees (1970s–1980s) - Wikipedia 

No problem with "categories" here, I don't think.


----------



## Forster

janxharris said:


> Could you give specific examples please Forster?


Another composer who's work I've just been listening to is Bobby Krlic known by his stage name The Haxan Cloak.

He won the Ivor Novello for Best Soundtrack for the film _Midsommar (_which I've not seen).

@mikeh375 Who would you recommend from the current crop of film composers?


----------



## janxharris

Debate: When is film music ‘classical’? | Gramophone


----------



## Forster

An interesting article which echoes many of the points discussed in this thread.


----------



## ansfelden

"Why do many people think that classical music composed for film scores is not classical music?"

long thought about the initial question. 

maybe because many people are not familiar with music in broad sense in general, apart from the charts.


----------



## HansZimmer

Forster said:


> Is it? Says who?


The two different pages of wikipedia for the two different words.
It's like to ask "Who says that a table is a table and a chair is chair?".

Pop music - Wikipedia

*"Pop music* is a genre of popular music that originated in its modern form during the mid-1950s in the United States and the United Kingdom"

Popular music - Wikipedia

*"Popular music* is music with wide appeal[1][2][3] that is typically distributed to large audiences through the music industry."


So, the word "pop" describes the musical style of Elton John, while "popular music" contains all the styles of music born inside the music industry, including pop, rock, and many other styles.

Yes, the wikipedia article of "pop" says that the word is often used as a short form for "popular", but 1) It's not formally correct (it's a part of the slang) 2) I want to encourage the usage of the word "popular music" to indicate the concept of "commercial music", because the ambiguity in the language doesn't help in communication.



> There is no problem. The term 'popular' music can be used to cover all music that aims to satisfy a mass audience (unlike CM, Jazz, Blues and Folk which aims to satisfy an audience with specified tastes.) It is _usually _short (of course there are exceptions), with a focus on lyrics and/or hummable melodies and/or catchy rhythms.


I think that the words "popular music", "art music" and "folk music" are quite meaningless because they are too abstract: they don't define the musical substance in any way.
Their function is only to say that classical music is superior to the rest of music, so it's a snob/elitist concept.

On the other hand, the words that describe styles are much more meaningful because they describe the musical substance, so I prefer to speak about "classical music Vs pop music Vs rock music Vs dance music Vs rap music" instead of speaking about "art music Vs popular music Vs folk music".


Just to say how much meaningless is the word "popular music", given your definition "It is _usually _short (of course there are exceptions), with a focus on lyrics and/or hummable melodies and/or catchy rhythms", I could put Mozart's symphonies in the category (and, more in general, the galant music), because the only thing they don't have from that list are lyrics.
On the other hand, I'm sure that a Mozart's symphony is not pop, rock, or whatever: it's classical music.


----------



## Simon Moon

ansfelden said:


> "Why do many people think that classical music composed for film scores is not classical music?"
> 
> long thought about the initial question.
> 
> maybe because many people are not familiar with music in broad sense in general, apart from the charts.


I'm not so sure about this assessment. 

I think that most people that are unfamiliar with music apart from the charts, are more likely to believe that orchestral film music is classical, just be the nature of it being orchestral. It is people more familiar with music, classical specifically, that are more likely not to accept orchestral film music as being classical music. 

I've thought about the initial question, too. And I can't get past the circularity of it.


----------



## Luchesi

Forster said:


> An interesting article which echoes many of the points discussed in this thread.


I read it quickly (earlier today) and it seemed to be a common sense article, straight from the composers. I think I read that the composers know very well when they're intending to compose CM, or to work on a film and create the musical experiences for the scenes. I don't think any of them gave an example of FM being CM.

They didn't talk about the importance of categories for students, and learning and education, and the future of CM. What do you think they would say? Would they all agree about it?


----------



## Luchesi

Simon Moon said:


> I'm not so sure about this assessment.
> 
> I think that most people that are unfamiliar with music apart from the charts, are more likely to believe that orchestral film music is classical, just be the nature of it being orchestral. It is people more familiar with music, classical specifically, that are more likely not to accept orchestral film music as being classical music.
> 
> I've thought about the initial question, too. And I can't get past the circularity of it.


I can't help thinking of the notion that birds have wings and fly around, and therefore they're bats.


----------



## jojoju2000

Film was supposed to be the 7th art that combined Music, Dance, Drama, all into one by the motion picture. In that sense; the Film Music was intended to be on a higher plane than it is now. The Composer was intended to be the most important person along with the Director; that was the case up until the 1990s, when rise of technology broke down that relationship. 

I guess a more important question to ask is; is Film itself a serious art form that the Music in the film can be of high quality ? It can be. If the Director's intent is artistic in making the film. That's why you can see a division between Marvel Movies and Art Films. 

Film Music is only 80 years old. Film Itself is only 100 years old. The First Film School in the US started in 1967 at NYU ( I think ). People like Max Steiner, Korngold had to figure out how to introduce Music into this new medium, using influences from Opera, the Stage. And Many People would argue that the Classical Influences would basically end with John Williams since he comes from that Steiner/Korngold tradition where the Classical Tradition was still prominent. 

Was he lucky in that he has collaborators like Spielberg and Lucas who loved Classical Music themselves ( Spielberg was a amateur Clarinet player as a kid ) and didn't micromanage Williams ? YES. That type of Trust, and collaboration is rare in Hollywood. The stars aligned for Williams. Will it happen again ? No. 

He's a one off; being able to make connections with the Classical World; prominent Musicians like Anne Sophie Mutter, Yo Yo Ma, Itzhak Perlman, Gustavo Dudamel. Conducting and Performing at the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra, Berlin, Boston outside I would argue of the " Pops " category. Go onto Youtube. There are videos of him performing his works with Seiji Ozawa and the ENTIRE Boston Symphonic Orchestra ( not just pops ). His Royal Phiharmonic Society Gold Medal. His massive advocacy for Music Education of young people. If you want evidence that he is advancing the art of music, there you go. 


Hans Zimmer will never have that kind of brownie points with the Classical Establishment. 

All of this however doesn't show that JW is a Classical Music Composer. Classical Music as a term is far more nuanced than we think. The rise of Atonal Music in the Academic Music World; the fracturing of culture as we know it in the 1960s. The post World War 2 era. They all play a role in the development of " music ". 

All this being said; there wasn't a divide between Pop and Classical Music as much as people think. Before the 1960s ( the cultural wars ), It all melded together. Sinatra for example, Frank Sinatra, he loved Classical Music so much that he demanded that his albums have Classical Music concepts. American Musical Theatre composers such as Cole Porter, Gershwin, studied many of the great Classical composers at Julliard for example.


----------



## HansZimmer

Simon Moon said:


> I'm not so sure about this assessment.
> 
> I think that most people that are unfamiliar with music apart from the charts, are more likely to believe that orchestral film music is classical, just be the nature of it being orchestral. It is people more familiar with music, classical specifically, that are more likely not to accept orchestral film music as being classical music.
> 
> I've thought about the initial question, too. And I can't get past the circularity of it.


If me and many other persons think that many film scores are classical music is not simply because they are orchestral, but for their style in general.

This is a good example.







We are not so dumb that we think that this orchestral cover of a song of the Linkin Park is classical music only because it's orchestral.







The strawman "you think that something is classical only because it's played by an orchestra" has been brought into this discussion several times and I've already replied to this.


----------



## HansZimmer

Luchesi said:


> I can't help thinking of the notion that birds have wings and fly around, and therefore they're bats.


Strawman, see my previous post.


----------



## Luchesi

HansZimmer said:


> Strawman, see my previous post.


Tell us why your examples are CM. I don't know why.


----------



## HansZimmer

Luchesi said:


> Tell us why your examples are CM. I don't know why.


Simply because they sound as such. If you can not feel the romantic style in this score I can't help you.







Maybe you will also tell me that you don't understand why this waltz is a waltz (and, therefore, classical music). Right?


----------



## HansZimmer

My point of view is quite simple.

During the history of music, classical music has incorporated many different styles of music (the "galant music" of Mozart is one of them) which have common denominators between each others.

If today a composer writes a piece in one of the styles that have already been incorporated in classical music, then it's automatically classical music, and no one has the power to say that it's not.
On the other hand, if a composer write pieces in a style that doesn't belong yet to the domain of classical music, the community of classical music could choose to incorporate that new style in the category.

This answers the question of @DaveM: why have some avant-garde composers been inglobated in classical music? Because the classical music community welcomed them. It's simply incorporating new styles that are different from others.
In other hand, this also rejects the notion that it's an elite that decides if a piece is classical music or not: the history has already established that the galant style belong to classical music, so if you write a piece in the galant style it's automatically classical music.

If many important orchestras play your piece, it means that it's a piece of success. If they don't, then you will remain a minor and little known classical music composer, but you are still a classical music composer if you produce music in the galant style. The point is simple: a classical music composer can be highly regarded or not.
We know very well Mozart, but how many classical music composers of his time have been forgetted?


----------



## Forster

HansZimmer said:


> The two different pages of wikipedia for the two different words.


Still just someone's opinion. Besides, "pop" is encompassed within "popular". They are not interchangeable, which is why, when "pop" is discussed in this Forum, I often ask for clarification to check exactly what is meant.



HansZimmer said:


> The two different pages of wikipedia for the two different words.
> It's like to ask "Who says that a table is a table and a chair is chair?".
> 
> Pop music - Wikipedia
> 
> *"Pop music* is a genre of popular music that originated in its modern form during the mid-1950s in the United States and the United Kingdom"
> 
> Popular music - Wikipedia
> 
> *"Popular music* is music with wide appeal[1][2][3] that is typically distributed to large audiences through the music industry."


So also "*"Pop music* is music with wide appeal[1][2][3] that is typically distributed to large audiences through the music industry."



HansZimmer said:


> Just to say how much meaningless is the word "popular music", given your definition "It is _usually _short (of course there are exceptions), with a focus on lyrics and/or hummable melodies and/or catchy rhythms", I could put Mozart's symphonies in the category (and, more in general, the galant music), because the only thing they don't have from that list are lyrics.


No, you couldn't.
And "my definition" matches what is in the Wikipedia definitions.

By the way, what do you have to say about the range of music recognised by the Ivor Novello Awards?



Luchesi said:


> I read it quickly (earlier today) and it seemed to be a common sense article, straight from the composers. I think I read that the composers know very well when they're intending to compose CM, or to work on a film and create the musical experiences for the scenes. I don't think any of them gave an example of FM being CM.
> 
> They didn't talk about the importance of categories for students, and learning and education, and the future of CM. What do you think they would say? Would they all agree about it?


They spoke about CM and FM as using different techniques, not styles. They also referred to the prejudice towards FM and that in some ways, the demands of FM are greater than for CM. I don't suppose they care for labels.


----------



## DaveM

If someone writes off something from Wikipedia as ‘just someone’s opinion’, then I assume that said person will, ongoing, never use Wikipedia as a source.


----------



## Forster

DaveM said:


> If someone writes off something from Wikipedia as ‘just someone’s opinion’, then I assume that said person will, ongoing, never use Wikipedia as a source.


Wikipedia is only as good as the information put into it. Some of it can be trusted, some of it can't. Even Wikipedia itself knows that.

But that's not the point. The point is that there are varying "definitions" for pop music and popular music, which you'll know from reading the Wiki entries and the sources cited within. For example:



> David Hatch and Stephen Millward describe pop music as "a body of music which is distinguishable from popular, jazz, and folk music".[8] According to Pete Seeger, pop music is "professional music which draws upon both folk music and fine arts music".[3] David Boyle, a music researcher, states pop music as any type of music that a person has been exposed to by the mass media.[9] Most individuals think that pop music is just the singles charts and not the sum of all chart music.


They're all still opinions, not facts, though some elements are perfectly acceptable/arguable.


----------



## HansZimmer

Forster said:


> Still just someone's opinion. Besides, "pop" is encompassed within "popular".


Why don't you read the dictionary?

_popular music of the sort that has been popular since the 1950s, usually with a strong rhythm and simple tunes, often contrasted with rock, soul and other forms of popular music

pop-music noun - Definition, pictures, pronunciation and usage notes | Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary at OxfordLearnersDictionaries.com _

So, the correct definition of "pop" refers to a style of music born in 1950.

To define the large category of non-classical music the correct word is "popular music".



> They are not interchangeable, which is why, when "pop" is discussed in this Forum, I often ask for clarification to check exactly what is meant.


Infact they are not interchangeable, because pop music is popular music, but popular music doesn't contain only pop music. The category and the subcategory are not interchangeable.



> No, you couldn't.


Length: the average length of Mozart's symphonies is about 10-20 minutes, which means that the average length of a single movement is about 3-5 minutes. You might say the full symphony is longer than the average pop song, but the real point is the length of one movement.
Infact, the real pieces are the single movements.
The purists say that you must not divide the movements, but there is no such thing as "you must" in music. There are many persons who listen only to the first movement of "Eine Kleine Nachtmusik".

Catchyness: yes, the symphonies of Mozart are catchy. In respect to baroque music, they emphasize melodies instead of texture. This is the general philosophy of the artistic movement that formed Mozart.

This is why I don't really see the point of the separation between popular music and art music, if the latter also contains music with the carachteristics that are associated to popular music (and Mozart is not the last idiot: he is a protagonist of classical music).


----------



## DaveM

Forster said:


> Wikipedia is only as good as the information put into it. Some of it can be trusted, some of it can't. Even Wikipedia itself knows that.
> 
> But that's not the point. The point is that there are varying "definitions" for pop music and popular music, which you'll know from reading the Wiki entries and the sources cited within. For example:
> 
> They're all still opinions, not facts, though some elements are perfectly acceptable/arguable.


Wikipedia has had a pretty good record and any misinformation tends to be corrected before long which is why it is one of the most popular sources of information. It isn’t perfect, but it is often a good source for educated information, _including facts_, which is better than your dismissive ‘just someone’s opinion’.

Btw, since you’re now saying some of it can be trusted then that’s more than your previous ‘just someone’s opinion’. Maybe you should fact-check a little more because this back-tracking is becoming a thing.


----------



## fbjim

Simon Moon said:


> I'm not so sure about this assessment.
> 
> I think that most people that are unfamiliar with music apart from the charts, are more likely to believe that orchestral film music is classical, just be the nature of it being orchestral. It is people more familiar with music, classical specifically, that are more likely not to accept orchestral film music as being classical music.
> 
> I've thought about the initial question, too. And I can't get past the circularity of it.


People generally don't think about music in a theoretical sense, and they care even less about the theory of what constitutes a "genre" - that's the realm of people who actually like discussing music which is a small percentage of the population.

Of course we run into a problem here if we use the "sounds like" - Some classical is orchestral, some is not, the same as film music, so the best we can do is "some film music has similar aesthetic elements as some classical music" which is only a marginally useful statement, and doesn't really prove much of anything at all.

In any case once again any discussion about "sounds like" - that is, aesthetics, is a bit of a sidetrack because neither "classical" nor "film music" have any inherent aesthetic traits to them.


----------



## fbjim

DaveM said:


> If someone writes off something from Wikipedia as ‘just someone’s opinion’, then I assume that said person will, ongoing, never use Wikipedia as a source.


Wikipedia gives four definitions to "pop music", not all of which are consistent, and all of which are cited as opinions (one being "popular" opinion). They are very clearly not facts, and Wikipedia isn't even pretending they are.


----------



## Forster

DaveM said:


> [...]
> Btw, since you’re now saying some of it can be trusted then that’s more than your previous ‘just someone’s opinion’. Maybe you should fact-check a little more because this back-tracking is becoming a thing.


No one's backtracking. I'm sorry you don't get my point, which, I repeat, has little to do with the accuracy of Wikipedia, but that, as my quote demonstrated, there are differing opinions on pop and popular and the relationship between them. Not dissimilar to the ongoing "problem" of defining CM.

Of course, there's always this:



> [...] Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information.
> 
> That is not to say that you will not find valuable and accurate information in Wikipedia; much of the time you will. However, *Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here.* [Wiki's bold, not mine] The content of any given article may recently have been changed, vandalized, or altered by someone whose opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields. Note that most other encyclopedias and reference works also have disclaimers.


Wikipedia:General disclaimer - Wikipedia



HansZimmer said:


> [...]
> So, the correct definition of "pop" refers to a style of music born in 1950.
> 
> [...]
> Length: the average length of Mozart's symphonies is about 10-20 minutes, which means that the average length of a single movement is about 3-5 minutes. You might say the full symphony is longer than the average pop song, but the real point is the length of one movement.
> Infact, the real pieces are the single movements.
> The purists say that you must not divide the movements, but there is no such thing as "you must" in music. There are many persons who listen only to the first movement of "Eine Kleine Nachtmusik".
> 
> Catchyness: yes, the symphonies of Mozart are catchy. In respect to baroque music, they emphasize melodies instead of texture. This is the general philosophy of the artistic movement that formed Mozart.
> 
> This is why I don't really see the point of the separation between popular music and art music, if the latter also contains music with the carachteristics that are associated to popular music (and Mozart is not the last idiot: he is a protagonist of classical music).


There is no "correct" definition, only a set of opinions. Here's someone else's opinion:



> *America’s Singers of Popular Music Have Been a Hit Throughout the World*
> This list only includes solo artists of American popular music who began their recording (or publishing) careers before 1950.


Ten Greatest Pop Stars Before 1950 - Spinditty

If you really want to argue that Mozart is pop, that rather undermines your insistence that pop was born in 1950. Make your mind up.



HansZimmer said:


> Why don't you read the dictionary?


Which one? We're both reading Wikipedia aren't we? Or are you proposing another one as offering a definition that is an undisputable fact? Let's try Dictionary.com, where you have to enter 'pop' (not 'pop music') to find a definition. Scroll down to definition two



> POP
> 
> _adjective_
> of or relating to popular songs: pop music; pop singers.
> of or relating to pop art.
> reflecting or aimed at the tastes of the general masses of people: pop culture; pop novels.
> _noun_
> popular music:It's the first time she's sung pop.
> pop art.
> _ORIGIN OF POP_
> First recorded in 1860–65; shortening of popular


Definition of popular | Dictionary.com

No mention of 1950s here.


----------



## fbjim

I want to point out a counterexample - most people I know who study electronic music _will_ consider electronic music written for films as _both_ film music, and electronic music.

Why? Is this an inconsistency? It's because of how each genre is defined. Electronic music refers to an extremely specific criterion, and not so much composition traditions, performance traditions, or social expectations of the music - the genre is almost literally defined as _any_ music which employs electronic/electroacoustic/electromechanical sound generation. So "Electronic music" refers - if not to aesthetics, at least to _specific, concrete creation methods_ which do not have anything to do with the social context of the music*, which is almost the opposite of "Classical music" which is defined _almost entirely_ by social traditions of composition, performance, and audience expectation, and has no inherent implication about aesthetics.

We can easily point out when film music is also electronic music because the definition only necessitates us identify specific means by which the music is generated. Asking whether film music is classical music asks us to compare sets of composition practices and traditions, and this is much more ill-defined and difficult. 


*this kind of definition is actually pretty unusual for a genre - of course, "electronic dance music", "house music", "techno music" etc all have great deals to do with social contexts in the ways that most genres do, but in practice the term has stuck because a lot of people into electronic music are into a great deal of it, and not just a specific genre


----------



## mikeh375

Forster said:


> @mikeh375 Who would you recommend from the current crop of film composers?


TBH, I don't pay much attention anymore unless a score really grabs me and I've not heard much that has done so recently, probably because of my weakness for Sc-Fi, even the crap stuff. Having said that, my ears have been more recently piqued by Jóhann Jóhannsson after I heard his score for 'The Arrival'. His intelligent and highly effective blend of orchestral and electronics is a fine example of how scoring has progressed and changed from William's more 'classical' style. Others I like are Harry Gregson Williams and Thomas Newman, who, like the best of them, have a way of finding the right language and sound that when heard feels absolutely as though nothing else would do - a quality that belies the angst and hassle it took to achieve.

(...just as an aside and related to electronics in a score. I once had the pleasure of meeting Goldsmith whilst he was recording 'Medicine Man' in London. Me and an engineer friend had debated for sometime as to how he managed to make his synths blend so well with a live orchestra and that day I found out how. In the live room he had 3 or 4 players with synth stacks playing through amps live with the orchestra. My meeting with Goldsmith was brief as he was conducting the session but we stayed for a few hours and for most of that time me and a conductor friend who was with me had between us on a tiny sofa the legendary Arthur Morton, Goldsmith's orchestrator, holding the score for us to follow as it was being recorded).


----------



## HansZimmer

fbjim said:


> I want to point out a counterexample - most people I know who study electronic music _will_ consider electronic music written for films as _both_ film music, and electronic music.
> 
> Why? Is this an inconsistency? It's because of how each genre is defined. Electronic music refers to an extremely specific criterion, and not so much composition traditions, performance traditions, or social expectations of the music - the genre is almost literally defined as _any_ music which employs electronic/electroacoustic/electromechanical sound generation. So "Electronic music" refers - if not to aesthetics, at least to _specific, concrete creation methods_ which do not have anything to do with the social context of the music*, which is almost the opposite of "Classical music" which is defined _almost entirely_ by social traditions of composition, performance, and audience expectation, and has no inherent implication about aesthetics.
> 
> We can easily point out when film music is also electronic music because the definition only necessitates us identify specific means by which the music is generated. Asking whether film music is classical music asks us to compare sets of composition practices and traditions, and this is much more ill-defined and difficult.
> 
> 
> *this kind of definition is actually pretty unusual for a genre - of course, "electronic dance music", "house music", "techno music" etc all have great deals to do with social contexts in the ways that most genres do, but in practice the term has stuck because a lot of people into electronic music are into a great deal of it, and not just a specific genre


You are saying that there are very precise and objective criterias to establish if something is classical music or not and you present your criterias as they were facts, but which is your source?

In reality, the definition of "classical music" is nebulous, vague and therefore interpretable.

From "new world encyclopedia: _"The appellation "Classical music" is a broad, somewhat imprecise term in referring to music produced in, or rooted in the traditions of, Western art, ecclesiastical and concert music, encompassing a broad period from roughly 1000 to the present day"._

Classical music - New World Encyclopedia

Now, what does it mean to "produce music in, or rooted in the traditions of, Western music"?

To say that the modern music inspired by one or more composers of the western music tradition is rooted in western music makes sense, so my definition of classical music is a possible interpretation of it's vague definition.

As I've already written, classical music is a musical tradition which incorporated many different styles throughout the history and if you write new music it could be accepted or not accepted in the category, but if you write music that derivates from what has been already accepted in the category, then your music is rooted in classical music and so non one has the power to say that it's not classical music.

An other, alternative definition of "classical music" says that it's the music of the late 18th and early 19th centuries characterized by harmony, balance, and adherence to established compositional forms. You might support the idea that it's not possible to compose classical music today in respect to this definition, but you might also support the idea that if today you write music that follows the so called "common practices" then you are writing classical music.
As written by @DaveM, a lot of film music is much more based on the common practices in respect to other contemporary music.


It would be better if we discussed about the possible intepretations of the vague definitions instead to say "my PRECISE definition is the correct one".
Basically what I want to say in this discussion is that the definition of Classic FM it's possible and someone must be free to follow it, in response to the article of The Guardian which criticzes Classic FM for it's legitimate choice to include film and videogame music rooted in classical music (for simple stylistic traits) in the classical music repertoire.

To conclude this post, I still don't understand what is the name that you want to give to the style of music if you reject the idea that classical music is not a style. Could you please clarify this point?


----------



## HansZimmer

janxharris said:


> Debate: When is film music ‘classical’? | Gramophone


This debate is interesting because the composers speak about the musical substance instead of abstract things.

A little summary: three composers who have worked for concert music, for opera and for film music speak about the differences.
Before to speak about the musical substance, however, they speak about their perspective as composers in relation to personal issues. Like @mikeh375, they say that film music, unlike concert music, limit their artistic freedom, but they say the same about opera.
The limitation comes from the fact that in an opera or in a film the composer is a part of a team and when you work in a team your individual creativity is always limited, because you have to take in account the perspectives of other persons of the team.
Instead, a concert piece is an individual work.


After this observation, they start to speak about the actual musical substance.
First of all, no one of them say that when composing for films they don't use smart technique and that they compose like monkeys. Infact, I seriously doubt that Spielberg asked John Williams to produce bad music for Schindler's List.
So, all the things we are reading in this discussion like "film music is light", or "film music is not useful for students", or "film music is not elevated", are imaginary things and the users who say so are probably only speaking about their personal tastes (their favourite composers have never composed film music and there is no composer inside the film industry that move them as much as their favourite composers).
To say "I don't like film music because Mozart died before the birth of cinema" might be more honest than saying that film music is intrinsically bad, which doesn't make any sense (a film producer doesn't pay 2 milions for bad music, unless he/she is a coprophile).

Philip Glass says the opposite: the music that he composes for films has a more adventurous harmony and thanks to film music he has trained some techniques that he later used in his concert works.


Then they say that when composing concert music they usually design long arcs, while in film music they have to design short arcs.
My personal comment: this is true, but it's also true for the incidental classical music.

Look at this playlist containing the different pieces of the incidental music that Beethoven composed for the "Egmont" play: playlist

Now, Beethoven composed Egmont in 1809, which means that he composed it after his first six symphonies and his first four piano concertos, which have long movements and therefore long arcs.
His chamber music is also very long (for example, the string quartet op. 59 No. 1 has a length of 40 minutes).

Now, if you look at the pieces in the playlist there are many pieces with a length of 1-2 minutes and the longest one has a length of 5-6 minutes.
So, we can make two observations:

The length of the pieces in a suite of classical incidental music is similar to the length of the pieces in a film music suite
"Egmont" doesn't look like a very personal work of Beethoven: it seems that he was forced to compose short pieces instead of his usual long movements, so the so called "limitations" of film music are more in general limitations of incidental music


----------



## DaveM

fbjim said:


> Wikipedia gives four definitions to "pop music", not all of which are consistent, and all of which are cited as opinions (one being "popular" opinion). They are very clearly not facts, and Wikipedia isn't even pretending they are.


Wikipedia provides information about the definition of pop just the way an encyclopedia would which is encapsulated in ‘_Pop music continuously evolves along with the term's definition._’. It essentially discusses the various definitions that exist and implies that it is impossible to give a definition that satisfies everyone. That is useful, factual information, more than the dismissive way it was described above.


----------



## Luchesi

Forster said:


> I'm not suggesting that FM "will become" CM. I'm observing that there is evidence that FM is becoming an acceptable part of the CM repertoire as studied and performed in schools, unis and concert halls.
> 
> I would hope that any study of FM will include an understanding of cinema arts - at least sufficient to understand how the one fits with the other. As for any other background study, I know that finding out more about the music I listen to - who wrote it, why, when etc - can enhance my understanding. If that applies to CM, why wouldn't it apply to FM?
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, not all FM is worthy of study. But how much CM has been dismissed over the centuries? Hummel and Spohr may be listened to by enthusiasts, but the general CM listener is likely to dismiss them in favour of the John Williamses of the CM world. 😉
> 
> Lastly, what I found out about the programmes of study at the Juilliard School shows that what is studied there is "music". Doubtless the term "CM" gets an airing, but I suspect that the idea that some conservative listeners cling on to about strictly controlled criteria and categories is on the way out there. The ivory tower is perhaps more enlightened than the average TC member?


I'm concerned about what the labels mean to young people, and what happens then. I'm surprised that as an educator you're not concerned about the natural laziness of students and the dumbing down of categories. ...And what I'm concerned about is the same in any technical subject. AND, I really believe this is what partly contributes to the malaise of modern times. Much has been written about this. We're a lazy species. We care about our children and grandchildren - but beyond that our natural brains don't sense that the effort is worth it. I think that it is, but a lot of intelligent folks don't even think about it.
It's all very natural and primal, so what can be done about it?


----------



## Luchesi

HansZimmer said:


> Simply because they sound as such. If you can not feel the romantic style in this score I can't help you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you will also tell me that you don't understand why this waltz is a waltz (and, therefore, classical music). Right?


Those pieces would not have contributed to my hunger for music.

What I appreciate highly about CM is the development before Beethoven and then the development after Beethoven. 

You can somewhat pursue this idea in popular music and jazz, but in film music I would have to know a lot more about movies, and I doubt that there's an interesting historical and developmental sequence in FM. I should expend the effort because I'm always preaching about expending the effort..


----------



## HansZimmer

Luchesi said:


> I'm concerned about what the labels mean to young people, and what happens then. I'm surprised that as an educator you're not concerned about the natural laziness of students and the dumbing down of categories. ...And what I'm concerned about is the same in any technical subject. AND, I really believe this is what partly contributes to the malaise of modern times. Much has been written about this. We're a lazy species. We care about our children and grandchildren - but beyond that our natural brains don't sense that the effort is worth it. I think that it is, but a lot of intelligent folks don't even think about it.
> It's all very natural and primal, so what can be done about it?


I think that the word "dumbing down" is offensive for the fans of John Williams et al and that you shouldn't be allowed to use such words, because a such expression implies that the persons who think that John Williams et al are good composers are dumb.

You didn't provide any evidence for the fact that the film music composers are "dumb and incompetent", everytime that someone asks you to analyze concrete examples you don't write anything because you don't have arguments, but then you feel free to indirectly call "dumb" the other persons.


----------



## HansZimmer

Luchesi said:


> Those pieces would not have contributed to my hunger for music.
> 
> What I appreciate highly about CM is the development before Beethoven and then the development after Beethoven.
> 
> You can somewhat pursue this idea in popular music and jazz, but in film music I would have to know a lot more about movies, and I doubt that there's an interesting historical and developmental sequence in FM. I should expend the effort because I'm always preaching about expending the effort..


The "film music" doesn't exist. The film music composers simply use the existing styles of music inside movies, so if someone writes a pop song for a film you must study the history of pop, if someone write a rock piece for a film you must study the history of rock, and so on...
In the case of John Williams, you simply have to study the history of classical music. So, if you have already studied it you are done. The only thing that you would have to study is: what are the composers from which John Williams takes inspiration and in which way?


----------



## HansZimmer

Luchesi said:


> Those pieces would not have contributed to my hunger for music.


This is a very personal consideration. The problem is that you want to extend your personal feelings to anyone. There are probably persons who have enrolled in the conservatory thanks to Bernstein, or John Williams, or whoever in the long list of film music composers...

I can also ensure you that there are persons who start to listen to Mozart's music thanks to John Williams and other composers. I have concrete examples.


----------



## Luchesi

HansZimmer said:


> I think that the word "dumbing down" is offensive for the fans of John Williams et al and that you shouldn't be allowed to use such words, because a such expression implies that the persons who think that John Williams et al are good composers are dumb.
> 
> You didn't provide any evidence for the fact that the film music composers are "dumb and incompetent", everytime that someone asks you to analyze concrete examples you don't write anything because you don't have arguments, but then you feel free to indirectly call "dumb" the other persons.


Think about the consequences when any technical subject is dumbed down. It's not only categorizing music. It's surely not about any individual or audiences.
Analyze concrete examples in here? If you would do that I would learn how to do it effectively and politely in here.

Analysis? You don't tell us why FM is CM, and this is what this whole thread is about. You said it sounds like CM. 

What other music sounds like CM to you? We can debate about that..


----------



## Luchesi

HansZimmer said:


> This is a very personal consideration. The problem is that you want to extend your personal feelings to anyone. There are probably persons who have enrolled in the conservatory thanks to Bernstein, or John Williams, or whoever in the long list of film music composers...
> 
> I can also ensure you that there are persons who start to listen to Mozart's music thanks to John Williams and other composers. I have concrete examples.


That's good to hear. Do you think they're rare examples?


----------



## fbjim

DaveM said:


> Wikipedia provides information about the definition of pop just the way an encyclopedia would which is encapsulated in ‘_Pop music continuously evolves along with the term's definition._’. It essentially discusses the various definitions that exist and implies that it is impossible to give a definition that satisfies everyone. That is useful, factual information, more than the dismissive way it was described above.


Yes, and the entire point is that one can not unreasonably insist on a specific definition of a term when the term itself is broad/vague and no consensus definition exists. The best we can do is agree on some terms for the purposes of discussion. I'm not sure what the disagreement is.


----------



## hammeredklavier

mikeh375 said:


> d) Did they have a non-musician looking over their shoulder as they write and telling them that they do not like particular moments or perhaps even larger sections of work, and that the composer _will have to change them?_ This in spite of the fact that the composer may have felt that the passages in question were some of the best he/she'd written? In short, was their music macro/micro-managed by a non-musician, including notes, harmonies and instrumentation?


www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRfldU6zhWk&t=37m57s
"Our church music is very different from that of Italy, since a Mass with the whole Kyrie, the Gloria, the Credo, the Epistle sonata, the Offertory or motet, the Sanctus and the Agnus Dei must not last longer than three quarters of an hour. This applies even to the most Solemn Mass spoken by the Archbishop himself. Special study is required for this kind of composition, particularly as the Mass must have a full contingent of instruments—trumpets, drums and so forth." -Mozart, to Padre Martini, 1776

"It therefore had be a grand ceremonial setting, but the mass also needed to have a compact structure. Mozart therefore omits formal closing fugues for the Gloria and Credo, the Credo with its problematic, vast text is in a tight rondo form, and the Dona nobis pacem recalls the music of the Kyrie." (Mozart - Coronation Mass K317 - Programme Notes)

+There are similar anecdotes from other pre-Romantic period musicians, composers.


----------



## mikeh375

^^^ A few broad, general and formal restrictions are always part of the deal for commissions, there's no contradiction here. None of the above mentioned restrictions are as numerous, constant, artistically intrusive or indeed profoundly restrictive as FM's requirements and pressures are upon the creative act. There is nothing within the canon that has been written, with such a delimiting amount of intrusion _over many facets of composition and all at the same time whilst writing._ If there are, they will be a rare occurence. The restrictions I mentioned for FM are the norm for a composer.

Not even in Opera will you find such restriction. For whilst there are obviously extraneous issues and practicalities (musical too),to consider, in writing an opera the core techniques of harmony, melody, counterpoint, orchestration and resulting expressive goals of actual composition remain firmly at the whim of the composer's own expressive intent.


----------



## HansZimmer

mikeh375 said:


> ^^^ A few broad, general and formal restrictions are always part of the deal for commissions, there's no contradiction here. None of the above mentioned restrictions are as numerous, constant, artistically intrusive or indeed profoundly restrictive as FM's requirements and pressures are upon the creative act. There is nothing within the canon that has been written, with such a delimiting amount of intrusion _over many facets of composition and all at the same time whilst writing._ If there are, they will be a rare occurence. The restrictions I mentioned for FM are the norm for a composer.
> 
> Not even in Opera will you find such restriction. For whilst there are obviously extraneous issues and practicalities (musical too),to consider, in writing an opera the core techniques of harmony, melody, counterpoint, orchestration and resulting expressive goals of actual composition remain firmly at the whim of the composer's own expressive intent.


I don't understand how the film producer intrudes in technical aspects of music like harmony, melody, counterpoint, orchestration and so on. If I were a film director, I would simply tell the composer "This scene requires a piece with the mood XY and we need a climax in this point". He would be free to use the technique he prefers as long as the correct expressional goals are achieved.

I suppose that the problem that the director doesn't like your piece and you have to rewrite it exists in opera too, but as I've already written, if Beethoven would have written a commissioned piece that should have satisfied the tastes of the client, wouldn't we include it in the repertoire of classical music?

However, as I've already written, the music we listen to outside od the films comes from the soundtrack albums, where the music can be reworked. Inside of them you also find music that has not been used in the film.


----------



## mikeh375

HansZimmer said:


> I don't understand how the film producer intrudes in technical aspects of music like harmony, melody, counterpoint, orchestration and so on. If I were a film director, I would simply tell the composer "This scene requires a piece with the mood XY and we need a climax in this point". He would be free to use the technique he prefers as long as the correct expressional goals are achieved.
> 
> I suppose that the problem that the director doesn't like your piece and you have to rewrite it exists in opera too, but as I've already written, if Beethoven would have written a commissioned piece that should have satisfied the tastes of the client, wouldn't we include it in the repertoire of classical music?
> 
> However, as I've already written, the music we listen to outside od the films comes from the soundtrack albums, where the music can be reworked. Inside of them you also find music that has not been used in the film.


Every time a composer has to re-do a cue, he has to conform musically and aesthetically more so to what the director is happy with and requires, or worse still, get legally closer to a temp track. This is how it works but make no mistake, the end result is a compromise, or more fittingly, a collaboration, one that does not give the freedom a composer would want and to utilise when writing a personal work. It's not that a director intrudes specifically on the technical aspect (although the nightmare scenario is a director who is also a musician of sorts), it's the fact that the technical and expressive aspects are restrained in ever varying combinations because of the utility required of the music. These impositions should not imv, interfere or influence absolute music intended for the concert hall.
It's not always the case that the composer is so tightly under the thumb, but the fact that he/she does not necessarily have the final say in many aspects of the final cue is a mark against the music's validity as a concert hall piece for me.
I'm probably going to leave you to it now Hans as I've repeated myself far too often and I think my take on this should be clear by now. @DaveM is right, I'm sounding like a broken record.


----------



## HansZimmer

Luchesi said:


> Think about the consequences when any technical subject is dumbed down.


Circular reasoning

You are using the conclusion of your argumentation as a premise of your argumentation. You still have to demonostrate that film music dumbs down music from a technical perspective.



> Analyze concrete examples in here? If you would do that I would learn how to do it effectively and politely in here.


Burden of proof

The person who supports a thesis must demonostrate it. it's not other persons who have to prove you're not right.

I've already analyzed, but every time I've done it, you just ignored what I wrote and you started again with your refrain.

In this video there is a score with technical notes. It's a piece written by John Williams for Home Alone.






It's easier to see what happens in this short MIDI piano version.







The melody consists of a subject and a countersubject: it's not poor/elementary writing.

The countersubject is the theme of this other vocal piece of Home Alone: "Star of Betlehem".
Here we can hear an interesting vocal technique and some counterpoints.






The orchestra provides a nice background for the choir and after 2:06 the orchestra becomes more prominent and, combined with the choir, creates an interesting and drammatic sound effect. We can probably consider this final part + the coda played by the orchestra as the climax of the piece.
Is this poor writing (for a vocal piece)? Is this poor singing? Is this poor orchestration? If it is, then I want to hear what is good writing.

Finally, this piece of Home Alone consists of a simple theme that caresses the ears.
The best part is the one after 2:15-2:20, where the orchestra explodes and kicks out the chorus.






John Williams is not only the composer, but also the conductor. Is this a poor orchestration? If it is, I want to know what is a good orchestration. I see it as a brilliant orchestration of a nice theme.


After all, many film music composers (including John Williams, Thomas Newman, and others...) have a university degree in composition, so I don't expect poor writing, poor orchestration and poor technique from them.

Finally, we can listen to the score of the Auschwitz scene in Schindler's List, composed by John Williams.






What can we notice about the different pieces here above? They have all different moods. From the caressing melody of "Somewehere in my Memory" to the horror of "Auscwhitz".

Mozart is my favourite composer, but do we see a such mood change from one piece to an other? He is known for having almost always a happy mood.

To change the mood of a piece means to change the way you write, the technique. Music is not an abstract art: everything is based on technique.

There are aspects of music in which John Williams and the greatest film music composers are better than Mozart.

Now you can start again with your refrain and ignore everything I wrote.


----------



## HansZimmer

Luchesi said:


> Analysis? You don't tell us why FM is CM, and this is what this whole thread is about. You said it sounds like CM.


I simply say that film music arranged like classical music, is classical music.

I don't know which analysis do you expect about this. I simply have a good musical ear and I understand how a piece is arranged.
Why does a piece sound "romantic"? It has almost everything to do with the instruments you use, how they are played and how the different sounds of the instruments are combined with each others. You should ask Bernstein how he obtain the romantic sound: I can simply say that I hear the romantic sound.

What I think doesn't play almost any role in creating the classical sound are the themes.
Infact, you can use a theme of Beethoven to arrange a credible rock piece.






It's not uncommon to steal themes from classical music to create popular pieces. There is a pop song based on a theme of the piano concerto No. 2 of Rachmanichoff.
Once you arrange the classical themes in an other way, the resulting pieces have nothing to with classical music. That's I say that "classical music" is a way to arrange music: a style of music like many others.

That said, the themes of classical music are usually more elaborated than the themes of popular music, but I'd say that this is a caractheristic that connotes classical music and not a carachteristic that denotes it.


----------



## HansZimmer

Luchesi said:


> That's good to hear. Do you think they're rare examples?


I'm not speaking about the casual listeners that like Star Wars and they say "it has a good score" but then they listen to other music.
I'm speaking of persons who have an "obsession" for the music of John Williams or for film scores of the same type.
If they do not already listen to the major composers of classical music, it's likely that they will at least give them a chance.

I don't have statistics about this, but I see that in the forum of John Williams there are many persons who studied (or are studying) music and are able to analyze his music. So, they probably don't have to develop a culture in classical music: they already have it, since they have studied it.


----------



## Forster

mikeh375 said:


> TBH, I don't pay much attention anymore unless a score really grabs me and I've not heard much that has done so recently, probably because of my weakness for Sc-Fi, even the crap stuff. Having said that, my ears have been more recently piqued by Jóhann Jóhannsson after I heard his score for 'The Arrival'. His intelligent and highly effective blend of orchestral and electronics is a fine example of how scoring has progressed and changed from William's more 'classical' style. Others I like are Harry Gregson Williams and Thomas Newman, who, like the best of them, have a way of finding the right language and sound that when heard feels absolutely as though nothing else would do - a quality that belies the angst and hassle it took to achieve.
> 
> (...just as an aside and related to electronics in a score. I once had the pleasure of meeting Goldsmith whilst he was recording 'Medicine Man' in London. Me and an engineer friend had debated for sometime as to how he managed to make his synths blend so well with a live orchestra and that day I found out how. In the live room he had 3 or 4 players with synth stacks playing through amps live with the orchestra. My meeting with Goldsmith was brief as he was conducting the session but we stayed for a few hours and for most of that time me and a conductor friend who was with me had between us on a tiny sofa the legendary Arthur Morton, Goldsmith's orchestrator, holding the score for us to follow as it was being recorded).


Thanks Mike. I've just been watching _Sicario_, another film scored by Jóhann Jóhannsson: modern, unsettling, minimal. He's (was) not a man interested in scores with lush melodies, but his music is apparently classed as 'modern classical' (some of it released on DG no less!). HGW and TN you mention - both have scored movies I like, such as _The Martian_ and _Unstoppable_, and _1917 _and _WALL-E. _I bet that meeting with Goldsmith and his orchestrator was fantastic.

It makes a change not to be talking about...well, you-know-who!


----------



## Forster

Luchesi said:


> I'm concerned about what the labels mean to young people, and what happens then. I'm surprised that as an educator you're not concerned about the natural laziness of students and the dumbing down of categories. ...And what I'm concerned about is the same in any technical subject. AND, I really believe this is what partly contributes to the malaise of modern times. Much has been written about this. We're a lazy species. We care about our children and grandchildren - but beyond that our natural brains don't sense that the effort is worth it. I think that it is, but a lot of intelligent folks don't even think about it.
> It's all very natural and primal, so what can be done about it?


I simply don't see what you see and fret about what you fret about. That's all. Labels are of no real importance when it comes to listening to, enjoying and understanding music.


----------



## Luchesi

A Beatles song that was orchestrated would sound to a lot of people like classical music, especially if they didn't know the exact song and where came from.


----------



## Luchesi

Forster said:


> I simply don't see what you see and fret about what you fret about. That's all. Labels are of no real importance when it comes to listening to, enjoying and understanding music.


Understanding. How would you teach about music without labels? Later on, the labels can be merged or even dismissed, but that would be after an amount of learning time and exposure. 

I'm interested to know how long that amount of time actually is. As you can surmise, for me, it was a very long time because I like strict categories. ..I actually like them!


----------



## HansZimmer

Luchesi said:


> A Beatles song that was orchestrated would sound to a lot of people like classical music, especially if they didn't know the exact song and where came from.


A lot of people who listen to classical music or a lot of people that don't listen to classical music? In the first case, it means that you have heavily reworked the piece.

It's possible to take a theme from a pop song and arranged it as a classical music piece, but you might want to further elaborate it (you could put it in the exposition of a sonata, use it as refrain of a rondo or write theme and variations).
The problem is that a pop song is usually written in the song form, while in classical music such form it's never used. Even the songs are not written in the song form.

If I heard a classical music piece that used the song form I would suspect that it is a rearrangement of a popular song, but if you would change the form I could believe that it's an original classical music piece.


That said, you should give us a real example.

I searched "yellow submarine orchestral" and there is no chance that I would confuse what I found with classical music. It sounds like a popular march for the carnival or for the circus. After all, how can you arrange a pop song as a classical music piece without losing the mood and the spirit of the original piece? If you create an orchestral arrangement, more likely you will want to mantain the original spirit/mood, so the result won't be classical music: you will obtain a popular orchestral piece, like this one.


----------



## HansZimmer

Luchesi said:


> Understanding. How would you teach about music without labels? Later on, the labels can be merged or even dismissed, but that would be after an amount of learning time and exposure.
> 
> I'm interested to know how long that amount of time actually is. As you can surmise, for me, it was a very long time because I like strict categories. ..I actually like them!


I like them too and my musical categories are strictly based on how you arrange a piece (and so, how it sounds). It seems like the most logical way to categorize music to me and I don't understand what is the point of the strange categorical criterias proposed by different users ("It's classical music only if you compose it in a public holiday divisible by three").


----------



## Luchesi

HansZimmer said:


> I like them too and my musical categories are strictly based on how you arrange a piece (and so, how it sounds). It seems like the most logical way to categorize music to me and I don't understand what is the point of the strange categorical criterias proposed by different users ("It's classical music only if you compose it in a public holiday divisible by three").


It seems to me that the music you hear becomes your categories. Your categories probably wouldn't be helpful for anybody else, but they might be.. ..for people like you. But isn't it always that way with Art?

Musical analysis is not part of this, so all we would have is what we hear. A non-musician would say, "Well, duh!". 

It's not that I don't understand these reactions, it's just that, for me, there's so much more to the appreciation of music, 

and I wish it was an easier, more straightforward subject that could be explored and fully addressed in a discussion forum.
As I think about CM I imagine the music that was influential from Bach (and then his sons) developing into the masterful pieces of Mozart, then into the 'shocks' of Beethoven, and then the curious reactions in the compositions of the next generation. In the later decades some of this repeats, at least how I imagine it. Many musicians would have different views, but however you've come to appreciate it, I think it's helpful to keep the whole flow in your mind. 

I don't know what non-musicians are able to do, without the scores. They might get a better experience, I don't know.


----------



## HansZimmer

Luchesi said:


> It seems to me that the music you hear becomes your categories. Your categories probably wouldn't be helpful for anybody else, but they might be.. ..for people like you. But isn't it always that way with Art?


Not only for me. There are many users in this discussion who seem to agree with my idea that "classical music" is simply a way to arrange music and that, therefore, if a film score is arranged like classical music, it's classical music.
Infact, if Classic FM uses this concept to decide what is and what is not allowed in the Classic FM Hall of Fame it probably means that their is a large audience for this simple interpretation of the word "classical music".



> Musical analysis is not part of this, so all we would have is what we hear.


I don't think that you have to be a composer to understand how a piece is arranged. Are you suggesting that you have to be an expert of music to understand if a piece is arranged like rock, pop, jazz, or whatever...?
What you need for understand this is only to have a not terrible musical ear.

A composer, on the other hand, is required to explain the engineering of a determined style of music (How do I compose a piece that sounds like rock/pop/jazz/...?).

It's a bit like to say that you don't have to be a car painter to understand that a car is red, but you have to be a car painter to be able to paint the car.



> As I think about CM I imagine the music that was influential from Bach (and then his sons) developing into the masterful pieces of Mozart, then into the 'shocks' of Beethoven, and then the curious reactions in the compositions of the next generation.


What do you don't understand is that at a certain point of this long story there are the composers of film music who take inspiration from classical music composers of the past. Some of them also produce classical music for the concert hall. One of them is John Williams.

Someone who want to study the story of classical music all the way will want to understand how it influenced the music of films. If you are not interested to this subject, then it means that you want to limit your knowledge of the history.

There is nothing bad in the fact that you don't want to study the impact of classical music in the modern cinematic music, but you can't tell other persons that they don't have to because your personal interest is only to understand how Beethoven has been influenced by Mozart and you don't want to continue the history untill John Williams.

You say that people are lazy and want to study only the music they like, but it seems to me that it's your case: why don't you want to study the impact of classical music on the cinematic music?


----------



## Forster

Luchesi said:


> I doubt that there's an interesting historical and developmental sequence in FM.


There is - like all things, only for those who will find it interesting!


----------



## HansZimmer

Forster said:


> If you really want to argue that Mozart is pop, that rather undermines your insistence that pop was born in 1950. Make your mind up.


No, the music of Mozart can not be pop, because pop defines a way to arrange music (it's a style) and Mozart arranged his music in a totally different way, namely, in the classical way of his time.

I was saying that the music of Mozart should be considered POPULAR (which is a different word) if you define popular music as "music with hummable melodies and good rythm". The word POPULAR, unlike POP, doesn't define a style, but abstract concepts. According to me, the categories "art music", "popular music" and "folk music" are abstract and therefore useless.

We could simply say that there is MUSIC and that some pieces are more serious/elaborated/deep than others.
I try to give you an input: the difference between the music of Mozart and much of what we call "popular music" is that that the latter is often based on short melodic phrases repeated over and over, while the former contains various elaborated themes in each pieces.
So, in reality it's the opposite: if you want hummable melodies you listen to the music of Mozart, while if you want trite melodies you listen to popular music.

That said, if we established that "art music" means "elaborated pieces" then we would probably have to expell different pieces of classical music from the category, and on the other we might insert in the category some rock pieces. That's why I think "art music Vs popular music" is a useless differentiation, while it's much more useful to categorize music according to the styles (the way you arrange it) and then making the charts of the best music in each style.


----------



## HansZimmer

Ethereality said:


> I have in my avatar that Brahms and John Williams are my favorite composers


If you like so much John Williams, then you might like this discussion: Schindler's List - Score - Exposition for the TC best film score award 1994



> but I illustrated why the latter is not Classical


Because, by your definition, classical music is the old music to which we still listen today, right?

The problem is that in reality the music composed by John Williams, Philip Glass and many others for the concert hall is considered classical music (the concept of "contemporary classical music" cancels the validity of your definition), so the real point is that some persons inside the classical music galaxy discriminate cinematic music for some strange reasons, although incidental music for the the theatre is accepted as a part of the repertoire of classical music.

Note that everything that has been said for film music is true for incidental music too: short pieces (in the "Egmont" of Beethoven there are pieces of 1 minute) written for images.


----------



## fbjim

Pop is not an aesthetic style. Pop is hugely stylistically diverse over the years because it has an omnivorous appetite for adopting trends in more underground music scenes and presenting them in a way that's digestible for a general audience, but it is far more defined by its position in the market and its context rather than any style.


----------



## Luchesi

HansZimmer said:


> Not only for me. There are many users in this discussion who seem to agree with my idea that "classical music" is simply a way to arrange music and that, therefore, if a film score is arranged like classical music, it's classical music.
> Infact, if Classic FM uses this concept to decide what is and what is not allowed in the Classic FM Hall of Fame it probably means that their is a large audience for this simple interpretation of the word "classical music".
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that you have to be a composer to understand how a piece is arranged. Are you suggesting that you have to be an expert of music to understand if a piece is arranged like rock, pop, jazz, or whatever...?
> What you need for understand this is only to have a not terrible musical ear.
> 
> A composer, on the other hand, is required to explain the engineering of a determined style of music (How do I compose a piece that sounds like rock/pop/jazz/...?).
> 
> It's a bit like to say that you don't have to be a car painter to understand that a car is red, but you have to be a car painter to be able to paint the car.
> 
> 
> 
> What do you don't understand is that at a certain point of this long story there are the composers of film music who take inspiration from classical music composers of the past. Some of them also produce classical music for the concert hall. One of them is John Williams.
> 
> Someone who want to study the story of classical music all the way will want to understand how it influenced the music of films. If you are not interested to this subject, then it means that you want to limit your knowledge of the history.
> 
> There is nothing bad in the fact that you don't want to study the impact of classical music in the modern cinematic music, but you can't tell other persons that they don't have to because your personal interest is only to understand how Beethoven has been influenced by Mozart and you don't want to continue the history untill John Williams.
> 
> You say that people are lazy and want to study only the music they like, but it seems to me that it's your case: why don't you want to study the impact of classical music on the cinematic music?


Well, you could look at the scores of symphonies or string quartets and compare them to some scores of FM. See what the differences are.


----------



## Forster

Luchesi said:


> Understanding. How would you teach about music without labels?


That's for specialists in teaching music to decide. I taught 5-11 year olds all subjects, including music, only to a level where labels could be used simplistically, and sparely. If labels came into the conversation, I'd explain their limitations.


----------



## HansZimmer

Luchesi said:


> Well, you could look at the scores of symphonies or string quartets and compare them to some scores of FM. See what the differences are.


You can not compare "some" with "some". You have to compare a precise score with an other precise score.

For example, we could start with analyzing the differences between these five pieces of classical music and see if the difference between the selected piece of the film score and any of the pieces inside this group is greater than the difference between the pieces in the group.

Now, to be honest it's not that we have to read the scores to understand that the scores are different, otherwise it means that we have a bad musical ear. This is the point: the so called "classical music" encloses very different pieces with some vague aesthetic elements in common. If the category is so vague, it's impossible to not find a place for film music that has those vague aesthetic elements. If you don't find a place for some film scores, it's only because you don't want to find it for some irrational snob reasons.


----------



## fbjim

HansZimmer said:


> Now, to be honest it's not that we have to read the scores to understand that the scores are different, otherwise it means that we have a bad musical ear. This is the point: the so called "classical music" encloses very different pieces with some vague aesthetic elements in common. If the category is so vague, it's impossible to not find a place for film music that has those vague aesthetic elements. If you don't find a place for some film scores, it's only because you don't want to find it for some irrational snob reasons.


You're looking at this wrong. The reason that classical music is so stylistically varied is not because it's aesthetic standards are "vague", it's because the category really doesn't have to do with aesthetics at all.


----------



## HansZimmer

fbjim said:


> You're looking at this wrong. The reason that classical music is so stylistically varied is not because it's aesthetic standards are "vague", it's because the category really doesn't have to do with aesthetics at all.


If you say that the category "classical music" has nothing to do with what you find in the scores it means that you are telling @Luchesi that he's wrong.

The difference between me and Luchesi is that he seems to think that there are very precise and deterministic elements to say if a score is classical or not, while I think that there is a vague common denominator in the basic aesthetic.
The vague common denominator is sufficient to determine whether a piece is of classical music or not.

If there wouldn't be any basic aesthetic in classical music a person wouldn't be able to determine if a piece is or not of classical music without to know if it's inside of the group, but we all know that it's possible to recognize classical music by ear.


However, if we can't use the word "classical music" to describe those vague common denominators, then you have to suggest a word to describe the style, otherwise the one of classical music would be the only style of music without a name.


----------



## fbjim

The category of "classical music" describes the circumstances and contexts which the works were created in, but it does not describe the works themselves. More simply, the scores are the result of the works being classical music, not the cause of it. 

It is entirely expected that works created among artists working in a similar time, with similar backgrounds and education will create music with aesthetic similarities, and listeners can recognize these similarities intuitively, even if they can't describe them.


----------



## HansZimmer

fbjim said:


> The category of "classical music" describes the circumstances and contexts which the works were created in, but it does not describe the works themselves. More simply, the scores are the result of the works being classical music, not the cause of it.
> 
> It is entirely expected that works created among artists working in a similar time, with similar backgrounds and education will create music with aesthetic similarities, and listeners can recognize these similarities intuitively, even if they can't describe them.


What is the name of the style? We have names for everything, so it's not possibile that it doesn't exist a name to indicate the style.

I really want to see if a rap song would be accepted in the classical music repertoire if it was produced in the context of classical music, whatever this means.


----------



## DaveM

fbjim said:


> You're looking at this wrong. The reason that classical music is so stylistically varied is not because it's aesthetic standards are "vague", *it's because the category really doesn't have to do with aesthetics at all.*





fbjim said:


> The category of "classical music" describes the circumstances and contexts which the works were created in, but it does not describe the works themselves. More simply, the scores are the result of the works being classical music, not the cause of it. *It is entirely expected that works created among artists working in a similar time, with similar backgrounds and education will create music with aesthetic similarities,* and listeners can recognize these similarities intuitively, even if they can't describe them.


According to your second post, classical music apparently does have something to do with aesthetics. Since aesthetics has to do with principles of beauty and artistic taste, classical music of the CP era was significantly tied to aesthetics.


----------



## HansZimmer

DaveM said:


> According to your second post, classical music apparently does have something to do with aesthetics. Since aesthetics has to do with principles of beauty and artistic taste, classical music of the CP era was significantly tied to aesthetics.


Maybe @fbjim might help us to clarify his point of view.

If John Williams composed this march in the context of classical music (whatever it means) it would classical music, but the same exact march composed in the context of a film production is not classical music but film music?


----------



## fbjim

DaveM said:


> According to your second post, classical music apparently does have something to do with aesthetics. Since aesthetics has to do with principles of beauty and artistic taste, classical music of the CP era was significantly tied to aesthetics.


The category itself does not define aesthetic or stylistic elements. There _are_ stylistic markers in music which- while not universal, are strongly associated with classical music, and this happens because "classical music" describes a tradition and lineage of music composition and performance. People composing in this tradition will of course have at least some shared ideas of aesthetics, but this is a _result_ of musicians composing in the context of this tradition. Even composers who reject these traditions entirely do so in the context of that tradition existing - breaking a rule only has significance when people believe the rule exists.

I've also been clear that reductions/transcriptions/performance versions of film scores written for concert hall performance are pretty clearly classical music. This is even the case if there is literally no difference between the two, as the context which performances are expected to occur is a big part of classical music

If I had to sum up my opinion here, it'd be something like -

a) Concert/transcriptions of film scores written for performance are clearly classical music
b) Film music _as a whole_ is clearly not classical music, nor can it be considered a subset of classical music, as the two terms describe composition practices which are neither identical, nor subsets of each other
c) While some film music shares aesthetic and composition similarities with some classical music, this isn't an argument for equating the two, as neither "film music" nor "classical music" actually describe music aesthetically.


----------



## Luchesi

Someone thought this was a piece by Chopin and uploaded it (until this was corrected by helpful commenters). 

But many people on YouTube thought that it might be a lost or unpublished piece by Chopin. Apparently this is what they thought CM sounded like..


----------



## HansZimmer

Luchesi said:


> Someone thought this was a piece by Chopin and uploaded it (until this was corrected by helpful commenters).
> 
> But many people on YouTube thought that it might be a lost or unpublished piece by Chopin. Apparently this is what they thought CM sounded like..


The right description of what happened is that someone uploaded a piece of Paul de Senneville in youtube with the title "Chopin - Waltzer of Spring" and so he/she deceived many persons. When I heard the piece, I thought "It doesn't sound like the usual style of Chopin, but maybe he was in the mood of writing something different than usual".

However, my clarification is important, because if you heard the piece you wouldn't think that it's a piece of Chopin, but if someone told you that it has been composed by Chopin, you might be deceived by the false information.

That said, the piece is composed in the style of Paul de Senneville, and it's not impossible to consider it as a piece of classical music. It's even written in the typical sonata form of Mozart (exposition - repetition of exposition - development - recapitulation - coda).


----------



## DaveM

fbjim said:


> *The category itself does not define aesthetic or stylistic elements.* There _are_ stylistic markers in music which- while not universal, are strongly associated with classical music, and this happens because "classical music" describes a tradition and lineage of music composition and performance. *People composing in this tradition will of course have at least some shared ideas of aesthetics, but this is a result of musicians composing in the context of this tradition.* Even composers who reject these traditions entirely do so in the context of that tradition existing - breaking a rule only has significance when people believe the rule exists...


My post specifically addressed your broad dissociation of aesthetics from classical music. I don’t think anyone can deny that during the CP era, people expected a level of beauty and artistic taste that was an important part of what defined classical music. Well into the 20th century, a significant number of people who didn’t listen to classical music could recognize it as such because of specific aesthetic characteristics. There were classical music record stores or CM annexes side-by-side with popular music sections and classical music performances on TV.

IMO, a significant segment of contemporary music that is now called classical music has drastically changed the aesthetics that were present previously and people who don’t listen to classical would be hard-pressed to recognize some contemporary works as CM which is why my comments on aesthetics are restricted to the CP era. That said, some highly melodic film music is more closely related to CP era CM than to contemporary music and as such some of the related aesthetic characteristics apply.

What you refer to as ‘_some shared ideas of aesthetics’ _was, at least, as much the result of what listeners expected as it was of what composers chose to create.


----------



## hammeredklavier

DaveM said:


> According to your second post, classical music apparently does have something to do with aesthetics. Since aesthetics has to do with principles of beauty and artistic taste, classical music of the CP era was significantly tied to aesthetics.


Depending on how you look at things, tonality is too much a straightjacket when it comes to expressing extreme emotions. Think of why film music composers resort to atonal techniques when expressing the most groteque emotions.


----------



## DaveM

hammeredklavier said:


> Depending on how you look at things, tonality is too much a straightjacket when it comes to expressing extreme emotions. Think of why film music composers resort to atonal techniques when expressing the most groteque emotions.


Not sure what that has to do with the part of my post you quoted.


----------



## hammeredklavier

DaveM said:


> Not sure what that has to do with the part of my post you quoted.


I thought you meant that classical music outside of the CP era was not tied to aesthetics.


----------



## DaveM

hammeredklavier said:


> I thought you meant that classical music outside of the CP era was not tied to aesthetics.


I have a pretty clear idea what the characteristics of the aesthetics were during the CP era as do I think most other people long familiar with classical music. The aesthetics of contemporary CM is less consistent and/or predictable and I’m not sure one could describe what they are for some of it.


----------



## Luchesi

HansZimmer said:


> The right description of what happened is that someone uploaded a piece of Paul de Senneville in youtube with the title "Chopin - Waltzer of Spring" and so he/she deceived many persons. When I heard the piece, I thought "It doesn't sound like the usual style of Chopin, but maybe he was in the mood of writing something different than usual".
> 
> However, my clarification is important, because if you heard the piece you wouldn't think that it's a piece of Chopin, but if someone told you that it has been composed by Chopin, you might be deceived by the false information.
> 
> That said, the piece is composed in the style of Paul de Senneville, and it's not impossible to consider it as a piece of classical music. It's even written in the typical sonata form of Mozart (exposition - repetition of exposition - development - recapitulation - coda).


I wonder if even one of the pianists who have covered it thought it was CM when s/he first encountered it.


----------



## HansZimmer

Luchesi said:


> I wonder if even one of the pianists who have covered it thought it was CM when s/he first encountered it.


We have already said that classical music is a vague definition. While I think that there some vague aesthetic elements (the way you arrange and execute music) to determine if something is classical music or not, @fbjim thinks that the category doesn't really define in any way the musical content.
In regards of you, it seems that you think that there are very objective and deterministic elements to determine if something is classical music or not.

The question is: would you able to write a computer program which determines if a score is classical music or not? I mean a program that would never fails. I ask because a computer program must be based on very objective/mathemtical elements: it can not interpret subjective elements.
The program would work only if every single piece of classical music contained determined markers in the score and any single piece outside classical didn't contain the same markers.
Try to think about this.


----------



## Forster

fbjim said:


> The category itself does not define aesthetic or stylistic elements. There _are_ stylistic markers in music which- while not universal, are strongly associated with classical music, and this happens because "classical music" describes a tradition and lineage of music composition and performance. People composing in this tradition will of course have at least some shared ideas of aesthetics, but this is a _result_ of musicians composing in the context of this tradition. Even composers who reject these traditions entirely do so in the context of that tradition existing - breaking a rule only has significance when people believe the rule exists.


Precisely. Anyone who takes the trouble to study the evolution of 'classical' music knows that it is music written by a certain group of people for a certain sort of audience to be performed in certain venues using certain musical resources for certain purposes using certain aesthetic structures and content BUT that gradual changes in each of these elements over the centuries mean that what some CM sounds like in 2022 bears little resemblance to CM in 1722. Some listeners object to some of those changes and would like to redefine what counts as CM. But that was always the case. Any composer who, in 1722 or 1822 or 1922 introduced innovations to their compositions found opposition to those changes from those who believed the rules were set in stone. Many of those changes have now become widespread and acceptable, and CM rolls on regardless.

In the case of FM, only time will tell if that kind of music is an evolution that CM accepts and rolls on with.


----------



## HansZimmer

Forster said:


> Precisely. Anyone who takes the trouble to study the evolution of 'classical' music knows that it is music written by a certain group of people for a certain sort of audience to be performed in certain venues using certain musical resources for certain purposes using certain aesthetic structures and content BUT that gradual changes in each of these elements over the centuries mean that what some CM sounds like in 2022 bears little resemblance to CM in 1722. Some listeners object to some of those changes and would like to redefine what counts as CM. But that was always the case. Any composer who, in 1722 or 1822 or 1922 introduced innovations to their compositions found opposition to those changes from those who believed the rules were set in stone. Many of those changes have now become widespread and acceptable, and CM rolls on regardless.
> 
> In the case of FM, only time will tell if that kind of music is an evolution that CM accepts and rolls on with.


This is quite the same with rock, rap and so on: they are musical cultures/traditions. Their asthetic can evolve with the time (listen to the old school rap and compare it with the modern rap, compare rock and roll with the modern rock), but this doesn't mean that if you produce a song with the rock and roll style (or one of the many styles already accepted in the rock domain) someone has the power to say that it's not rock.

I think the same about classical music. The encyclopedic definition which I pasted said that the music rooted in classical music is classical music, and there are users here who know more details than me about how the music of John Williams is rooted in classical music.


----------



## DaveM

Forster said:


> ..*BUT that gradual changes in each of these elements over the centuries mean that what some CM sounds like in 2022 bears little resemblance to CM in 1722.* *Some listeners object to some of those changes and would like to redefine what counts as CM. But that was always the case.* Any composer who, in 1722 or 1822 or 1922 introduced innovations to their compositions found opposition to those changes from those who believed the rules were set in stone. Many of those changes have now become widespread and acceptable, and CM rolls on regardless.


So, removing harmony and melody was just another one of those ‘gradual changes’ and was no different than innovations that transitioned music from the baroque to classical to romantic. Anyone who thinks/infers that the changes that occurred particularly in the 20th century are just part of the continuum that occurred before has not been paying attention.


----------



## Luchesi

HansZimmer said:


> We have already said that classical music is a vague definition. While I think that there some vague aesthetic elements (the way you arrange and execute music) to determine if something is classical music or not, @fbjim thinks that the category doesn't really define in any way the musical content.
> In regards of you, it seems that you think that there are very objective and deterministic elements to determine if something is classical music or not.
> 
> The question is: would you able to write a computer program which determines if a score is classical music or not? I mean a program that would never fails. I ask because a computer program must be based on very objective/mathemtical elements: it can not interpret subjective elements.
> The program would work only if every single piece of classical music contained determined markers in the score and any single piece outside classical didn't contain the same markers.
> Try to think about this.


An obvious and straightforward approach, and one that would probably be helpful in this, would be to eliminate all the exactly repeating notes in all the same figures and then count all the notes in the piece. It would be very helpful, also, to add the composer's other pieces and the history of music in the same encoded form (whatever that turns out to be). 

Later on, let AI learn whatever it can from all this information and see the results. I'm guessing that AI would get it wrong (if we consider humans to be correct about music).


----------



## fbjim

DaveM said:


> So, removing harmony and melody was just another one of those ‘gradual changes’ and was no different than innovations that transitioned music from the baroque to classical to romantic. Anyone who thinks/infers that the changes that occurred particularly in the 20th century are just part of the continuum that occurred before has not been paying attention.


This is just textbook special pleading. Even the deliberate eschewing of received wisdom and traditions only makes sense in the context of those traditions existing.


----------



## DaveM

fbjim said:


> This is just textbook special pleading. Even the deliberate eschewing of received wisdom and traditions only makes sense in the context of those traditions existing.


I am proud to announce that this post has won the ‘Shoot The Messenger‘ award for the month of September.


----------



## Luchesi

Forster said:


> Precisely. Anyone who takes the trouble to study the evolution of 'classical' music knows that it is music written by a certain group of people for a certain sort of audience to be performed in certain venues using certain musical resources for certain purposes using certain aesthetic structures and content BUT that gradual changes in each of these elements over the centuries mean that what some CM sounds like in 2022 bears little resemblance to CM in 1722. Some listeners object to some of those changes and would like to redefine what counts as CM. But that was always the case. Any composer who, in 1722 or 1822 or 1922 introduced innovations to their compositions found opposition to those changes from those who believed the rules were set in stone. Many of those changes have now become widespread and acceptable, and CM rolls on regardless.
> 
> In the case of FM, only time will tell if that kind of music is an evolution that CM accepts and rolls on with.


Are you saying that music would be very different?

The breakthrough points would be the same, I believe. The music would be different, but the development of the structures would be the same, I believe. And I'm wondering how harmony could be very different in the beginning, at the time when simple harmony is required.


----------



## Forster

DaveM said:


> So, removing harmony and melody was just another one of those ‘gradual changes’ and was no different than innovations that transitioned music from the baroque to classical to romantic.


What happened in the 20thC was exactly the same as what happened before (in terms of the pace of evolution) because it's only after the fact that music historians defined periods as if they had hard and fast boundaries. 

Changes made by individual composers may have been subtle, others more dramatic. But CM was being practised by many composers who were not all doing the same thing or making the same changes (or making any). Harmony and melody were never removed from CM as a whole. For example, Schoenberg, Sibelius and Vaughan Williams were near contemporaries. Boulez and Shostakovich overlapped by 50 years. The process evolved gradually and continues to evolve. Besides, as I said, while the structure and content of CM were two significant elements, other elements caused change and were changed too. Audiences changed, the means of distribution changed, the instruments changed, the invention of the microphone, recording technology, radio, understanding of acoustics etc etc.



Luchesi said:


> Are you saying that music would be very different?


No. I'm saying that over time, FM may come to be embraced as part of CM, though both will continue to evolve either on separate or conjoined paths)


----------



## DaveM

Forster said:


> What happened in the 20thC *was exactly the same as what happened before* (in terms of the pace of evolution) because it's only after the fact that music historians defined periods as if they had hard and fast boundaries...


I rather doubt that practically anybody believes that the changes in CM that occurred in the 20th century and beyond were ‘_exactly the same’_ as what happened before. If that were true, then the music (and related) of the 2nd Viennese School and the Avante-Garde category would be programmed in concerts and recordings (of said music) purchased just as much as the CM that was composed prior. Or maybe you want to argue that point also.


----------



## hammeredklavier

DaveM said:


> I rather doubt that practically anybody believes that the changes in CM that occurred in the 20th century and beyond were ‘_exactly the same’_ as what happened before. If that were true, then the music (and related) of the 2nd Viennese School and the Avante-Garde category would be programmed in concerts and recordings (of said music) purchased just as much as the *CM that was composed* prior. Or maybe you want to argue that point also.


"crowd-pleasers' who came"


----------



## HansZimmer

Luchesi said:


> An obvious and straightforward approach, and one that would probably be helpful in this, would be to eliminate all the exactly repeating notes in all the same figures and then count all the notes in the piece. It would be very helpful, also, to add the composer's other pieces and the history of music in the same encoded form (whatever that turns out to be).
> 
> Later on, let AI learn whatever it can from all this information and see the results. I'm guessing that AI would get it wrong (if we consider humans to be correct about music).


Your program has just deleted the symphony Eisen B6 of Leopold Mozart from classical music (this is only one example).






A lot of film music is better and more elaborated than this symphony. It seems that you are speaking about your favourite pieces of classical music, not about classical music. Classical music also contains thousands of mediocre composers and the worst pieces of the best composers.

Finally, if you delete repetitions from the movements of most symphonies of Mozart, the only thing that remains is the first exposition + 30 seconds of development (refrain and recapitulation deleted). Since the themes in the exposition also repeat notes, what does remain of the melody?

In other words, the real point of most symphonies of Mozart is the exposition (repeated more times) and the contained themes, and not the development. Mozart was a good theme writer and this is what many persons (including me) like of his music.
The other ingredients of music are usually very balanced, in order to not disturb too much the fluidity of the melody.


----------



## Forster

DaveM said:


> I rather doubt that practically anybody believes that the changes in CM that occurred in the 20th century and beyond were ‘_exactly the same’_ as what happened before. If that were true, then the music (and related) of the 2nd Viennese School and the Avante-Garde category would be programmed in concerts and recordings (of said music) purchased just as much as the CM that was composed prior. Or maybe you want to argue that point also.


I don't need to because I didn't say that. What I said was _"What happened in the 20thC was exactly the same as what happened before (*in terms of the pace of evolution*)". _Of course, that's arguable, because how do you measure "the pace of evolution"? I offered examples of things that changed and things that stayed the same: some composers in the 20th C who made profound changes to melody and harmony and some contemporaries who didn't. I would then suggest that the transition from Renaissance to Baroque was not an abrupt change, with all composers suddenly compelled to stop writing like Tallis and Byrd and having to adopt Caccini's innovations. But I don't know enough about the music of the late 1500s to offer examples of composers who continued to write "Renaissance" while most others were writing "Baroque" - I daresay there were some, but other factors will have influenced the cessation or continuation of musical structures and content. This "idiot's guide" crudely summarises the kind of things that were change or prompted change as each musical period shifted things along.



> Science, art and mythology all become fair game for inspiring new music. That said, the church is still massively influential and if _Top of the Pops_ was on, sacred works would continue to dominate the chart. So choral music is king, but stringed instruments are on the rise; viols,*lute*, cello, etc. Organs are cool, too, and the harpsichord comes into its own. Oh, and notated music is becoming a thing now, thanks to to something called printing.


and later...



> Classical music kind of comes into its own during this time, the forms, structures and techniques we are familiar with today are set out in the Baroque. Major and minor keys are used (instead of ‘modes’), notation systems are updated, forms (like the Fugue) developed and a little thing called the *orchestra* rears its head. Then there’s opera, that’s new too, along with all manner of other ‘types’ of work. With the orchestra comes the very early signs of the *symphony*, while *concertos* are a popular format for composers. Instrument-wise, strings really come into their own, along with woodwind, valveless horns and trumpets and the timpani.


and last...



> Today, musical boundaries are beginning to blur, as technological and stylistic attitudes shift. ‘*Post-Classical*’ music (another confusing term) often refers to the quasi-Minimalism of Max Richter and Ludovico Einaudi. Recogngisable classical elements fuse with designed soundscapes, either created with the aid of a computer, or actual musicians. Film music has inspired a whole generation of composers and musicians, so new music can be ‘cinematic’ without ever going near a film. Then there’s music for videogames, which came into its own in the last 20 years.
> [...]
> Periods change, composers influenced by all that came before. Whatever your view, today is really no different. Composers are still writing operas, symphonies, concertos, but they’re also writing film scores, game scores, music for art installations.


From What are the different periods of classical music? | Classical Music (classical-music.com) 

"Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose "


----------



## HansZimmer

DaveM said:


> I rather doubt that practically anybody believes that the changes in CM that occurred in the 20th century and beyond were ‘_exactly the same’_ as what happened before. If that were true, then the music (and related) of the 2nd Viennese School and the Avante-Garde category would be programmed in concerts and recordings (of said music) purchased just as much as the CM that was composed prior. Or maybe you want to argue that point also.


I agree. The abandonement of diatonic scales is a radical change of music that can not be compared with simple sytlistic changes (like the one that occured from baroque to classical and from classical to romantic).

To be honest, the exclusive place where I would want to hear atonal music is a horror/thriller film or in a symphonic poem to highlight a horror moment of the narrative.


----------



## Forster

HansZimmer said:


> I agree. The abandonement of diatonic scales is a radical change of music that can not be compared with simple sytlistic changes (like the one that occured from baroque to classical and from classical to romantic).
> 
> To be honest, the exclusive place where I would want to hear atonal music is a horror/thriller film.


No one has been comparing "radical changes" with "simple stylistic changes", and if they were, they would have the same difficulty as you now have in evidencing what is "radical" and what is "simple".


----------



## HansZimmer

Forster said:


> No one has been comparing "radical changes" with "simple stylistic changes", and if they were, they would have the same difficulty as you now have in evidencing what is "radical" and what is "simple".


Simple: paint a car in a different way.
Radical: replace the internal combustion engine with an electric engine.

Maybe it would be more clear if I used "superficial change" instead of "simple change" and "deep change" instead of "radical change".

To touch the scales in music is very much like touching the engine. The stylistic differences between Mozart and Beethoven are more superficial.


----------



## Forster

HansZimmer said:


> Simple: paint a car in a different way.
> Radical: replace the internal combustion engine with an electric engine.
> 
> Maybe it would be more clear if I used "superficial change" instead of "simple change" and "deep change" instead of "radical change".
> 
> To touch the scales in music is very much like touching the engine. The stylistic differences between Mozart and Beethoven are more superficial.


Your car analogy is insufficient. I understand the difference in meaning between 'simple' and 'radical', but you would need to show that, for example, the emergence of the orchestra in the early 1600s was merely a superficial change.


----------



## HansZimmer

Forster said:


> Your car analogy is insufficient. I understand the difference in meaning between 'simple' and 'radical', but you would need to show that, for example, the emergence of the orchestra in the early 1600s was merely a superficial change.


Infaci it was not. The instrumentation is a part of the engine of music as much as the melody.

So, for example rock music is a radical change in respect to classical music from the point of view of arrangements, but atonal classical music is a more radical change than rock from the compositional perspective (namely, in melody writing).

The value you give to the differences are subjective. For me, for example, the melody is more important than the arrangement for the appreciation of music, but maybe for someone is more important the arrangement.
This means that I can appreciate a rock piece if it has a good melody, but I've never been able to appreciate atonal classical music only because it's orchestral.


What I was saying is that Mozart and Beethoven have different styles, but they both used the same type of instruments and they both used the same fundamental engine for writing melodies.
Schoenberg, on the other hand, replaced the melodical engine with a new one, so the difference between his music and the one of Mozart and Beethoven is more radical then the difference between Mozart's music and Beethoven's music, which is more superficial.


----------



## 4chamberedklavier

I think a definition of music (& not just classical music) would be relevant here. How essential to music are tonality, melody, harmony, rhythm? How much of these can you take out and still have something that can be considered "music" and not (the much broader) sound art?

If someone thinks that something ceases to be 'music' when enough of these elements are removed, then the definition of classical music as "something played in concerts" won't hold much weight for them, & the inclusion of atonal works and exclusion of film music will only seem like a contradiction.


----------



## HansZimmer

4chamberedklavier said:


> I think a definition of music (& not just classical music) would be relevant here. How essential to music are tonality, melody, harmony, rhythm? How much of these can you take out and still have something that can be considered "music" and not (the much broader) sound art?
> 
> If someone thinks that something ceases to be 'music' when enough of these elements are removed, then the definition of classical music as "something played in concerts" won't hold much weight for them, & the inclusion of atonal works and exclusion of film music will only seem like a contradiction.


Making music means to combine different sounds between each others in order to obtain pleasure. Tonality is an expectation that many persons have from music, as well ad many others subjective values. To say that atonal music is not music is a bit like to say that rap music is not music. Many persons disqualify a genre of music from the category "music" only because the genere doesn't satisfy their personal expectations.


----------



## Forster

4chamberedklavier said:


> *I think a definition of music (& not just classical music) would be relevant here*. How essential to music are tonality, melody, harmony, rhythm? How much of these can you take out and still have something that can be considered "music" and not (the much broader) sound art?
> 
> If someone thinks that something ceases to be 'music' when enough of these elements are removed, then the definition of classical music as "something played in concerts" won't hold much weight for them, & the inclusion of atonal works and exclusion of film music will only seem like a contradiction.


I'm sure it would. There have been several attempts at a definition here in threads asking the question, as well as forays into in in threads not specifically about definitions. I guess we could try again.

Is silence music? (2009)
Thread for the people who think music=harmony. (2012)
What is Music? (2013)
What Constitutes Music? (2015)
What is music? (2016)


----------



## Forster

HansZimmer said:


> Infaci it was not.


Of course it was not (that is, the emergence of the orchestra was not a superficial change in the development of classical music).



HansZimmer said:


> The value you give to the differences are subjective.


When you say "you", do you mean me, or do you mean "one"? If the latter, of course. Which is why I argued that it would be difficult to determine which changes in the evolution of CM were significant and which were not without subjective opinion playing a part.



HansZimmer said:


> What I was saying is that Mozart and Beethoven have different styles, but they both used the same type of instruments and they both used the same fundamental engine for writing melodies.
> Schoenberg, on the other hand, replaced the melodical engine with a new one, so the difference between his music and the one of Mozart and Beethoven is more radical then the difference between Mozart's music and Beethoven's music, which is more superficial.


And you are entitled to your subjective opinion. However, we've not gone down this road to compare the change between Mozart and Beethoven with the change brought about by Schoenberg. We're here because of the claim that CM is really only that which was composed before the allegedly radical changes that occurred in the 20thC. Specifically, the idea that beautiful melodies and harmonies are integral to CM and that CM without these is not CM. My argument is not that there haven't been radical changes, or that 12-tone/serialism was not a radical change. My argument is first, that the history of CM over 500 years has seen constant change, sometimes radical, sometimes minor (though determining which is which is fraught with difficulty), and that the pace of change continues more or less unchanged. Second, that "Harmony and melody were never removed from CM as a whole" because CM is NOT only that which is practised by the exponents of the latest change. Third, that changes to the "aesthetics" of music are not the only changes that matter. Fourth, that as CM continues to change, it may yet allow for the inclusion of film music as "CM" because the definition of CM itself is evolving.


----------



## DaveM

^^^ I don’t know why you think the ‘unchanged’ pace of change of CM is so significant when it is the change that occurred and how it affected CM of the time that is significant. After the introduction of 12-tone/serialism in the early 20th century, it is well-known that for a time, composers who tried to compose what had been ‘traditional tonal‘ CM faced criticism from academia. It took some time before it was acceptable to compose some form of tonal CM by new composers. Now, what is called CM is a mish-mash of amelodic, atonal, avante-garde and tonal (albeit often with wandering melodies).

If there is one thing that cut the heart out of classical music, it was the change in what were the aesthetics that existed for at least 2 centuries. IMO, _*some*_ film music, particularly in the latter 20th century, returned the ‘look and feel’ of the aesthetics of beauty and artistic taste that had been lost in much of CM. Between approximately 1985 to 2010, I’ve heard more beautiful melodies coming from film composers than anything composed as classical music.

Some posters here may want to muddy the waters with irrelevant lists of ‘arguments’, but the simple fact is that the most important point is that it is the aesthetics of CM of the CP era that is keeping classical music alive. One could remove all of what is called CM going back to around 1950 and CM would survive. Remove all the CM composed before 1950 and it would be dead in the water. Some film music reassures me that, within limits, harmony and melody are still alive and well.

Here’s a film music work that afaik has not been presented anywhere in film music threads:


----------



## Forster

I'd say that the average fan of CM knows that they are investing in a hobby about the past, accepts that fact and doesn't waste their time lamenting that modern CM is not to their taste.

If you get your kicks out of film music that apes the aesthetics of the past, what's wrong with that? Enjoy.


----------



## DaveM

Forster said:


> I'd say that the average fan of CM knows that they are investing in a hobby about the past, accepts that fact and *doesn't waste their time lamenting that modern CM is not to their taste.*
> 
> If you get your kicks out of film music that apes the aesthetics of the past, what's wrong with that? Enjoy.


What‘s surprising is someone wasting their time responding to the people they think are wasting their time.


----------



## Forster

DaveM said:


> What‘s surprising is someone wasting their time responding to the people they think are wasting their time.


You're not really surprised and I'm not wasting my time, not least because I'm not only responding to you, but posting for others' benefit.

I notice you don't reject the substantive point I made.


----------



## DaveM

Forster said:


> You're not really surprised and I'm not wasting my time, not least because I'm not only responding to you, but posting for others' benefit.
> 
> I notice you don't reject the substantive point I made.


Perhaps I just accept that you either skip over posts or don’t really make an attempt to understand them because, for instance, your post #1295 in a pitiful attempt to take a shot at me, misses the fact that in the post you are responding to, I am pointing out a benefit in film music that has similarities to classical music of the past which happens to be closely related to the topic of the OP.


----------



## Forster

Maybe I just think you post ******** but am too polite to say so, until your "pitiful'.


----------



## hammeredklavier

DaveM said:


> the simple fact is that the most important point is that it is the aesthetics of CM of the CP era that is keeping classical music alive.


1. So in other words, the "crowd-pleasers" are?
2. Why does classical music (or any other kind of music for that matter) even need to stay alive?


----------



## mmsbls

First, please keep the discussion civil without negative personal comments.

We have had many discussions on TC about what music should be considered classical music. Whenever I have consulted books, classical websites, or professional classical musicians (performers, composers, professors in music school), I have always found the same result. Classical music covers music from the Medieval through to modern and contemporary. Obviously those eras have very different esthetics, and the music can sound quite different. The definition of classical music then does not depend on the esthetic or the particular type of sound, It covers music that follows the formal musical tradition of the Western World. Maybe that's not a very precise definition, but it's clear that experts don't view the sound or esthetic of the music as critical in defining classical music. Yes, Medieval and contemporary classical music can sound quite strange to many people, but it's still classical music.

I don't have as much input concerning what separates film music from classical music. Whenever I have read about film composers, they have always distinguished film music from classical based based on the process not the sound. mikeh describes some of the clear differences in his posts #53 and #1177, and the film composers I have read say similar things. 

I do not know the view of every film composer, but I suspect they generally agree on the differences between film and classical. I believe those differences have nothing to do with what the music sounds like. So it's fine to personally view some or all film music as classical, but there seems to be a clear reason film composers view it differently.


----------



## hammeredklavier

mmsbls said:


> We have had many discussions on TC about what music should be considered classical music.


It's a matter of perspective. I'm not sure what people really mean when they say "[a work of tonal music] encompasses all emotions". I just think of it as a sentimental rhetoric, not to be taken seriously. Does tonal music express "extreme horror", for instance? There is a reason why European music moved away from tonality- for some, it's too restrictive in expression.


----------



## Luchesi

hammeredklavier said:


> It's a matter of perspective. I'm not sure what people really mean when they say "[a work of tonal music] encompasses all emotions". I just think of it as a sentimental rhetoric, not to be taken seriously. Does tonal music express "extreme horror", for instance? There is a reason why European music moved away from tonality- for some, it's too restrictive in expression.


I think the atonal groupings serve the same functions as would be expected in tonal music, and your brain will try to make it all reminiscent of tonal music in most works.

I was told by a composer that any way your brain can make tonal sense out of what it hears, even if it's just snippets, it will..


----------



## Forster

hammeredklavier said:


> It's a matter of perspective. I'm not sure what people really mean when they say "[a work of tonal music] encompasses all emotions". I just think of it as a sentimental rhetoric, not to be taken seriously. Does tonal music express "extreme horror", for instance? There is a reason why European music moved away from tonality- for some, it's too restrictive in expression.





Luchesi said:


> I think the atonal groupings serve the same functions as would be expected in tonal music, and your brain will try to make it all reminiscent of tonal music in most works.
> 
> I was told by a composer that any way your brain can make tonal sense out of what it hears, even if it's just snippets, it will..


IMO, this is a side issue. Just because some wish to reject the definition of CM that includes the "atonal" and avant-garde of the 20thC and beyond doesn't mean that they are right to do so.


----------



## HansZimmer

DaveM said:


>


A really good piece, thanks!


----------



## HansZimmer

mmsbls said:


> First, please keep the discussion civil without negative personal comments.
> 
> We have had many discussions on TC about what music should be considered classical music. Whenever I have consulted books, classical websites, or professional classical musicians (performers, composers, professors in music school), I have always found the same result. Classical music covers music from the Medieval through to modern and contemporary. Obviously those eras have very different esthetics, and the music can sound quite different. The definition of classical music then does not depend on the esthetic or the particular type of sound, It covers music that follows the formal musical tradition of the Western World. Maybe that's not a very precise definition, but it's clear that experts don't view the sound or esthetic of the music as critical in defining classical music. Yes, Medieval and contemporary classical music can sound quite strange to many people, but it's still classical music.
> 
> I don't have as much input concerning what separates film music from classical music. Whenever I have read about film composers, they have always distinguished film music from classical based based on the process not the sound. mikeh describes some of the clear differences in his posts #53 and #1177, and the film composers I have read say similar things.
> 
> I do not know the view of every film composer, but I suspect they generally agree on the differences between film and classical. I believe those differences have nothing to do with what the music sounds like. So it's fine to personally view some or all film music as classical, but there seems to be a clear reason film composers view it differently.


"Medieval" is not considered a classical music period, as far as I know. The first group of the history is "baroque".

Yes, the aesthetic of classical music has changed with the time, but this is not a good argument to say that classical music is not a style of music.
Infact, the old school rap music is different than modern rap, but we still consider rap as a musical genre.
We simply have to say that music genres evolve with the time.

Is composing film music different in respect to compose a symphony? Yes, for sure, but it's also true for incidental music.

Look at this playlist with all the pieces of "Egmont" by Beethoven: Beethoven: Egmont - Complete Incidental Music, Op. 84 - 1. Lied: "Die Trommel gerühret" - YouTube

The work is composed by many short pieces (1-6 minutes) subservient to a narrative and not by four large standalone movements like in symphonies.
It's clear that the compositional approach is different and to highlight the differences we say that the work A is a symphony while the work B is incidental music. It's not that we have invented a new musical genre for incidental music.


----------



## HansZimmer

Forster said:


> IMO, this is a side issue. Just because some wish to reject the definition of CM that includes the "atonal" and avant-garde of the 20thC and beyond doesn't mean that they are right to do so.


Dave doesn't want to eliminate atonal music from classical music. He is simply saying that atonal music has been accepted inside classical music despite the differences with the music of the great fathers (Bach, Mozart, Beethoven,...) but when it comes to film music the differences are used to reject it as a form of classical music.
If we looked at the scores, like someone suggests, wouldn't we find more similarities between film music and incidental music of the classical period?


----------



## Forster

HansZimmer said:


> Dave doesn't want to eliminate atonal music from classical music. He is simply saying that atonal music has been accepted inside classical music despite the differences with the music of the great fathers (Bach, Mozart, Beethoven,...) but when it comes to film music the differences are used to reject it as a form of classical music.
> If we looked at the scores, like someone suggests, wouldn't we find more similarities between film music and incidental music of the classical period?


Round in circles I think. Of course, if you think it's only about the sound of the music, you can argue your case, and DaveM's, that if music that sounds like x can be counted as CM, then why not y, which sounds even more like CM than x does.

If you think it's not about the sound, as others have argued, but about the traditions of composing, the performing, the studying, the training etc, then your case fails.

Impasse?


----------



## Art Rock

HansZimmer said:


> "Medieval" is not considered a classical music period, as far as I know. The first group of the history is "baroque".


As someone once said "You are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts".

Before baroque came Medieval (pre 1400) and Renaissance (1400-1600). Many famous composers belong to these two periods.


----------



## mmsbls

HansZimmer said:


> Yes, the aesthetic of classical music has changed with the time, but this is not a good argument to say that classical music is not a style of music.
> Infact, the old school rap music is different than modern rap, but we still consider rap as a musical genre.
> We simply have to say that music genres evolve with the time.


Musical genres do evolve. Early and late Romantic music sound different. I think it's a stretch to say that the style of Renaissance music evolved into Stockhausen's Kontakte, and both are Renaissance music. Rather the classical music tradition allows for major changes in musical output, and various works fall within very different styles. 



> Is composing film music different in respect to compose a symphony? Yes, for sure, but it's also true for incidental music.
> 
> Look at this playlist with all the pieces of "Egmont" by Beethoven: Beethoven: Egmont - Complete Incidental Music, Op. 84 - 1. Lied: "Die Trommel gerühret" - YouTube
> 
> The work is composed by many short pieces (1-6 minutes) subservient to a narrative and not by four large standalone movements like in symphonies.
> It's clear that the compositional approach is different and to highlight the differences we say that the work A is a symphony while the work B is incidental music. It's not that we have invented a new musical genre for incidental music.


Do you understand the argument that mikeh (and film composers) are making? You seem to be ignoring that argument. Film composers would say that the process for composing incidental music is similar to composing other classical music but quite different from composing film music. mikeh gave several clear examples of how they are different in his post #1177.


----------



## Luchesi

Forster said:


> Round in circles I think. Of course, if you think it's only about the sound of the music, you can argue your case, and DaveM's, that if music that sounds like x can be counted as CM, then why not y, which sounds even more like CM than x does.
> 
> If you think it's not about the sound, as others have argued, but about the traditions of composing, the performing, the studying, the training etc, then your case fails.
> 
> Impasse?


If I ask, "Why would somebody emphasize what something 'sounds like' (to themselves personally), when it was all written out in the scores long before?". What has been the answer? I think we're discussing this from different world experiences (experiences of the world and reality).

I'm trying to think of another debate that's similar to this, when two debaters have led such long lives so differently (and the debate is about a subject that borders on the mysterious, and personal to the core..).


----------



## DaveM

Forster said:


> Round in circles I think. Of course, if you think it's only about the sound of the music, you can argue your case, and DaveM's, that if music that sounds like x can be counted as CM, then why not y, which sounds even more like CM than x does.
> 
> If you think it's not about the sound, as others have argued, but about the traditions of composing, the performing, the studying, the training etc, then your case fails.
> 
> Impasse?


Actually, I only got into this subject when soon after the OP, the premise that some film music could be seen as under the tent of classical music was rejected out-of-hand by some with the main argument being that it was not part of ‘traditional CM composing’ or some such. My response which had more to do with avante-garde than atonal music was how does a form of music without harmony or melody get an automatic pass while (some) film music which often has much of both isn’t even considered. And, just for the record, I’m not even sure that avante-garde works resulted from the same tradition of CM composing.

In any event, contrary to what is being inferred, I never presented this as a black and white issue. I’m not suggesting that atonal music or even avant-garde (the ship has sailed for the latter) be removed from the CM category. I just don’t believe the ‘traditional of composing’ argument automatically trumps the argument that some film music is very CM-like. So, for me, this is an interesting set of differing opinions/perspectives. There is no impasse.


----------



## janxharris

I don't know if Masquerade by Anna Clyne might (possibly) be worth considering here. I've read comments (presumably criticisms) that it sounds like film music. It's performed in the concert hall as classical music.


----------



## Luchesi

DaveM said:


> Actually, I only got into this subject when soon after the OP, the premise that some film music could be seen as under the tent of classical music was rejected out-of-hand by some with the main argument being that it was not part of ‘traditional CM composing’ or some such. My response which had more to do with avante-garde than atonal music was how does a form of music without harmony or melody get an automatic pass while (some) film music which often has much of both isn’t even considered. And, just for the record, I’m not even sure that avante-garde works resulted from the same tradition of CM composing.
> 
> In any event, contrary to what is being inferred, I never presented this as a black and white issue. I’m not suggesting that atonal music or even avant-garde (the ship has sailed for the latter) be removed from the CM category. I just don’t believe the ‘traditional of composing’ argument automatically trumps the argument that some film music is very CM-like. So, for me, this is an interesting set of differing opinions/perspectives. There is no impasse.


What helps me think about and appreciate Modern music is thinking about causes of this same path which the art of painting took, about the same time period. 
As with painters, composers, who are only human, are always striving for more and more effective tools (as they see them).


----------



## Chat Noir

Isn't film music actually something different with a somewhat different aim? I have a little insight into this because I was involved in it construction-wise and also editing the recorded music.
I wouldn't apply this to every score produced, but the modern film scoring arena is not really an 'art' arena, it is a largely production-line arena. Those who like film music will perhaps have certain composers they admire - for me it's composers like Alex North, Miklos Roza, Bernard Herrmann, Leonard Rosenman, Phillipe Sarde, Michel Legrand... - and the diversity there is arguably different than what's there today. Increasingly the field has narrowed to a particular sound and style which is considered 'correct'; especially for large productions. And of course Hans Zimmer's name will have to be mentioned as his approach is the one responsible for this. Clearly because he delivers and on time. The line between product delivered on time and 'art' is very blurred now.

I would argue that the 'classical' music written for film scores is very often more like pastiche or written to meet an expectation of what that music is supposed to sound like in a film. A lot of this music is heavily edited and created in software studios from multiple sessions of recorded material (sometimes from totally different sessions). It is a product. It's much more rare now to have a single artist composer who creates a tailor-made score over a period of time according to an artistically-driven process. And of course film music fans will know that this production-line approach was also the case in the old Hollywood system, though they employed many composers we would consider 'classical'.

Quite a lot of the best film scores in latter years haven't been orchestral type scores. Jazz and funk (in combination with orchestral scores) changed that..so scores like that for _Bullitt _by Lalo Schifrin and those from the '50s employing modern jazz.

I don't think orchestral film music is really 'classical music' proper, but that it is informed by it (as per its origins and use from shows, ballet and opera), but that sometimes it crosses over,


----------



## Luchesi

Chat Noir said:


> Isn't film music actually something different with a somewhat different aim? I have a little insight into this because I was involved in it construction-wise and also editing the recorded music.
> I wouldn't apply this to every score produced, but the modern film scoring arena is not really an 'art' arena, it is a largely production-line arena. Those who like film music will perhaps have certain composers they admire - for me it's composers like Alex North, Miklos Roza, Bernard Herrmann, Leonard Rosenman, Phillipe Sarde, Michel Legrand... - and the diversity there is arguably different than what's there today. Increasingly the field has narrowed to a particular sound and style which is considered 'correct'; especially for large productions. And of course Hans Zimmer's name will have to be mentioned as his approach is the one responsible for this. Clearly because he delivers and on time. The line between product delivered on time and 'art' is very blurred now.
> 
> I would argue that the 'classical' music written for film scores is very often more like pastiche or written to meet an expectation of what that music is supposed to sound like in a film. A lot of this music is heavily edited and created in software studios from multiple sessions of recorded material (sometimes from totally different sessions). It is a product. It's much more rare now to have a single artist composer who creates a tailor-made score over a period of time according to an artistically-driven process. And of course film music fans will know that this production-line approach was also the case in the old Hollywood system, though they employed many composers we would consider 'classical'.
> 
> Quite a lot of the best film scores in latter years haven't been orchestral type scores. Jazz and funk (in combination with orchestral scores) changed that..so scores like that for _Bullitt _by Lalo Schifrin and those from the '50s employing modern jazz.
> 
> I don't think orchestral film music is really 'classical music' proper, but that it is informed by it (as per its origins and use from shows, ballet and opera), but that sometimes it crosses over,


We should find out from the composer what he calls it. From what he's written about it, or at least from what we think his intentions were.


----------



## Chat Noir

Luchesi said:


> We should find out from the composer what he calls it. From what he's written about it, or at least from what we think his intentions were.


The composer is likely to call it a 'job'. My main point is that a lot of music used in media is not even meant to be an artwork. Some are and some will consider it to be, but it will be judged on individual merit. After all the core quality of something like Alexander Desplat's score to _Girl with the Pearl Earring _relies so heavily on the middle movement theme from Mozart's piano sonata in F major, K.332, (the second presentation of the theme when it changes to Bb min) that we could say Mozart scored that film (Mozart didn't receive a posthumous Golden Globe). Though maybe not, that's why I called it 'pastiche' or borrowing.


----------



## DaveM

Chat Noir said:


> Those who like film music will perhaps have certain composers they admire - for me it's composers like Alex North, Miklos Roza, Bernard Herrmann, Leonard Rosenman, Phillipe Sarde, Michel Legrand...
> 
> Quite a lot of the best film scores in latter years haven't been orchestral type scores. Jazz and funk (in combination with orchestral scores) changed that..so scores like that for _Bullitt _by Lalo Schifrin and those from the '50s employing modern jazz.


You seem to be basing your opinion on some very old, some long gone, film composers. Bullitt is a 1968 movie (over a half century old). A lot of film music that can remind of classical music was composed between 1985 and 2010.


----------



## Luchesi

Chat Noir said:


> The composer is likely to call it a 'job'. My main point is that a lot of music used in media is not even meant to be an artwork. Some are and some will consider it to be, but it will be judged on individual merit. After all the core quality of something like Alexander Desplat's score to _Girl with the Pearl Earring _relies so heavily on the middle movement theme from Mozart's piano sonata in F major, K.332, (the second presentation of the theme when it changes to Bb min) that we could say Mozart scored that film (Mozart didn't receive a posthumous Golden Globe). Though maybe not, that's why I called it 'pastiche' or borrowing.


Well, one of my points has been that I don't think a composer would call it classical music. So why should we think of it that way? Or teach it that way? There might be some rare exceptions out there. With your experience do you know of any?

Of course rare exceptions don't help on either side of the debate.


----------



## Chat Noir

DaveM said:


> You seem to be basing your opinion on some very old, some long gone, film composers. Bullitt is a 1968 movie (over a half century old). A lot of film music that can remind of classical music was composed between 1985 and 2010.


Hi. Well that wasn't the crux of my entire post. That score was to point to the changes that moved film scores away from the musical tradition which was originally employed. Of course orchestral film music has been produced since then.


----------



## Chat Noir

Luchesi said:


> Well, one of my points has been that I don't think a composer would call it classical music. So why should we think of it that way? Or teach it that way? There might be some rare exceptions out there. With your experience do you know of any?
> 
> Of course rare exceptions don't help on either side of the debate.


We seem to be broadly in agreement.


----------



## fbjim

if anything the practice of film scoring has diverged from classical (where you could point to the likes of Korngold/Prokofiev/Shostakovich) into its own separate discipline since the early days of film. it's broadly similar to how modern electronic music arguably started as part of the avant-garde classical scene (see someone like Subotnick) but quickly became a separate discipline entirely


----------



## DaveM

Luchesi said:


> Well, one of my points has been that I don't think a composer would call it classical music. So why should we think of it that way? Or teach it that way? There might be some rare exceptions out there. With your experience do you know of any?
> 
> Of course rare exceptions don't help on either side of the debate.


Examples of film music that remind of classical music are not rare. And in a number of the examples I’ve presented they required a melody and sometimes some development not unlike classical music. In those cases, regardless of the fact that the composer knew he/she was composing for a film, doesn’t necessarily exclude the fact that they might have been thinking of the work as classical-like. After all, a number of, if not most, film composers have a CM background.

Is the composing process by which Alan Silvestri came up with this work likely closer to that of classical music than what sometimes passes for classical music these days? I’m not contesting that a lot of film music is quite different from classical music nor that the process of producing it is often quite different. I am contesting the broad black-and-white broad brush that is inferred in your post above.


----------



## hammeredklavier

DaveM said:


> Examples of film music that remind of classical music are not rare.


Whatabout this kind-




The Grudge (2004) Stairs Scene


----------



## HansZimmer

DaveM said:


>


This piece is excellent.


----------



## HansZimmer

hammeredklavier said:


> Whatabout this kind-
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Grudge (2004) Stairs Scene


Isn't this an example of a film score that it's not classical?


----------



## Forster

Chat Noir said:


> {...]
> I would argue that the 'classical' music written for film scores is very often more like pastiche or written to meet an expectation of what that music is supposed to sound like in a film. [...]


You're right. For most mainstream films, the "expectations" are determined by the director who has in mind a target audience, a mood, an emotional journey, a set of associations. If a director asks the composer for "something classical" they are aiming at a different set of expectations than if they ask for jazz or pop. _Schindler's List_ would be a profoundly different film if it had a jazz score; _Bullitt _a less 'cool' experience if it had a classical soundtrack! Of course, those are crude examples. Given that 'classical' encompasses a very broad range of musical styles, a director who asked for 'classical' would need to be more specific: Monteverdi? Haydn? Wagner? Schoenberg? Berio? Part? Crumb?


----------



## mikeh375

Forster said:


> You're right. For most mainstream films, the "expectations" are determined by the director who has in mind a target audience, a mood, an emotional journey, a set of associations. If a director asks the composer for "something classical" they are aiming at a different set of expectations than if they ask for jazz or pop. _Schindler's List_ would be a profoundly different film if it had a jazz score; _Bullitt _a less 'cool' experience if it had a classical soundtrack! Of course, those are crude examples. *Given that 'classical' encompasses a very broad range of musical styles, a director who asked for 'classical' would need to be more specific: Monteverdi? Haydn? Wagner? Schoenberg? Berio? Part? Crumb?*


Ridley Scott can be very specific when he uses well known classics as temp tracks. Just ask Hans Zimmer (the real one that is). The scene in 'Gladiator' the morning after the opening battle scenes is a crib from Prokofiev's 'Lieutenant Kije', specifically the 'Romance'. I know I've mentioned before, Horner's jaw dropping rip of the 'Sanctus' from Britten's 'War Requiem' for his score to 'Troy' which landed him in hot legal water with the Britten Estate. I realise Horner was writing under extreme circumstances and had to complete the score very quickly however these are not isolated incidents.

All of which shows that pastiche is a factor in briefs to composers as is the ocassional legally dodgy, related and sometimes necessary requirement to "get as close to the temp as one can". This is a particularly irksome problem for a composer who has to contend with temp tracks that will have been listened to many times by the editor and director during post production and as a result, they will have gotten used to the nuances between action, dialogue and the temp music. Therefore any deviations by a specially written cue that are noticably different from the temp can sometimes be met with resistance and rejection fom the director and/or editor. Then the new cue will be subject to revision and that inevitably means that the composer has to write more closely to the temp in all aspects - language (emotion), theme, rhythm, pace and orchestration - to get approval.

Btw, even existing film scores can be used as temps. So composers are also copying, or more kindly, writing pastiche on, their potential rivals music. All of which tends to shore up and validate the consistent use of a particular style and language in certain genres. This is to be expected in a profit orientated business as successful formulas (in all aspects of film, from shooting to music), will be the dominant ones until they run their course.

I don't recall Mahler ever being told to technically and emotionally write his symphonies in a style more compatible with, or closely aligned to Tchaikovsky's.

Here's Horner v Britten. The Horner rip-off starts at 42" in, the Britten starts at 2'15". Would I go to a concert to hear Horner's 'version', not bloody likely.


----------



## HansZimmer

mmsbls said:


> Do you understand the argument that mikeh (and film composers) are making? You seem to be ignoring that argument. Film composers would say that the process for composing incidental music is similar to composing other classical music but quite different from composing film music. mikeh gave several clear examples of how they are different in his post #1177.


I'm not ignoring the argument, but:
1) What do you know about the artistic freedom of Beethoven in Egmont? I've already written that Beethoven in that period was writing long symphonies and long chamber works, so do you think that he composed a lot of 1 minute pieces for Egmont because he wanted? What if the director of the play had told him how the various pieces were supposed to sound?
If we knew that Beethoven would had to compose Egmont under a strong pression, would we exclude the work from classical music? I don't think so.

2) The argument for me is not relevant, because my classification is exclusively based on the style and my argument is simply that a lot of film music sounds classical.


----------



## Forster

DaveM said:


> [...]
> There is no impasse.


There is an impasse between the two views I set out in my post #1308; between those who think it's about the aesthetics, the sounds of the music (and its similarity to CP tonal CM) and those who think it's about the purpose, method, performance, audience, teaching (of whatever composition) - essentially summed up by Edward Bast a while back, though he is not the only member who holds this view. Hans, it seems to me, is wedded to his view and has not accepted any of the counter arguments to his. Of course, it takes two sides to make an impasse, but since Hans only chooses to repeat his same view in a variety of ways and not engage with those who think otherwise, it's difficult for those who think otherwise to move.

My own view, in case it has been lost in my sometimes protracted attempts to engage with Hans, is that my personal opinions about what is and isn't CM is hardly relevant to what the industry thinks (the music schools, the concert halls, the composers, the orchestras, the radio stations etc etc). Nor is it of any significance what Hans' "classification' is based on. 

The fact that what sounds obviously like CM might be considered CM - as time moves things forwards - is of no consequence. Furthermore, it doesn't matter. FM is FM. Period.


----------



## HansZimmer

Chat Noir said:


> Isn't film music actually something different with a somewhat different aim?


The aim is always the same: creating music. Classical music, film music, pop music, rap music, jazz... what is the difference? The style, not the aim. When Elton John is writing a pop piece is not thinking "Now I will compose some bad music". The same is true for the good film music composers. The idea that only the classical music composers have the intent to produce music of quality* is really funny and of course it's a thing that you read only in classical music forums.

*Quality is defined by the expectations of the genre (for example, the expectations in rap music is "complex lyrics, good rythm and nice flows", so you can't say that a piece of rap music is not of quality because it doesn't contain elaborated melodies).



> And of course Hans Zimmer's name will have to be mentioned as his approach is the one responsible for this. Clearly because he delivers and on time.


Hans Zimmer wrote that he usually doesn't receive deadlines.



Chat Noir said:


> The composer is likely to call it a 'job'. My main point is that a lot of music used in media is not even meant to be an artwork.


Music is always art. Even when you compose a simple song for guitar and voice you are making art. To then establish if it's good art or bad art is an other thing, but there is a lot of space for subjectivity in this.

No one here is saying that all film music is of good quality. My point of view is that the film scores nominated at the grammies and at the academy awards are usually good (if not excellent).
The composers who have become celebrities (John Williams, Hans Zimmer, Klaus Badelt, Thomas Newman, Alan Menken,...) according to me are all great composers, which means that they produce good art, indipendently from the fact that it's or not classical music.

Even if we concluded that the music of John Williams is not classical, it would be still excellent music, because in my dictionary "classical" defines the style and not the quality. If this was a discussion about quality, it would be already closed, because a lot of film music has an excellent quality (there are works of film music which I rate as "excellent" and works of classical music that I rate as "bad").


----------



## HansZimmer

Forster said:


> Hans, it seems to me, is wedded to his view and has not accepted any of the counter arguments to his. Of course, it takes two sides to make an impasse, but since Hans only chooses to repeat his same view in a variety of ways and not engage with those who think otherwise, it's difficult for those who think otherwise to move.


If my argument is that a lot of film music sounds like classical music, to create counter arguments means to show that it doesn't really sound like it. Only Luchesi has tried to speak about the scores, but I think that his arguments are very weak, because he basically says that in film music there are repetitions while in classical music there are not, but the latter consideration is objectively false.

He tried with the argument that film music is not elaborated, but I showed how much elaborated are some film scores.

A user in youtube wrote that film music might superficially sound like classical music but that the former doesn't follow the typical forms of classical music (sonata, rondo, theme and variations, minuet & trio,...) and therefore is not classical music, but I reject this argument because it's perfectly possible to write a classical music piece in free form, and sometimes is probably necessary to do so (I'm thinking about programmatic music and incidental music, where the melody must follow a narrative and not a form).
Furthermore this counter argument strongly contrasts with the counter argument of Luchesi, according to which there are not repetitions in classical music: rondo, sonata and minuet & trio encourage repetitions (in a rondo there is the refrain, in the sonata form the themes in the exposition are usually repeated three times and the development section uses the themes in the exposition and in minuet & trio the minuet is repeated twice).

Although I rejected the counter arguments exposed here above, they are at least counter arguments. Many other arguments in this discussion are not counter argument of my arguments.


----------



## mikeh375

HansZimmer said:


> ..............The argument for me is not relevant, because my classification is exclusively based on the style and *my argument is simply that a lot of film music sounds classical.*


Well if it quacks like a duck.....


----------



## HansZimmer

mikeh375 said:


> Well if it quacks like a duck.....
> 
> View attachment 175363


"If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck."

The duck test is not only based on "it quacks like a duck".

No one here has explained why this film score doesn't look like a waltz, doesn't swim like a waltz and doesn't quack like a waltz.


----------



## Chat Noir

HansZimmer said:


> The aim is always the same: creating music. Classical music, film music, pop music, rap music, jazz... what is the difference? The style, not the aim. When Elton John is writing a pop piece is not thinking "Now I will compose some bad music". The same is true for the good film music composers. The idea that the only the classical music composers have the intent to produce music of quality* is really funny and of course it's a thing that you read only in classical music forums.


The aim is not always the same. There is a very big difference between the creation of art music and falling back onto the Lego-kit of sounds and 'tricks' to meet a production requirement. Even when the composer engaged for a film is 'good', the requirements are often preordained with some room for manoeuvre.



HansZimmer said:


> *Quality is defined by the expectations of the genre (for example, the expectations in rap music is "complex lyrics, good rythm and nice flows", so you can't say that a piece of rap music is not of quality because it doesn't contain elaborated melodies).


I didn't say much about 'quality'. It's a rather debatable noun. "Expectations of a genre" doesn't say much about 'quality', just about expectations of some arbitrary standard. It's one of the reasons there was ever a heated dispute about the trajectory of modern 'classical' music at all; since there is an expectation about how 'classical music' should sound. 'Quality' on that score then just becomes a 'view'.
I don't accept your rap example anyway because there could be so many ways of deciding what made a particular song good, bad, desirable, authentic, popular, or whatever.



HansZimmer said:


> Hans Zimmer wrote that he usually doesn't receive deadlines.


Only headlines? Of course he doesn't because he's proven his delivery credentials and it's known what will happen. He'll propose something and deliver it.



HansZimmer said:


> Music is always art. Even when you compose a simple song for guitar and voice you are making art. To then establish if it's good art or bad art is an other thing, but there is a lot of space for subjectivity in this.


Is it? I doubt that. It may all be a creative act to some level or another, and true to the etymology of 'art' as creative skill, but if all it takes it that someone 'makes' or 'does' something then we have a new question, a new problem. It's not one I care to solve, but what you're saying is there is equality between some artist creatively labouring for years to make an original statement and e.g. the council tiling an underpass in the style of Andy Warhol silkscreens. The latter is, to me, employment of art for decoration. To be applauded, but I don't think the council committee should get the Turner prize for that decision.



HansZimmer said:


> No one here is saying that all film music is of good quality. My point of view is that the film scores nominated at the grammies and at the academy awards are usually good (if not excellent).
> The composers who have become celebrities (John Williams, Hans Zimmer, Klaus Badelt, Thomas Newman, Alan Menken,...) according to me are all great composers, which means that they produce good art, indipendently from the fact that it's or not classical music.


Surely you and others (as opposed to 'no-one') are saying that film is 'classical music' which is a proxy for 'same as music composed as original art'? I certainly think that quite a bit of film music has been conceived as original art and deserves that appellation; but that just because some music happens to play out the tropes of 'classical music', the soaring strings and angry trombone hits and that it employs an orchestra, does not make it the same as 'a symphony'.



HansZimmer said:


> Even if we concluded that the music of John Williams is not classical, it would be still excellent music, because in my dictionary "classical" defines the style and not the quality. If this was a discussion about quality, it would be already closed, because a lot of film music has an excellent quality (there are works of film music which I rate as "excellent" and works of classical music that I rate as "bad").


It _is_ in the style classical music. In the way I could paint 'in the style' of Monet (well I couldn't, but you know what I mean). The discussion would not be closed because your definition of 'quality' from your personal dictionary is just a an expression of taste.


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

Meanwhile Queen Lizzie had made John Williams her final knight of the British Empire. The only composer higher honoured in the UK was one baron Britten. Is it just me or has it suddenly become trendy to show off what kind of honours one can give out by bestowing them all on JW?


----------



## fbjim

HansZimmer said:


> "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck."
> 
> The duck test is not only based on "it quacks like a duck".
> 
> No one here has explained why this film score doesn't look like a waltz, doesn't swim like a waltz and doesn't quack like a waltz.


People have in fact explained several times why a piece of music might, with close to no changes in composition, be considered classical music if it is arranged as a performance suite and performed in a concert hall. The differences lie in artistic context.


----------



## Forster

HansZimmer said:


> If my argument is that a lot of film music sounds like classical music, to create counter arguments means to show that it doesn't really sound like it.


No it doesn't. The counter argument is that your criteria are not relevant. To keep asking about the same few pieces of music merely shows you're not grasping what it is that others are saying.


----------



## HansZimmer

Chat Noir said:


> I don't accept your rap example anyway because there could be so many ways of deciding what made a particular song good, bad, desirable, authentic, popular, or whatever.


If you remove the voice from a rap base, it becomes meaningless. It's clear that the point of rap is what you do with the voice and that the base is only an accompainment for the voice. Infact it's not considered a bad thing in the rap world if a MC doesn't create the bases for his songs, but if he wouldn't write the lyrics and/or if he wouldn't put his voice, he wouldn't be considered a MC.



> but what you're saying is there is equality between some artist creatively labouring for years to make an original statement and e.g. the council tiling an underpass in the style of Andy Warhol silkscreens. The latter is, to me, employment of art for decoration. To be applauded, but I don't think the council committee should get the Turner prize for that decision.


I wrote that a creative work is always art, but then we can discuss about what is good art and bad art.

Your argument that the quality is defined by "how much time dou yo spend" is quite weak, because it is basically the argument of Marx and the economists have already explained why the argument doesn't make sense.
Basically the argument of Marx is that if to produce X is necessary 1 hour of work while to produce Y are necessary 8 hours, then price of Ymust be higher.

The economists explained very well that the value that the consumers give to the things is based on the (perceived) quality of the result, and not on how much it takes to produce the things. So, the first product might have a higher price in respect to the second.


A good example. As far as I know, Mozart has composed many of his pieces in a short time. I'm sure that if I tried to compose something and I would refine a melody for one year, the result of my work would be nothing compared to what Mozart used to produce in a short time.

In my point of view is quite the contrary: if a composer write pieces in a short time and the result is good, it means that he's a good artist, a notes machine.


All that said, Hans Zimmer wrote (in the same post in a forum where he explained that he usually doesn't receive deadlines) that he sometimes spend different days only to adjust a little pathetic sound, so I hope that no one here wants to support the idea that the greatest film music composers don't work hard on their products.

To say that the the score of The Lion King has been created in a short time it's not an argument at all against the artistry of the work (otherwise the piece of Mozart composed in a short time are bad).
If you told me that Shostakovich composed his first symphony in 1 year and Hans Zimmer composed the Lion King in 5 days, I would still give a greater value to the result of Hans Zimmer.
Probably I would probably give an even higher value to the Lion King, because I would not be able to compose such stunning melodies in one year.




> The discussion would not be closed because your definition of 'quality' from your personal dictionary is just a an expression of taste.


Yes, and this is why a discussion about quality would be already closed. Everyone would have a different point of view about what are the works and the composers of quality and everyone would simply to listen to his/her prefered music.
Someone might conclude that John Williams is better than Beethoven and he/she might prefer to listen to the music of Star Wars instead of the symphonies of Beethoven.

Now, this is why the categories and the definitions can not be based on quality: if classical music is the music of high quality, everyone would have his/her personal category of classical music. There wouldn't be any agreement about what is and what is not classical music. 
If classical music is the music of the highest quality, then I consider the score of The Lion King as classical music.


----------



## Chat Noir

I have absolutely no desire to get on this merry-go-round. 

Your reference to Marx suggests that you've never actually read Marx. He specifically addressed how perceived 'added value' is given to something. Today we refer to this as marketing/advertising and it is very often a superficial layer trading upon perceptions.

I don't think this should go down that rabbit hole anyway, it has little to do with it. The entire question as you are approaching it is really about matters of taste (your view of the Lion King vs Shostakovich); though there is a matter of fact also at play in that much production music is neither conceived nor produced in the same way as 'art' music is created and relies upon value created by the latter for status. Nor is it fulfilling the same function.

Let it go.


----------



## Forster

VoiceFromTheEther said:


> Meanwhile Queen Lizzie had made John Williams her final knight of the British Empire. The only composer higher honoured in the UK was one baron Britten. Is it just me or has it suddenly become trendy to show off what kind of honours one can give out by bestowing them all on JW?


It's you. Are you saying that JW (KBE) does not deserve the honour?


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

Forster said:


> It's you. Are you saying that JW (KBE) does not deserve the honour?


I thought it's all subjective


----------



## mmsbls

HansZimmer said:


> 2) The argument for me is not relevant, because my classification is exclusively based on the style and my argument is simply that a lot of film music sounds classical.


I agree completely with this. You base your argument on the sound rather than the process. We all agree much film music sounds classical. I prefer to accept the view of film composers. Whenever I have read the view of film composers, they always say film and classical music are different essentially because of the process.

I think it's similar to the issue of whether Pluto is a planet. The most recent technical definition of planet from the International Astronomical Union excludes Pluto from being a planet. Many still think Pluto should be considered a planet, but the consensus of experts disagrees. I accept the view of the experts. 

If most film composers felt that film music should be considered classical music, I would accept that. If you believed that film composers in general do not believe film music was classical music, would you change your view? If not, why would you think your personal view was better than the expert view?


----------



## Luchesi

DaveM said:


> Examples of film music that remind of classical music are not rare. And in a number of the examples I’ve presented they required a melody and sometimes some development not unlike classical music. In those cases, regardless of the fact that the composer knew he/she was composing for a film, doesn’t necessarily exclude the fact that they might have been thinking of the work as classical-like. After all, a number of, if not most, film composers have a CM background.
> 
> Is the composing process by which Alan Silvestri came up with this work likely closer to that of classical music than what sometimes passes for classical music these days? I’m not contesting that a lot of film music is quite different from classical music nor that the process of producing it is often quite different. I am contesting the broad black-and-white broad brush that is inferred in your post above.


You're contesting my broad brush. Tell me how you're contesting it. I usually agree with you.


----------



## HansZimmer

Chat Noir said:


> The entire question as you are approaching it is really about matters of taste (your view of the Lion King vs Shostakovich)


The quality of music exists only in our brain (for the cold universe, music is only vibrations in the air) so if we discuss about quality we are doing nothing else than speaking about our personal tastes.

The music of quality for me is the one that gives me the strongest emotions.


----------



## Chat Noir

HansZimmer said:


> The quality of music exists only in our brain (for the cold universe, music is only vibrations in the air) so if we discuss about quality we are doing nothing else than speaking about our personal tastes.
> 
> The music of quality for me is the one that gives me the strongest emotions.


In that sense the entire thread is probably a waste of time, since there is no traction in trying to justify or dispute aesthetic judgements. Not that I think there is no point, after all to me it is no different than people arguing that _50 Shades of Gray _is the equal of a Herman Hesse novel on the grounds that it 'gave them the strongest emotions'. I think that could be disputed, though it's likely not worth it..


----------



## HansZimmer

mmsbls said:


> If you believed that film composers in general do not believe film music was classical music, would you change your view?


I would change my view if the composers said that are in no way inspired by classical music, although it's possible that they are simply inspired by the traditional film music, which, in turn, was inspired by classical music.

It might be that classical music has inspired the first film composers and that the modern film composers are inspired by the first film composers. In this case, the modern film composers are involuntarily inspired to classical music.


----------



## HansZimmer

Chat Noir said:


> In that sense the entire thread is probably a waste of time, since there is no traction in trying to justify or dispute aesthetic judgements.


The problem is that this discussion doesn't speak about qualities, but about stylistic categories, so it's not a waste of time. I can for example say that a film score has a classical style and that it's bad, as well as I can say that an other film score has a jazz style and that it's good.

The quality of music is discussed in my polls, but they are nothing else than games: pure and simple entertaining. The aim of my polls is not to establish the quality of a piece and write it in the rock.

So, if you want we can discuss about the quality of the score of The Lion King, but it would be only a game just like my polls. I don't see how we can reach any useful conclusion in a so subjective theme.



> people arguing that _50 Shades of Gray _is the equal of a Herman Hesse novel


The quality of a Herman Hesse novel is completely subjective. Many persons are simply tempted to justify their personal tastes with a supposed objectivity. It seems that you don't like 50 Shades of Gray.


----------



## Chat Noir

HansZimmer said:


> The quality of a Herman Hesse novel is completely subjective. Simply many are tempted to justify their personal tastes with a supposed objectivity.


You seem to be vacillating between two views to suit the argument per post. On the one hand you say the thread is only concerned with 'stylistic categories', but then go on to make arguments based upon what you find to be personally great or worthy or of 'quality' as aesthetic judgements. Which is it?


----------



## HansZimmer

Chat Noir said:


> You seem to be vacillating between two views to suit the argument per post. On the one hand you say the thread is only concerned with 'stylistic categories', but then go on to make arguments based upon what you find to be personally great or worthy or of 'quality' as aesthetic judgements. Which is it?


This is not a discussion about quality of music. I'm speaking of quality only because I have to reply to the users who speak about quality. For me the quality of many film scores is high (the score of the Lion King is one of the best things produced in the history of music) and I don't have so much to add about this.


----------



## Chat Noir

HansZimmer said:


> This is not a discussion about quality of music. I'm speaking of quality only because I have to reply to the users who speak about quality. For me the quality of many film scores is high (the score of the Lion King is one of the best things produced in the history of music) and I don't have so much to add about this.


Not really because what is evidently your great love for the score of the Lion King (perfectly fine if you admire it, though forgettable music imo) is causing you to want to provide it with extra status by being associated with 'art music'. If you like it for what it is that's perfectly fine, but there seems to be a great desire to link it to a different arena to afford it even more value.
Film music is film music. It has a purpose.


----------



## mmsbls

HansZimmer said:


> I would change my view if the composers said that are in no way inspired by classical music, although it's possible that they are simply inspired by the traditional film music, which, in turn, was inspired by classical music.


I believe I read that many film composers were inspired by classical music. That's not surprising since many of them are also classical composers. 

Anyway, I think it's clear that one can look at this issue from various standpoints, and I think everyone understands the "other" side fairly well. As some have said, after 1300 posts it's unlikely anyone will change their view.


----------



## Luchesi

HansZimmer said:


> If my argument is that a lot of film music sounds like classical music, to create counter arguments means to show that it doesn't really sound like it. Only Luchesi has tried to speak about the scores, but I think that his arguments are very weak, because he basically says that in film music there are repetitions while in classical music there are not, but the latter consideration is objectively false.
> 
> He tried with the argument that film music is not elaborated, but I showed how much elaborated are some film scores.
> 
> A user in youtube wrote that film music might superficially sound like classical music but that the former doesn't follow the typical forms of classical music (sonata, rondo, theme and variations, minuet & trio,...) and therefore is not classical music, but I reject this argument because it's perfectly possible to write a classical music piece in free form, and sometimes is probably necessary to do so (I'm thinking about programmatic music and incidental music, where the melody must follow a narrative and not a form).
> Furthermore this counter argument strongly contrasts with the counter argument of Luchesi, according to which there are not repetitions in classical music: rondo, sonata and minuet & trio encourage repetitions (in a rondo there is the refrain, in the sonata form the themes in the exposition are usually repeated three times and the development section uses the themes in the exposition and in minuet & trio the minuet is repeated twice).
> 
> Although I rejected the counter arguments exposed here above, they are at least counter arguments. Many other arguments in this discussion are not counter argument of my arguments.


You wrote a long post, but you apparently misunderstood what my post was about. My post was about an algorithm that would delete all of the repeated phrases (notes) of a piece. Musicians can do this so effortlessly, at a glance. The code would have to be quite sophisticated in order to not make amateuristic determinations. And the results could be checked by a human, of course. 
You would put in all the works (hundreds) that you want to compare and then you get a result which reveals things about the amount of crucial data (i.e. musical interest, complexity). It would just be an algorithm and no human opinions would be involved. I was just wondering what the results would be. Would the FM measure up to CM so that the labels become muddier. I don't think so. I don't think the results would be that close.


----------



## Luchesi

mmsbls said:


> I agree completely with this. You base your argument on the sound rather than the process. We all agree much film music sounds classical. I prefer to accept the view of film composers. Whenever I have read the view of film composers, they always say film and classical music are different essentially because of the process.
> 
> I think it's similar to the issue of whether Pluto is a planet. The most recent technical definition of planet from the International Astronomical Union excludes Pluto from being a planet. Many still think Pluto should be considered a planet, but the consensus of experts disagrees. I accept the view of the experts.
> 
> If most film composers felt that film music should be considered classical music, I would accept that. If you believed that film composers in general do not believe film music was classical music, would you change your view? If not, why would you think your personal view was better than the expert view?


When we classify planets in another solar system, we won't call such an object a major planet. If scientists classify things in science by their origins, a tiny object which would fit into the American Midwest, and was created by collisions in the debris field far from the influence of its star, I think they have the appropriate logic about Pluto.


----------



## DaveM

Luchesi said:


> You're contesting my broad brush. Tell me how you're contesting it. I usually agree with you.


Perhaps I was misunderstanding your post. Maybe clarifying what you meant by it might help.


----------



## DaveM

mmsbls said:


> I think it's similar to the issue of whether Pluto is a planet. The most recent technical definition of planet from the International Astronomical Union excludes Pluto from being a planet. Many still think Pluto should be considered a planet, but the consensus of experts disagrees. I accept the view of the experts.
> 
> If most film composers felt that film music should be considered classical music, I would accept that. If you believed that film composers in general do not believe film music was classical music, would you change your view? If not, why would you think your personal view was better than the expert view?


The Pluto analogy actually works pretty well, even for me. As you say, the IAU re-defined the definition of a planet and banished Pluto as a dwarf planet. In the reading I’ve done, there still is ongoing controversy on the subject because these dwarf planets are, among other things, round and orbit the sun. So IMO there is room for discussion on the film/classical music subject at hand without going to the extreme of changing definitions. (However, using the above analogy, I find avant-garde music more in the category of an asteroid -sorry, couldn’t restrain myself .)


----------



## HansZimmer

Chat Noir said:


> Not really because what is evidently your great love for the score of the Lion King (perfectly fine if you admire it, though forgettable music imo) is causing you to want to provide it with extra status by being associated with 'art music'. If you like it for what it is that's perfectly fine, but there seems to be a great desire to link it to a different arena to afford it even more value.
> Film music is film music. It has a purpose.


I've already written that classical music for me is only a style and has nothing to do with quality. So I don't elevate anything if I write that many film scores are classical: I'm just defining the style.

However, I legitimately elevate some film scores by writting that they are excellent and better than many pieces of classical music. To clarify, I don't want to elevate The Lion King to classical music, but the opposite: I elevate some pieces of classical music by considering them as good as the music of the Lion King.
Infact if I give a score of 10/10 to the music of the Lion King, it means that a piece of music can not be better than it: it can only be as good as it.
So, when I voted "excellent" to the violin concerto of Beethoven I was saying that it's as good as the music of The Lion King.

However, the quality is not the point of this discussion. If you tell me that film music and classical music have nothing to do with each others, I will say that for me the quality of some film music is higher than the one of some pieces of classical music.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Chat Noir said:


> .. provide it with extra status by being associated with 'art music'.
> If you like it for what it is that's perfectly fine, but there seems to be a great desire to link it to a different arena to afford it even more value.


Is there any European music that's hundreds of years old and yet is still not "classical music"?


----------



## Chat Noir

hammeredklavier said:


> Is there any European music that's hundreds of years old and yet is still not "classical music"?


I don't understand the import of the question you are asking.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Chat Noir said:


> I don't understand the import of the question you are asking.


I thought you meant "classical music = art music", in post #1351.


----------



## fbjim

European folk music traditions are almost universally considered separate from classical music.


----------



## hammeredklavier

fbjim said:


> European folk music traditions are almost universally considered separate from classical music.


such as dance pieces? Is there such a distinction in, for example, Indian music as well? (ie. Indian folk music vs Indian classical music)


----------



## mmsbls

DaveM said:


> The Pluto analogy actually works pretty well, even for me. As you say, the IAU re-defined the definition of a planet and banished Pluto as a dwarf planet. In the reading I’ve done, there still is ongoing controversy on the subject because these dwarf planets are, among other things, round and orbit the sun. So IMO there is room for discussion on the film/classical music subject at hand without going to the extreme of changing definitions. (However, using the above analogy, I find avant-garde music more in the category of an asteroid -sorry, couldn’t restrain myself .)


There is some disagreement on Pluto. Dwarf planets are round and orbit the sun, but they do not clear the neighborhood around their orbit. Some view the last criterion as critical while others do not. Everyone agrees that film music can sound very much like classical music, but some (film composers in particular as far as I can tell) do not view the process in the same way and place film music in a distinct category.

Yes, avant-garde music can sound very different from other classical music. Do you view Medieval music as classical music?


----------



## HansZimmer

Luchesi said:


> You wrote a long post, but you apparently misunderstood what my post was about. My post was about an algorithm that would delete all of the repeated phrases (notes) of a piece. Musicians can do this so effortlessly, at a glance. The code would have to be quite sophisticated in order to not make amateuristic determinations. And the results could be checked by a human, of course.
> You would put in all the works (hundreds) that you want to compare and then you get a result which reveals things about the amount of crucial data (i.e. musical interest, complexity). It would just be an algorithm and no human opinions would be involved. I was just wondering what the results would be. Would the FM measure up to CM so that the labels become muddier. I don't think so. I don't think the results would be that close.


So, you are not speaking about repetion of themes, but more about repetitions of melodic phrases inside themes?

Like in this piece of Mendelssohn, for example.







Or like the theme here after 9:23.


----------



## 4chamberedklavier

What is the classical music composing process anyway and how much different is the film music composition process that we can't consider the latter a part of the former? Throughout history I don't think the compositional styles remained uniform. Renaissance vs. Baroque vs. Classical vs. Romantic were all different I'd assume.

This isn't an argument for considering film music as classical. I already said my stance at the very start of the thread (film music _can_ be classical, but not all film music is classical).

It would really help to remember the point of classifying all these types of music in the first place. If a definition/classification is too broad, it becomes meaningless and not useful in giving people an idea of what the music is like.


----------



## DaveM

mmsbls said:


> There is some disagreement on Pluto. Dwarf planets are round and orbit the sun, but they do not clear the neighborhood around their orbit. Some view the last criterion as critical while others do not. Everyone agrees that film music can sound very much like classical music, but some (film composers in particular as far as I can tell) do not view the process in the same way and place film music in a distinct category.
> 
> Yes, avant-garde music can sound very different from other classical music. Do you view Medieval music as classical music?


i suppose one can view Medieval music as classical music or as the forerunner. In either case, it does occur to me that even the earliest Medieval music (which dates from around 500 AD) had melody. Harmony was added in the more latter medieval period as the sophistication of the music and instrumentation progressed. In general, this gave birth to the Common Practice era as a culmination of what was centuries of progress in western music. Which is why, in my heart of hearts, I don’t view music that removes melody and harmony as a legitimate part of the continuum, but rather as an entirely different genre.


----------



## hammeredklavier

_Every man or woman in charge of the music of moving picture theater is, consciously or unconsciously, a disciple or follower of Richard Wagner_ 
– Stephen Bush, film critic, 1911

_Please write music like Wagner, only louder_ 
– Sam Goldwyn to a film composer

_If my grandfather were alive today, he would undoubtedly be working in Hollywood_ 
—Wolfgang Wagner

 Wagner's Influence On Movie Music


----------



## DaveM

HansZimmer said:


>


Thankyou for posting that. That’s a wonderful sequence. Have never heard it before. The opening part of the theme could be used in the opening of a high-budget western as the camera pans over a wagon train heading out west. The drama of the challenge of the journey occupies the main movie and then the entire sequence starting at 9:23 to its resounding conclusion plays as the wagon train finally reaches California!


----------



## mikeh375

hammeredklavier said:


> _Every man or woman in charge of the music of moving picture theater is, consciously or unconsciously, a disciple or follower of Richard Wagner_
> – Stephen Bush, film critic, 1911
> 
> _Please write music like Wagner, only louder_
> – Sam Goldwyn to a film composer
> 
> _If my grandfather were alive today, he would undoubtedly be working in Hollywood_
> —Wolfgang Wagner
> 
> Wagner's Influence On Movie Music


_"No music in an MGM film is to contain a minor chord.'_'........ ...Irving Thalberg memo to resident film composers at MGM.


----------



## mikeh375

DaveM said:


> i suppose one can view Medieval music as classical music or as the forerunner. In either case, it does occur to me that even the earliest Medieval music (which dates from around 500 AD) had melody. Harmony was added in the more latter medieval period as the sophistication of the music and instrumentation progressed. In general, this gave birth to the Common Practice era as a culmination of what was centuries of progress in western music. Which is why, in my heart of hearts, I don’t view music that removes melody and harmony as a legitimate part of the continuum, but rather as an entirely different genre.


Dave, smashing plates and liberally farting through instruments on stage aside, there has been so much in the way of thematic and/or harmonic development and thinking derived from the canon in 20th and 21stC music from the likes of Messiaen through to Ades that is surely uneccessary to have to point out. Your beloved CP techniques have been expanded to a more rich, relevant and fruitful language as a result. The "culmination of centuries of progress" as you put it is, in relation to and regarding the present, a subjective, line in the sand illusion imv.

Furthermore, the basic concepts of line, theme and harmony have never really gone out of fashion and are in use all of the time in some guise or another. That you don't recognise them in expanded surroundings, or don't like them because they are not overt, memorable and/or require a little effort to appreciate does not mean they are absent in a piece.

I might agree that the whacky pfhiss-taking, novelty seeking avant garde is a step too far aesthetically for the tradition, even for me as one who likes to defend creative free will. However the 20th and 21stC has also enriched the expressive scope of music to such a point that perhaps the real and not so subjective 'culmination' might already be with us because it's hard to see what else can be done to develop the basic individual elements of musical technique outside of electronic manipulation and sound.


----------



## 4chamberedklavier

I can't speak for Dave, but I think that it's not the expanded expressive scope of 20th-21st century music that he has a problem with, but rather, the relative frequency of music that utilizes these more modern techniques compared to more conventional types of music. Yes, it's good that there is more potential for expressiveness, but does everything have to be so "out-there" all the time? Would more conventional works be derided as pastiche?



mikeh375 said:


> Furthermore, the basic concepts of line, theme and harmony have never really gone out of fashion and are in use all of the time in some guise or another. That you don't recognise them in expanded surroundings, or don't like them because they are not memorable and/or require a little effort to appreciate does not mean they are absent in a piece.


I don't think that's the point. It's not that we think there isn't any harmony & theme present, it's the very fact that the theme & harmony cannot be easily detected, & would probably require a dozen listens just to make sense of what we're hearing, that Dave & I have an issue with.


----------



## Chat Noir

4chamberedklavier said:


> It's not that we think there isn't any harmony & theme present, it's the very fact that the theme & harmony cannot be easily detected


By whom?


----------



## mikeh375

4chamberedklavier said:


> I can't speak for Dave, but I think that it's not the expanded expressive scope of 20th-21st century music that he has a problem with, but rather, the relative frequency of music that utilizes these more modern techniques compared to more conventional types of music. Yes, it's good that there is more potential for expressiveness, but does everything have to be so "out-there" all the time? Would more conventional works be derided as pastiche?


To clarify, the techniques I was referring to are developments derived from the Canon up to the early 20thC, not techniques that a composer would usually employ to write music that is "out there", by which I presume you mean music like Dave's favourite, Fernyhough.....  .
So what do you mean by 'conventional' works? If you are refferring to CP techniques up to the late 19thC then a composer writing in that style today will only be taken seriously by audiences who generally speaking, require instant gratification, witness Alma Deutscher. Time will tell if she is relevant to the art beyond her commercialism, but my guess is no, unless she develops her own language. If she does, then she may well be a force to be reckoned with given her wonderful talent and facility. Not many composers today with serious aspirations and relevant expressive intent will learn CPT and _not_ move on from it having learnt the requisite lessons. One reason being that the knowledge and lure of what music is capable of beyond immediate appeal is too great now for those with a sense of adventure...and I might add, there are audiences for it.



4chamberedklavier said:


> *I don't think that's the point. It's not that we think there isn't any harmony & theme present,* it's the very fact that the theme & harmony cannot be easily detected, & would probably require a dozen listens just to make sense of what we're hearing, that Dave & I have an issue with.


Well actually Dave says, or perceives otherwise.

_...."Which is why, in my heart of hearts, I don’t view *music that removes melody and harmony *as a legitimate part of the continuum, but rather as an entirely different genre."_

All I can say is that there have been some wonderful achievements in music over the last 100 years or so but much requires effort in order to begin to appreciate. How do you like your music to be? Instant gratification or something perhaps more rewarding and profound after repeated listens? You can have it all of course within the canon but you can also have profound and moving experiences beyond the confines of those aesthetic times and places long gone. The art is not in the habit of stultifying and nor should it have to imv.


----------



## 4chamberedklavier

Chat Noir said:


> By whom?


Are you seriously implying that the majority of people are able to appreciate modern music the way it was meant to be appreciated? (i.e. I have no basis to assume that many people cannot detect the things that modern composers insert into the music)

@ Mike, is instant gratification in music something to be frowned upon? You seem to imply that if something is instantly gratifying, then it's something we'd quickly get tired of. I believe the point of music is to entertain, & I do think that something that is immediately gratifying has a larger potential to entertain. Just because something is instantly gratifying doesn't mean that repeated listenings won't make us discover more things to like about the music.

addendum: You mention "serious aspirations and relevant expressive intent", I disagree that CPT lacks in expressive intent. Atonal music is simply one of the many tools that can be used, with its own expressive quality, and to rely mostly on atonality would in fact be restricting your expressiveness.

An aside, there's something I don't quite understand about how people think of classical music these days. I personally think there's a limit to how much you can "innovate" in the arts. There is only so much that can be done and only so many "new" things to be discovered. Music appreciation is biologically rooted, and unless we change our biology, there's going to be a point where there's nothing new that you can do.

I have to clarify, I am not saying that modern music = bad/low in quality/unable to be appreciated by anyone. and the point of this tangent about modern music is to highlight how something so alien (in sound, perhaps not in the composition process) is considered classical music while film music is not. I'm not opposed to modern/nontonal music being considered classical, but I'm leaning towards the idea that we should either you consider both atonal and film music "classical" or neither.


----------



## mikeh375

4chamberedklavier said:


> Are you seriously implying that the majority of people are able to appreciate modern music the way it was meant to be appreciated? (i.e. I have no basis to assume that many people cannot detect the things that modern composers insert into the music)
> 
> *@ Mike, is instant gratification in music something to be frowned upon*? You seem to imply that if something is instantly gratifying, then it's something we'd quickly get tired of. I believe the point of music is to entertain, & I do think that something that is immediately gratifying has a larger potential to entertain. Just because something is instantly gratifying doesn't mean that repeated listenings won't make us discover more things to like about the music.


Hell no, of course not. I listen for enjoyment (a better word than entertainment for me) and of course, the more familiar a piece is in all aspects the more likely the success. But in cautionary mode, its fair to say that perpetuating style can also be dangerous for the art, its progress and relevance. Remember too that music is more fundamentally a form of expression for a composer rather than entertainment and that's where their problems with listeners sometimes starts.
I agree that even the most popular works of the canon can still be revelatory, I didn't intend to imply anything else... 

EDIT in response to @4chamberedklavier 's revision above.

I should have made it clear that neither was I dissing CPT's efficacy - I am a Bach fanatic and believe his marriage of technique and expressive power is bordering on the otherworldly and perhaps unrivalled.
When I referred to a composers aspirations and intent, it was in the context of being relevant to today is all. Writing in a CPT language today is an anachronism and quite apart from having to compete with undoubted masters from the past, will inevitably acquire the pastiche tag at best. We actually do agree on CPT and its power, but it's been done and dusted by great musicians so far as composition today is concerned. The immediate past masters and frames of stylistic reference for today's composers are generally from the middle to late 20thC, not the 19thC or prior to it. This does not preclude tonality nor does it necessarily imply atonality btw.

What we do disagree on is your characterisation of atonality which is ironically, in the light of what you are suggesting, the most freeing way to write music for it tends to rely on the most personal of approaches and devising of restrictive parameters rather than standard conventions. Said standard conventions (regular rhythm, restrained or smooth melodic shape etc), will inappropriately hem in a language whose resulting music can enable highly imaginative and seductive flights of fancy and invention. Note too that atonality does not necessarily preclude gravitational (tonal) leanings, depending on the composer's intent. - it's a pretty flexible way to write. Granted it's all a different experience for the listener though, but if composers where or are constantly worried about whether or not the audience will like this or that note or chord then the art gets nowhere.

I agree too about limits to the arts technical development and perception thereof and said as much above in relation to compositional techniques. I didn't mention rhythm above as I was responding to Dave, but I agree with John Adams in that rhythm is a great unifier in music. The fact that rhythm has now been dismantled and easily obscures the beat is as great a contributor to the lack of comprehension for a listener as is vertical density and linear complexity.

Regarding film music, I've already given my own compositional and expressive reasons for having doubts about a blanket inclusion of FM into the classical domain. If I do it again I'll have Dave after me......


----------



## Forster

4chamberedklavier said:


> I can't speak for Dave, but I think that it's not the expanded expressive scope of 20th-21st century music that he has a problem with, but rather, the relative frequency of music that utilizes these more modern techniques compared to more conventional types of music. Yes, it's good that there is more potential for expressiveness, but does everything have to be so "out-there" all the time? Would more conventional works be derided as pastiche?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that's the point. It's not that we think there isn't any harmony & theme present, it's the very fact that the theme & harmony cannot be easily detected, & would probably require a dozen listens just to make sense of what we're hearing, that Dave & I have an issue with.


But is "everything so out-there"?

I don't know the answer because I don't listen to much "modern" music. There's more than enough CM that pleases me from earlier periods (and pop/rock/alt from today) so that I don't have to fret about what I don't want to listen to.

I love film scores too, in their right place, and don't see why it matters whether they can be classified as CM or not. Just listen and love.


----------



## Chat Noir

4chamberedklavier said:


> Are you seriously implying that the majority of people are able to appreciate modern music the way it was meant to be appreciated? (i.e. I have no basis to assume that many people cannot detect the things that modern composers insert into the music)


It was a question. The answer is a little strange to me. What does it mean to say: 'how it was meant to be appreciated?' For myself I can only say I listen and hear things I find interesting and like. Just like all music. I can hear melodic and harmonic ideas, sometimes I check the score if I can, but I do that with various works anyway, Surely the great error in listening is to expect a certain sort of thing and be disappointed and annoyed if it isn't that thing? Then to refuse to recognise it as .proper music'.

It's not so far away from reading a modern novel, expecting it to be like Anthony Trollope and to have e.g. a certain sort of narrative. Then finding out it isn't like that at all and declaring it 'incomprehensible and not a novel'.


----------



## pianozach

This really is a fascinating discussion. I made my points about the topic pages ago.

Now just picture me eating popcorn.


----------



## Chat Noir

pianozach said:


> This really is a fascinating discussion. I made my points about the topic pages ago.
> 
> Now just picture me eating popcorn.


Remember to use a toothpick afterwards.


----------



## mikeh375




----------



## HansZimmer

I created a new discussion about the point you are discussing here. @DaveM @mikeh375 @Forster @4chamberedklavier @Chat Noir

“Music, even in horror situations, should never be painful to the ear but should flatter and charm it, and thereby always remain music" (Mozart)

The part that can be useful for this discussion is that the film music composers are more conservative than the contemporary classical music composers and so they help a wider public to develop a curiosity for classical music.
This also means that they are snobbed by persons who think that a conservative composer (namely, someone who still uses the old technique, which gives pleasure to the human ears) can not be taken seriously.


----------



## Forster

Music should be whatever a composer wants it to be.


----------



## Luchesi

Forster said:


> Music should be whatever a composer wants it to be.


And beyond that, I don't know of a subject that it is so rich for exploration. They ARE the experts of today and experts should be admired for their knowledge and effort. Imagine that you have to follow a composer and his works for years and try to understand his experiences over years. And all the time the music (hopefully) becomes more important to you. 
Is there another hobby like this? There probably is I just don't have the passion for them, because it does take time and effort, in our very very busy lives.

The love of programming computers is a little bit like that. You have your experts and then you have your amateurs like me, exploring and making slow progress (years ago in the early days of computers I programmed for a solar observatory).
So, what I get most out of the modern music is the expertise, and the originality (clever and funny ideas), intermixed in with the highly significant moments. The significance comes from your own imagination and brain, but I don't want to sound too condescending, (because I don't know about other listeners, but for me, it helps so much to understand the technical details about how they create music).


----------



## Luchesi

HansZimmer said:


> I created a new discussion about the point you are discussing here. @DaveM @mikeh375 @Forster @4chamberedklavier @Chat Noir
> 
> “Music, even in horror situations, should never be painful to the ear but should flatter and charm it, and thereby always remain music" (Mozart)
> 
> The part that can be useful for this discussion is that the film music composers are more conservative than the contemporary classical music composers and so they help a wider public to develop a curiosity for classical music.
> This also means that they are snobbed by persons who think that a conservative composer (namely, someone who still uses the old technique, which gives pleasure to the human ears) can not be taken seriously.


Many musicians I know don't want to hear more and more sugary-sweet transitions and predictable resolutions. They've heard so much of it, they've played so much of it, they play them mindlessly as they're warming up, they play them all the time when they have to play a favorite piece for other people. 

What gives pleasure to human ears? In all the Arts it's a process of artistically constrained ambiguity, not predictability.


----------



## mikeh375

HansZimmer said:


> I created a new discussion about the point you are discussing here. @DaveM @mikeh375 @Forster @4chamberedklavier @Chat Noir
> 
> “Music, even in horror situations, should never be painful to the ear but should flatter and charm it, and thereby always remain music" (Mozart)
> 
> The part that can be useful for this discussion is that the film music composers are more conservative than the contemporary classical music composers and so they help a wider public to develop a curiosity for classical music.
> This also means that they are snobbed by persons who think that a conservative composer (namely, someone who still uses the old technique, which gives pleasure to the human ears) can not be taken seriously.


Oh boy. I know what I need to do to stave off re-igniting the old flame war and that's apologise to Hans for digressing in this thread. Hans, I apologise, now fer the sake of all that is good on TC, delete that new thread....plleeeeessszze, save us.


----------



## DaveM

mikeh375 said:


> Dave, smashing plates and liberally farting through instruments on stage aside, there has been so much in the way of thematic and/or harmonic development and thinking derived from the canon in 20th and 21stC music from the likes of Messiaen through to Ades that is surely uneccessary to have to point out. *Your beloved CP techniques have been expanded to a more rich, relevant and fruitful language as a result.* The "culmination of centuries of progress" as you put it is, in relation to and regarding the present, a subjective, line in the sand illusion imv.
> 
> Furthermore, the basic concepts of line, theme and harmony have never really gone out of fashion and are in use all of the time in some guise or another. That you don't recognise them in expanded surroundings, or don't like them because they are not overt, memorable and/or require a little effort to appreciate does not mean they are absent in a piece.
> 
> I might agree that the whacky pfhiss-taking, novelty seeking avant garde is a step too far aesthetically for the tradition, even for me as one who likes to defend creative free will. However the 20th and 21stC has also enriched the expressive scope of music to such a point that perhaps the real and not so subjective 'culmination' might already be with us because it's hard to see what else can be done to develop the basic individual elements of musical technique outside of electronic manipulation and sound.


If you read my posts closely, my issue in contemporary/modern music has been the avant-garde category, not all CM since the end of the CP era. If that has not been clear, it is likely because the discussion of film music vs CM has resulted in a perhaps polarizing emphasis by me and a few others on the subject of melody and harmony. There have been some extreme comments made by some posters that I disagree with. My response when that happens is to move over to the opposite corner which can mean lamenting the loss of the quality of melody and harmony that defined so much of the CP era.

That said, to be absolutely clear, I do not mean to denigrate or demean all of CM of the last century. While I don’t agree that what what we have these days is a ‘*more rich, relevant and fruitful language’, *I do know that there are some good works turning up now and then, though I find myself having to do more searching to find them compared to finding pre-1900 hidden gems that turn up on YouTube. In any event, as someone who started listening to CM at a young age and who spent hours upon hours soaking up ‘traditional‘ CM and who has found a salve in the melodies when life’s challenges intrude, I admit to being less flexible in matters of taste in classical music. Also, I am aware that the CP era had to end and it was inevitable that CM would have to undergo some major changes.

Btw, you quoted me earlier above: ‘_Which is why, in my heart of hearts, I don’t view *music that removes melody and harmony *as a legitimate part of the continuum, but rather as an entirely different genre.". _Was it not obvious that I was referring specifically to avant-garde music? Your comment regarding that quote seemed to indicate otherwise.


----------



## Chat Noir

DaveM said:


> Was it not obvious that I was referring specifically to avant-garde music? Your comment regarding that quote seemed to indicate otherwise.


I think Mike375 also indicated that he (and actually quite a few people who even like avant-garde composition) also lift an eyebrow at some of the works offered under that banner. However, from what I just read above it does look a lot like you dislike practically everything after the breakdown of CP. Though in reality CP didn't really disappear; it just stopped being the core style of presentation. It never disappeared for the so-called _polystylists, _like Shostakovich and Schnittke and not even for Schoenberg who obviously loved it. I've never understood how people can love Mahler so much, but hate Shostakovich, they are so alike in many ways with their serious peppered with the absurd/grotesque. Bombast and triviality. CP wasn't abandoned it was reimagined.

With regard to film music though, it is without doubt that avant-garde music (for a certain period) provided a great deal for film soundtracks. At that period, say the '20s to '50s (maybe later) the dividing line between so-called 'classical music' and film music was very thin. As it had been when music was directly repurposed from the concert hall to early film.

I do have a problem with music that is cookie-cutter and made to sound 'like' it is profound. By employing what are now film music tropes. To the point that you could get this stuff in kit form called 'film music starter kit'...open here. I find this is what Hans Zimmer does. Though he does it so well. And his success has made film music bland as a result, because his input is spread so thinly over so many films and other people engaged to write a score are told to sound 'like that'.

Which was the last film score you truly found captivating and original? They exist, but they're thin on the ground. They are also not generally written in the strictly 'classical' idiom.


----------



## Luchesi

DaveM said:


> If you read my posts closely, my issue in contemporary/modern music has been the avant-garde category, not all CM since the end of the CP era. If that has not been clear, it is likely because the discussion of film music vs CM has resulted in a perhaps polarizing emphasis by me and a few others on the subject of melody and harmony. There have been some extreme comments made by some posters that I disagree with. My response when that happens is to move over to the opposite corner which can mean lamenting the loss of the quality of melody and harmony that defined so much of the CP era.
> 
> That said, to be absolutely clear, I do not mean to denigrate or demean all of CM of the last century. While I don’t agree that what what we have these days is a ‘*more rich, relevant and fruitful language’, *I do know that there are some good works turning up now and then, though I find myself having to do more searching to find them compared to finding pre-1900 hidden gems that turn up on YouTube. In any event, as someone who started listening to CM at a young age and who spent hours upon hours soaking up ‘traditional‘ CM and who has found a salve in the melodies when life’s challenges intrude, I admit to being less flexible in matters of taste in classical music. Also, I am aware that the CP era had to end and it was inevitable that CM would have to undergo some major changes.
> 
> Btw, you quoted me earlier above: ‘_Which is why, in my heart of hearts, I don’t view *music that removes melody and harmony *as a legitimate part of the continuum, but rather as an entirely different genre.". _Was it not obvious that I was referring specifically to avant-garde music? Your comment regarding that quote seemed to indicate otherwise.


When I hear complaints about Modern Music I wonder how new music could have mutated differently?

Humans tend to go to their extreme limiting wall. I mean, they were limited in the 1800s by society etc. and then I guess you could say they broke loose early in the 1900s.


----------



## DaveM

Chat Noir said:


> I think Mike375 also indicated that he (and actually quite a few people who even like avant-garde composition) also lift an eyebrow at some of the works offered under that banner. However, from what I just read above it does look a lot like you dislike practically everything after the breakdown of CP.


When someone distorts what I post, I have trouble taking the response seriously. If I had meant to say ‘I dislike practically everything’, I would have said it. Don’t put words in my mouth.



> Which was the last film score you truly found captivating and original? They exist, but they're thin on the ground. They are also not generally written in the strictly 'classical' idiom.


In this thread and others, I have posted a lot of examples. You’re late to the party. I’m not going to repeat them. They are not ‘thin on the ground’, but I’m not surprised that you missed them giving that the film music you like is half a century old.


----------



## Chat Noir

DaveM said:


> When someone distorts what I post, I have trouble taking the response seriously. If I had meant to say ‘I dislike practically everything’, I would have said it. Don’t put words in my mouth.


Have I put words in your mouth? Or just unpacked what's already there? I actually wrote that: "it does look a lot like you dislike practically everything after the breakdown of CP." Which is rather different from: ‘I dislike practically everything’. Distortion indeed. Let's stay cool.



DaveM said:


> In this thread and others, I have posted a lot of examples. You’re late to the party. I’m not going to repeat them. They are not ‘thin on the ground’, but I’m not surprised that you missed them giving that the film music you like is half a century old.


I read quite a lot of the thread before posting. I don't find the examples are all that great. I admit that will be a matter of taste. The film music I like is old and new. As old as the birth of film to now. I know what's out there currently and that's why I hold the view I hold. Film scores of great originality are indeed thin on the ground. It's also the case that the most interesting ones aren't really the orchestral scores on the whole which tend to be quite trite.


----------



## DaveM

Chat Noir said:


> Have I put words in your mouth? Or just unpacked what's already there? I actually wrote that: "it does look a lot like you dislike practically everything after the breakdown of CP." Which is rather different from: ‘I dislike practically everything’.


A distinction without a difference.



> Distortion indeed. Let's stay cool.


Take a little time to review your posts for accuracy before posting and everything will be cool.



> I read quite a lot of the thread before posting..


Sure you did.


----------



## Chat Noir

DaveM said:


> A distinction without a difference.


They are quite different. No one could surely conclude that those two sentences are the same?



DaveM said:


> Take a little time to review your posts for accuracy before posting and everything will be cool.


I just checked, everything appears to be present and correct. However I'm not quite sure why you're aggrieved about this. It's okay to not like the modern idiom. If I didn't like it I would say so openly. The issue further above is that you (or perhaps it was 4chambereklavier?) appear to be finding fault with it on account of a perceived lack of melody/harmony, but by means of defining what you think melody/harmony ought to be. Which appears to be CP to some level of development.



DaveM said:


> Sure you did.


Please sir, mendacity is not a habit I cultivate.


----------



## DaveM

Chat Noir said:


> They are quite different. *No one *could surely conclude that those two sentences are the same?


Well you are speaking for no one.



> *I just checked, everything appears to be present and correct*. However I'm not quite sure why you're aggrieved about this. It's okay to not like the modern idiom. If I didn't like it I would say so openly. The issue further above is that you (*or perhaps it was 4chambereklavier?*) appear to be finding fault with it on account of a perceived lack of melody/harmony, but by means of defining what you think melody/harmony ought to be. Which appears to be CP to some level of development.


If you’re not sure whether it was me or another poster, then why are you assuming that it was me. I stated quite clearly that my issue was with avant-garde music so apparently you didn’t bother to check very carefully and everything does not appear to be ‘present and correct’.


----------



## Chat Noir

Ah well. I don't really want a quarrel.


----------



## mikeh375

DaveM said:


> If you read my posts closely, my issue in contemporary/modern music has been the avant-garde category, not all CM since the end of the CP era. If that has not been clear, it is likely because the discussion of film music vs CM has resulted in a perhaps polarizing emphasis by me and a few others on the subject of melody and harmony. There have been some extreme comments made by some posters that I disagree with. My response when that happens is to move over to the opposite corner which can mean lamenting the loss of the quality of melody and harmony that defined so much of the CP era.
> 
> That said, to be absolutely clear, I do not mean to denigrate or demean all of CM of the last century. While I don’t agree that what what we have these days is a ‘*more rich, relevant and fruitful language’, *I do know that there are some good works turning up now and then, though I find myself having to do more searching to find them compared to finding pre-1900 hidden gems that turn up on YouTube. In any event, as someone who started listening to CM at a young age and who spent hours upon hours soaking up ‘traditional‘ CM and who has found a salve in the melodies when life’s challenges intrude, I admit to being less flexible in matters of taste in classical music. Also, I am aware that the CP era had to end and it was inevitable that CM would have to undergo some major changes.
> 
> Btw, you quoted me earlier above: ‘_Which is why, in my heart of hearts, I don’t view *music that removes melody and harmony *as a legitimate part of the continuum, but rather as an entirely different genre.". _Was it not obvious that I was referring specifically to avant-garde music? Your comment regarding that quote seemed to indicate otherwise.


All helpful for future chats Dave. It's still not completely obvious what lengths your ears will go to in accepting what you believe to be a legitimate melody and without sitting down and testing how flexible you are I guess we'll never really know. Have you ever taken on a work you hated on first hearing, stuck with it, then grew to love it? 
I hope you get the desire to listen more determinedly to more 20thC tonally descended music as there is a ton of excellent and moving work to explore.


----------



## Forster

Chat Noir said:


> Which was the last film score you truly found captivating and original? They exist, but they're thin on the ground. They are also not generally written in the strictly 'classical' idiom.


Are you asking DaveM about the most captivating and original out of all of the most recent film scores, or only of those most recent that meet his requirements for melody and harmony?


----------



## mikeh375

Chat Noir said:


> Film scores of great originality are indeed thin on the ground. It's also the case that the most interesting ones aren't really the orchestral scores on the whole which tend to be quite trite.


I completely agree with this. Triteness is the inevitable result of music almost fully subjugated to the expectations of utility but, and somewhat encouragingly, there is great originality and brilliance in FM too imv. I'd venture there is more originality than you suggest @Chat Noir, especially in styles that differ to the 'orchestral' route, a lot of which are indeed 'lego like' as you've mentioned, in their technical construction. Either way, for the sake of the film, I suppose we shouldn't expect nor perhaps wish for even more absolute flair given that the music is written for more reasons than just itself.


----------



## HansZimmer

Chat Noir said:


> I read quite a lot of the thread before posting. I don't find the examples are all that great.


I think that the film scores posted by @DaveM are an example of very good music. What does "good" mean for me? It means a powerful, emotional, effective and memorable melody which follows powerful and effective emotional arcs.
I think that the great film composers have very high skills in this and I don't know which parameters are you using to tell us that the film scores are not good, but if you think that the melodies are not good, memorable, and effective is only your opinion.

It seems that you don't like Hans Zimmer and you might even be partially right about this, because some of his film scores are minimalist. However, if you look at the comments under youtube videos many persons in the public are aware of this and say "Hans Zimmer is great because he is able to do great music with only a few keys and chords". Basically, they think that he's a genius of minimalism.

Maybe our problem is that we don't like so much minimalism, but I very much like the more lyrical film scores of Hans Zimmer, like for example the Lion King and The Gladiator (@DaveM posted an other example of a film of the eighties). Maybe at some point of his career changed the route and he started with minimalism.
Keep in mind, however, that Hans Zimmer is loved by the public but not so much by the Academy Awards. The name of John Williams, for example, is much more present in the nominations for "Best original score" and he won more Oscars than Hans Zimmer. I would like to know your opinion about him.

John Williams is for sure more technically formed than Hans Zimmer and maybe also artistically more prolific in average, but if you only consider the highest point of the career of Hans Zimmer (The Lion King) it's a so great success that you can easily understand why his name has become so great.
There has been a rain of deserved awards on the score of the Lion King and if you tell me that it's forgettable music it probably means that you have a musical ear outside of the average (which doesn't mean that it's superior or inferior, but only different).
Try to think about this: if it was really forgettable music for the normal human ear, why would the music have won so many awards?

To clarify, Hans Zimmer composed the score, not the songs: the music you find in this video.


----------



## Chat Noir

HansZimmer said:


> It seems that you don't like Hans Zimmer and you might even be partially right about this, because some of his film scores are minimalist. However, if you look at the comments under youtube videos many persons in the public are aware of this and say "Hans Zimmer is great because he is able to do great music with only a few keys and chords". Basically, they think that he's a genius of minimalism.
> 
> Maybe our problem is that we don't like so much minimalism, but I very much like the more lyrical film scores of Hans Zimmer, like for example the Lion King and The Gladiator (@DaveM posted an other example of a film of the eighties). Maybe at some point of his career changed the route and he started with minimalism.


I don't have any real problem with minimalism. I don't know if Zimmer even is a minimalist, more that he just doesn't have a very wide palette. Or that he's pared-down and perfected his approach. Ever since Zimmer became a notable film composer his fans have routinely posted the two scores mentioned above as a sort of checkmate, but I find them rather ordinary as pure music. They work very well within the film and indeed this is likely the key: that they largely remind one of feelings and emotions generated by the events of actual film, which for the Lion King is quite intense. 

Both of these initiated a particular sort of film/television music: noisy, exaggerated percussion and a sort of basic choral element for atmosphere. The brass writing in that video above is weak and fairly underdeveloped. The whole relies upon nostalgic folk-type melodies tugging at heart strings, and again this is matched to the sorrow in the film itself.

It's not that it's ineffective, it's very effective, but it's conveyor-belt stuff. _Gladiator_ is the same, the so-called 'theme' is extremely forgettable. I didn't really find that film particularly amazing anyway. It was another exercise in 're-imagining' the epic with CGI. _300_ is another.



HansZimmer said:


> Keep in mind, however, that Hans Zimmer is loved by the public but not so much by the Academy Awards. The name of John Williams, for example, is much more present in the nominations for "Best original score" and he won more Oscars than Hans Zimmer. I would like to know your opinion about him.


When I was at music school (I attended a school which specialised in music, so I mean 'at school' and of high school age) I thought John Williams wrote marvellous and exciting film music. He was then at a peak with the Star Wars score and then Raiders of the Lost Ark. Above all I enjoyed the bold orchestrations, whose blueprints can be found in earlier concert music. In some ways he was under the same restraints as Zimmer, in that he has to provide a product to order and is (or was) told to write in a certain way. And we all know about his 'borrowings'. All that doesn't bother me so much. He borrowed and re-imagined well enough. Though once you do that you place your originality into question. I have nothing to say about his technical skill other than that it's obvious. I think his score to _The Terminal_ was quite good.



HansZimmer said:


> Try to think about this: if it was really forgettable music for the normal human ear, why would the music have won so many awards?


For the same reasons many other similar things have accrued awards from mass appreciation I suppose. I know it's unpopular to say that the general listener might not have such a sophisticated ear and is therefore more easily satisfied, but there is some of that at play. This is a difficult area because it strays into matters of taste. It's likely that quite a lot of people who were children when _The Lion King_ was released have a more emotional attachement to it as a whole package and through repeated viewings/listening were probably first awakened to the power of music as an emotional stimulus.

Perhaps in the same way for me if I hear e.g. the theme to _For A Few Dollars More_ or the main theme to _Le professionnel _or Hélène's song from _Les choses de la vie. _Reminders.


----------



## Forster

I think DaveM has been clear about what he regards as a good soundtrack, what makes it good and that he has a preference for scores that belong to past periods (the most recent being 1985-2010...hope I've remembered right.) He's given a reasonable number of examples.

Hans has been less forthcoming, seeming determined to use a tiny number of examples, and insisting that we all agree with his opinions on The Lion King.

What these views brings with them is an implied preference for films of a certain type; that have a certain emotional impact because the music they look for is generally used for a particular range/type of movies.

Nothing wrong with that of course. But it does limit what they can offer comment on. How can scores from movies of the last, say, 5 years (and therefore the general state of FM composition) be fairly judged if they're attached to movies that one doesn't want to see, or one has seen but didn't like.

I'm not interested in seeing _Joker _so I can't evaluate how good the Oscar-winning score for it was, in the proper context. Just because I can listen to it on YTB and give an opinion on whether I like it, that's not the same as being able to judge its effectiveness in its role with the movie.


----------



## fbjim

Evaluating film music is always a funny thing that way - I think among the "average punter" there's going to be a preference (for obvious reasons) for music which sounds good when removed from the context of the film, but in the discipline of film music this is going to be secondary to how well the music fits in the film, and how effective it is in the context of it being a part of the film. 

Of course it's not as if we can't listen to music out of context all the time - any time we put on liturgical music we're doing this - but I do find it interesting that an "average listener"'s conception of "great film music" is likely entirely different to that of someone working in that industry.


----------



## DaveM

Forster said:


> I think DaveM has been clear about what he regards as a good soundtrack, what makes it good and that he has a preference for scores that belong to past periods (the most recent being 1985-2010...hope I've remembered right.) He's given a reasonable number of examples...


Just for the sake of discussion:
I know nothing about the act of composing film music, but I know a fair amount about film music in general because it’s been a hobby for the last 2+ decades. Starting somewhere in the 80s, movie-makers started putting more money into fleshed out highly melodic soundtracks than previously (that doesn’t mean there wasn’t some of that before the 80s, but it was different music). It was the kind of music that allowed for, with some editing, creating suites of 5 to 10 minutes on average.

Examples are (only some of these composers’ works): *Ennio Morricone:* The Mission 1986, *Hans Zimmer:* Driving Miss Daisy 1989, Nine Months 1995, Pearl Harbor 2001, *Trevor Rabin:* Remember the Titans 2001, *Randy Edelman: *Gettysburg 1993, Dragonheart 1996, Passion of Mind 2000, *Alan Silvestri:* Father of the Bride II 1992, Stuart Little 1999, *Jerry Goldsmith:* Airforce One 1997, *Michael Kamen:* (sadly the late): Band of Brothers series 2001, *Nick Glennie-Smith:* The Man in the Iron Mask 1998, *Thomas Newman:* Scent of a Woman 1992.

This is just a smattering since I have around 18 hours of carefully edited suites. IMO, this discussion has spent far too much time on Hans Zimmer, John Williams or long gone composers such as Bernard Herrmann. Some of the names above are never mentioned, but IMO they and some others are just as accomplished as HZ and JW. The film music in the category and time period I am talking about is different than that before the 80s. I have used the end of this period as around 2010 (which isn’t meant to be exact) since I haven’t come across much since then. My understanding is that movie-makers don’t want to spend as much on soundtracks these days though they will pay up for someone like Hans Zimmer if there is a big budget.


----------



## Chat Noir

DaveM said:


> This is just a smattering since I have around 18 hours of carefully edited suites. IMO, this discussion has spent far too much time on Hans Zimmer, John Williams or long gone composers such as Bernard Herrmann.


It spent time on those because they were woven into questions, and specifically because of Zimmer's near monopoly on current big-budget film scores; even people just writing in his style.

Your list is for me spotty. Airforce One is hardly Jerry Goldsmith's finest hour. It could have been First Blood or Papillon or his excellent 'The Blue Max' or Patton. Or for an equal year L.A. Confidential. Even with Goldsmith who often worked at speed and was given short notice, there is repetition. His score for First Blood has some common elements with his score for The Sand Pebbles from 1966. You see a similar thing with Lalo Schifrin who commonly used low brass and mute trumpet hits and rhythmic figures in the low register of the piano. It was also his style, so you see it occur in his 60s scores, the 70s ones (like Enter the Dragon) and his original score for the first series of Starsky & Hutch. They all sound very similar.

I don't really understand the reference to 'long gone composers such as Bernard Herrmann.' People like Herrmann had such an influence on film music that the people you listed would no doubt reference him as an influence. Hermann was also well plugged into what was going on in the world of art music.



DaveM said:


> Starting somewhere in the 80s, movie-makers started putting more money into fleshed out highly melodic soundtracks than previously (that doesn’t mean there wasn’t some of that before the 80s, but it was different music).


You sort of qualified it, but I don't recognise this at all. Not only that scores didn't become 'highly melodic' in any special way, but that there was actually a lot of low-budget and minimal music in the late 70s and throughout the 80s when film making became cheaper, such as John Carpenter etc). The scores you listed mark, to me, the beginning of formulaic film music, though there are exceptions along the way. Especially as the methods and tools have changed (software mainly) the production of film music has also changed. And the stress upon delivering 'known quantities' in order to try and guarantee a success has led to blandness.


----------



## Forster

DaveM said:


> Just for the sake of discussion:
> I know nothing about the act of composing film music, but I know a fair amount about film music in general because it’s been a hobby for the last 2+ decades. Starting somewhere in the 80s, movie-makers started putting more money into fleshed out highly melodic soundtracks than previously (that doesn’t mean there wasn’t some of that before the 80s, but it was different music). It was the kind of music that allowed for, with some editing, creating suites of 5 to 10 minutes on average.
> 
> Examples are (only some of these composers’ works): *Ennio Morricone:* The Mission 1986, *Hans Zimmer:* Driving Miss Daisy 1989, Nine Months 1995, Pearl Harbor 2001, *Trevor Rabin:* Remember the Titans 2001, *Randy Edelman: *Gettysburg 1993, Dragonheart 1996, Passion of Mind 2000, *Alan Silvestri:* Father of the Bride II 1992, Stuart Little 1999, *Jerry Goldsmith:* Airforce One 1997, *Michael Kamen:* (sadly the late): Band of Brothers series 2001, *Nick Glennie-Smith:* The Man in the Iron Mask 1998, *Thomas Newman:* Scent of a Woman 1992.
> 
> This is just a smattering since I have around 18 hours of carefully edited suites. IMO, this discussion has spent far too much time on Hans Zimmer, John Williams or long gone composers such as Bernard Herrmann. Some of the names above are never mentioned, but IMO they and some others are just as accomplished as HZ and JW. The film music in the category and time period I am talking about is different than that before the 80s. I have used the end of this period as around 2010 (which isn’t meant to be exact) since I haven’t come across much since then. My understanding is that movie-makers don’t want to spend as much on soundtracks these days though they will pay up for someone like Hans Zimmer if there is a big budget.


I wholly agree that too often, the discussion about FM focuses on a small number of composers. You'll have seen where I've said this several times in several different threads, I'm sure.

I'm not going to comment on individual films in your list as that would be to go off at a tangent. All I can say is that I like the films I like and sometimes, I notice the contribution a score makes, and sometimes I don't. It's certainly true that some composers write memorable stuff, but I wonder how much of the memorable - and the wanting to listen to suites afterwards - is partly, if not wholly because of the images and emotions it's associated with. Some suites do take on a life of their own afterwards. Johan Johansson's _Arrival _OST contains many cues that I no longer connect with particular scenes or images, (though perhaps with the overall emotional temperature). Ironically, the only "memorable" cue from that album is the one written by Max Richter and not Johansson! (On The Nature Of Daylight).






My point is that for me, it's the film that's most important, not the score, and consequently, it doesn't matter to me whether the music is CPT, CM, avant-garde, minimalism, Williams or Zimmer, Steiner or Korngold, Marvin Hatley or Charles Williams.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Forster said:


> Max Richter


""My string writing is indeed very traditional," muses Richter. "I listen to a lot of Purcell. And if there's a model for the big string piece on The Blue Notebooks, which is 'On The Nature Of Daylight', it's late Beethoven. I'm looking for that incredible intensity and clarity, using the minimum amount of notes possible."


----------



## janxharris

The Richter piece is perhaps a good example of classical music (well it was released on Deutsche Grammophon on its15th anniversary) already sounding filmic. It has translated well to the screen (I counted 22 examples on wikipedia).


----------



## Chat Noir

Richter is really an ideal candidate for modern film music. He can provide everything they want, since he straddles the classical tradition and has been involved with popular music (as performer and producer). It's not a new thing really, John Barry was such a composer, though he moved in the other direction, going from pop towards a much more orchestral style.


----------



## DaveM

Chat Noir said:


> Your list is for me spotty.


Which is why I said in two places to the effect that it was very limited. What would suit you, a list of several hundred with names and dates? Sorry, I won’t waste my time. Your list in response was even more spotty.



> I don't really understand the reference to 'long gone composers such as Bernard Herrmann.' People like Herrmann had such an influence on film music that the people you listed would no doubt reference him as an influence. Hermann was also well plugged into what was going on in the world of art music.


He died in 1975. As good as he was, his film music is old music in old movies. One can easily distinguish a lot of film music before around 1980 from the film music I’m talking about. Your posts suggest that you’re not familiar with film music of the last 20-25 years.



> Not only that scores didn't become 'highly melodic' in any special way..


That isn’t helping your credibility.


----------



## Chat Noir

DaveM said:


> Which is why I said in two places to the effect that it was very limited. What would suit you, a list of several hundred with names and dates? Sorry, I won’t waste my time. Your list in response was even more spotty.


Of course not, long lists aren't really required. I don't think the argument is made by quantity or enumerating examples. The point is that film music is not really as diverse as it used to be and that they have increasingly fallen back on simplified building blocks and common tropes.



DaveM said:


> He died in 1975. As good as he was, his film music is old music in old movies. One can easily distinguish a lot of film music before around 1980 from the film music I’m talking about.


How is this relevant? His influence is too great to ignore. Your argument would lead you to the logical conclusion that we should discount 'old music', yet your entire argument rests upon the value of music that reflects a standard put into place over 100 years ago. This confuses me. Perhaps you'll tell me I shouldn't be puzzled because you've been crystal clear throughout? I'm willing to be informed where I am in error.



DaveM said:


> Your posts suggest that you’re not familiar with film music of the last 20-25 years.


Why do you keep replying to me with such a tone? Did you read my intro post? I've worked in production music (TV, film, advertising) for a good deal of my working life. I work for such an operation now which provides music for TV, radio and advertising. Mostly arranging (or re-arranging/orchestrating) other people's music, which is how it operates. There are strict demands and people are looking for a known quantity, a particular sound. This is a product not really 'art'. For the most part you don't come across much more than people looking for something which sounds like something else. On the whole they are using and re-using the same ideas and often the same music. I can't enumerate the number of time I've had things sent back for being 'too complicated', 'not direct enough'. These people either want nursery rhymes written for an orchestra, or electronic music that sounds like the thing they don't want to pay expensive royalties on.

In any case, I'm very familiar with the film music of the last 25 years. That of video games too.



DaveM said:


> That isn’t helping your credibility.


My 'credibility'?


----------



## HansZimmer

Chat Noir said:


> Both of these initiated a particular sort of film/television music: noisy, exaggerated percussion and a sort of basic choral element for atmosphere.


I can understand that after 1'000 pastiches (which ones?) someone might be bored and think that this particular style is unimaginative, but with the Lion King you are listening to the original work, not to pastiches.
That said, if it's true that there are 1'000 pastiches of this score (which one?) there might be a reason.

More in general, there might be many composers who try to sound like Hans Zimmer (which ones?) and someone might be bored because he hears his style everywhere, but Hans Zimmer is the original and it's not his fault if the other composers want to create pastiches of his works instead of creating their own style.


I started with the objective part. To the subjective part ("the style of Hans Zimmer is noisy and exaggerated") I can't answer, because you are only expressing your legitimate personal tastes and if you understand that they are PERSONAL there is nothing bad.
It seems that I like the Zimmer's style more than you and however there are symphonies who are much more noisy and use the percussions in a disturbing way, for my ears.

The point, as explained above, is that Zimmer has his own (effective) style (he's not the one who imitates, but the one who is imitated) and so he's an artist. To be trite are the composers who copy him.



> The brass writing in that video above is weak and fairly underdeveloped.


You have to look at the music above as a "concerto for flute and violin". Infact, the man who plays the flute is standing, as well as the woman with the violin.

The role of the rest of the orchestra, including the brass section, is only to accompain the flute and the violin, which play the melody. The part for the brass is not intended to be elaborated (namely, to play an other melody) because this work is clearily homophonic. The goal is to emphasize the (single) melody and for my ears the arrangement does a good job.

If you gave me an other version with an other brass line I would be able to tell you which of the two is better, but to simply say that the brass writing is poor is an abstract criticism.

However, speaking about the brass, one of the parts that I particularily love is when at 1:01 the trombones steal the melody from the flute for then return it to the flutes and strings for the climax.
This contrast is emotionally explosive, so drammatic! Maybe this observation responds to yours: the brass, for me, are used in a very effective way.






To clarify my point of view and expectations: the drammatic arc for me is the most important thing in the film scores and I give a 10/10 to this score because I think that drammatic arc is exceptionally built: it gives me goosebumps everytime I listen to it and it never becomes boring.

I'm not at all surprised this music won so many awards.



> The whole relies upon nostalgic folk-type melodies tugging at heart strings, and again this is matched to the sorrow in the film itself.


Is this supposed to be a negative note?



> It's not that it's ineffective, it's very effective


Very effective = Very good, from the perspective from the music consumer. If you see music as a simple service, this is an excellent service.



> but it's conveyor-belt stuff


If it's true that there are many pastiches of this score, it might be true that today, in 2022, this score might sound as "conveyor-belt stuff", but THE ORIGINAL, as written above, is THE ORIGINAL, and I give a 10/10 to the original, not to a pastiche.
In other words, in the 1994 the score of the Lion King sounded not only effective but also ORIGINAL.
I've listened to many film scores and I think that this work is a king of the genre: how many film scores have a so effective drammatic arc? To my ears, not so many!

_



Gladiator

Click to expand...

_


> is the same, the so-called 'theme' is extremely forgettable.


I recommend to listen to the full suite of a film score and not only to one theme extracted from the context. If you only listen to one single theme, your reaction might be "it's all here?".
However, if you listen to a concert with the full suite, you can appreciate that theme in it's context.

When the most known theme comes in at 3:55 is a special moment, but it's obvious that a composer can not writes music that every single person likes.









> For the same reasons many other similar things have accrued awards from mass appreciation I suppose. I know it's unpopular to say that the general listener might not have such a sophisticated ear and is therefore more easily satisfied


1) I'm not "easily satisfied", otherwise I would give a 10/10 to every film score (as well as to the many pop songs with a catchy melody). I give a 10/10 to the music of the Lion King because in my opinion it has really something special in respect to the 99% of music out there. I've explained my reasons above.

2) To say that you must be a musician to understand if a piece of music is good or not it's a bit like to say that you have to be a cook to understand if food is good or not. It's quite the opposite: the consumers determine what's good and what's not good and the good cooks and the good musicians are the ones who are able to satisfy the consumers.
You must also consider that being musicians might create a distortion in the judgement. For example, a pianist might like the pieces that are more challenging, but for the experience of the consumer the difficulty for the musicians is irrelevant.
I've already written that very often the adagio cantabile is the best movement in classical music for the consumer, but the allegro is probably more challenging for the musicians.

More in general, for the consumers of music is not really relevant how much hard is the whole things for the musicians, because the things that give the strongest emotions are not necessarily super elaborated.



> This is a difficult area because it strays into matters of taste. It's likely that quite a lot of people who were children when _The Lion King_ was released have a more emotional attachement to it as a whole package and through repeated viewings/listening were probably first awakened to the power of music as an emotional stimulus.


It's exactly the opposite, in my case. I watched the Lion King because I wanted to see how the music is used inside of it. This means that I appreciated the music in the concert hall and then, after a while, I decided that I had to listen to the music inside the context.
To be honest, I won't watch The Lion King an other time, but I will still listen to the music many times.

If you were speaking of Schindler's List or Star Wars however you would be right: the fact that I like the films can reinforce my appreciation for the music, but I still try to separate the two things and simply judge the music for what it is.

If anything, the part that helps me to appreciate the score of The Lion King even more is the fact that Hans Zimmer dedicated it to his father, who died when he was 6 years old. I believe that Zimmer wrote this score with the heart, while in other cases it was only a job. When something is not only a job, but a personal thing, your work is more artistic... and that's why Zimmer won so many awards with The Lion King but he hasn't won any other academy award until the last year.

Not so a great composer in the average maybe, but when he composed the music of The Lion King had an artistic vision in his mind.


----------



## mikeh375

Chat Noir said:


> ..................I've worked in production music (TV, film, advertising) for a good deal of my working life. I work for such an operation now which provides music for TV, radio and advertising. Mostly arranging (or re-arranging/orchestrating) other people's music, which is how it operates. There are strict demands and people are looking for a known quantity, a particular sound. This is a product not really 'art'. For the most part you don't come across much more than people looking for something which sounds like something else. On the whole they are using and re-using the same ideas and often the same music. I can't enumerate the number of time I've had things sent back for being 'too complicated', 'not direct enough'. These people either want nursery rhymes written for an orchestra, or electronic music that sounds like the thing they don't want to pay expensive royalties on.


Aaaah @Chat Noir I suspected that we may have a few things in common. Good to know....and I bet we could regale each other with some terrible tales and misadventures..


----------



## Forster

@HansZimmer 

How old were you when you first watched The Lion King?


----------



## DaveM

Chat Noir said:


> ..Why do you keep replying to me with such a tone?


Maybe you should check your own tone. From the first time you responded to one of my posts, your tone has been negative which is, to say the least, surprising for someone who just joined the forum. I took the time to write a post to someone else explaining my experience, listing a few examples and you horn in with the opening, _‘Your list is for me spotty.’ _as if a post meant for someone else doesn’t meet your needs which would apparently require a more comprehensive list of all the recent film composers I’ve had experience with and their works.

In your response, you apparently missed the fact that I said that the period I was particularly interested in ended sometime around a decade ago which means that fully fleshed out original soundtracks are harder to find these days.


----------



## Blakehouse

HansZimmer said:


> In the "Movie Corner" I opened a poll about the film scores which got the nomination "Best original score" in the Academy Awards (Oscars) of 1990: Talkclassical best film score award - 1990
> 
> This is for the first part of the competition Talkclassical best film score award.
> 
> Now, the score of the film "The Fabulous Baker Boys" (one of the film nominated in 1990) could be probably classified as Jazz (see for example the first theme) and Intrumental pop (see for example the second theme).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that no one would say that this is not jazz music because it was composed for a film. No one would say "this is not jazz but film music". Indeed, film music is not a genre of music: it only means that the music was composed for a film.
> 
> However, the other four nominated film scores, I think that can be classified as "romantic music".
> Usually, the film scores which get a nomination for the "Best original scores" are more or less classical music.
> 
> That's why the radio Classic FM started to insert some film scores in the competition Classic FM Hall of Fame.
> Their decision is criticized by many people. Read for example this article of the journal "The Guardian": Can film music ever be classical?
> 
> The argument of the writer of this article is that film scores can never be classified as "classical music" because they are composed for images and not for concerts (so, it is not standalone music, but a part of the movie).
> If this argument is valid, then we must conclude that the score of "The Fabulous Baker Boys" is not jazz because it was composed for images and not for concerts.
> 
> However, I agree that pure "motion music" is not extractable from it's context, but the best film scores (the one who win at The Academy Awards) are not simply "motion music": it's music that can be extracted as standalone music. Indeed, the best score composers sell tickets for concerts.
> 
> 
> Maybe the real reason of these people is that they think that John Williams is not as good as Beethoven, Mozart, Bach and so on and they see classical music as a "closed enclosure" where you can enter only if you have a special permission.
> If it is so, still I don't see the logic: you don't have to be Roger Federer for being a tennis player. So, you could simply say "Peter is a tennis player but not the number one" and "John Williams is a classical music composer but not the number one".
> 
> You might say that Bach is the number one and John Williams only an ordinary composer, if you think this, but I don't see the logic of "the closed enclosure".
> Someone could for example say that the composer of "The Fabulous Baker Boys" is a poor jazz composer, but it's still jazz.
> 
> 
> To conclude, my opinion is that much of the music composed for film scores is good classical music: "good" is my personal judgement, but every one can have his own.
> If you ask me "Don't you hear the difference between classical music and film scores?", my anwser is that usually film scores are built around one or more powerful themes, while some pieces in classical music are not so melody focused.
> I won't say that film scores don't have their distinticive rules, but that those rules are compatible with classical music, because there are many pieces that are considered "classical" that are built around a main theme.
> "Spring" of Vivaldi is a good example.
> The idea that classical music must be "chaotic" is only a personal preference of some people and not a rule that every composer must respect.


interesting conversion, I am fairly new to classical music, but have grown up listening to movies scores.

forgive my ignorance, but what would be an example of "motion music"?

How would someone like a Bill Conti fit into a classical music composer discussion?


----------



## Chat Noir

I'll only take a few of these or it's going to get very long and unwieldy.



HansZimmer said:


> Very effective = Very good, from the perspective from the music consumer. If you see music as a simple service, this is an excellent service.


This will depend upon what service is being rendered. As a few here seem to have repeated throughout this long thread (most of whose many pages I actually have read) the music is serving a defined purpose and it isn't particularly groundbreaking in its content or construction. I said it is 'effective' because it does its job. In that sense it is good. It most certainly isn't good in the sense that e.g. Debussy's preludes are 'good'. Or Brahms's Requiem is 'good'. Absolutely not.



HansZimmer said:


> If it's true that there are many pastiches of this score, it might be true that today, in 2022, this score might sound as "conveyor-belt stuff", but THE ORIGINAL, as written above, is THE ORIGINAL, and I give a 10/10 to the original, not to a pastiche.
> In other words, in the 1994 the score of the Lion King sounded not only effective but also ORIGINAL.
> I've listened to many film scores and I think that this work is a king of the genre: how many film scores have a so effective drammatic arc? To my ears, not so many!


Then they are pastiches of pastiche. I don't buy this view that this was somehow a groundbreaking score of its time and since then only seems ordinary because it set a great standard. It set a new low standard for hackneyed devices and otherwise just makes use of people orchestrating basic themes. It's essentially orchestra pops.



HansZimmer said:


> To say that you must be a musician to understand if a piece of music is good or not it's a bit like to say that you have to be a cook to understand if food is good or not. It's quite the opposite: the consumers determine what's good and what's not good and the good cooks and the good musicians are the ones who are able to satisfy the consumers.


There is something in this, but not entirely. You don't have to be a cook to recognise good food, but you need to be a good cook to make it. There are plenty of good listeners, but there are plenty of mediocre ones too. There are also mediocre composers and I don't know how a mediocre listener can tell the difference either way. I'd be more inclined with food and music to say that some level of objective quality (or mediocrity) in them, but that ultimately there's no point in disputing about the taste.



HansZimmer said:


> You must also consider that being musicians might create a distortion in the judgement. For example, a pianist might like the pieces that are more challenging, but for the experience of the consumer the difficulty for the musicians is irrelevant.


That's a fair point, but hardly the musician's fault or problem. At some level you have to please audiences or they stop coming. On the other hand to never break the routine just so that listeners are catered to and soothed with what they know and love is death to a performer or a composer. Or any artist.

I'm struck by how much you admire the Lion King score.


----------



## Chat Noir

DaveM said:


> Maybe you should check your own tone. From the first time you responded to one of my posts, your tone has been negative which is, to say the least, surprising for someone who just joined the forum. I took the time to write a post to someone else explaining my experience, listing a few examples and you horn in with the opening, _‘Your list is for me spotty.’ _as if a post meant for someone else doesn’t meet your needs which would apparently require a comprehensive list of all the recent film composers I’ve had experience with and their works.


'Spotty' as in the music is hit-and-miss for me. And I did say 'for me'. Not 'for you' and everyone else. what's wrong with that? Didn't I also say I wouldn't require a long and comprehensive list? And also note the reason why? Disagreeing with a view is only negative in a technical sense, not a vexed sense.


----------



## Chat Noir

DaveM said:


> In your response, you apparently missed the fact that I said that the period I was particularly interested in ended sometime around a decade ago which means that fully fleshed out original soundtracks are harder to find these days.


I see you added a bit. Yes, I perhaps did miss that. To be honest though there haven't been a huge number of them throughout the history of film music anyway. Film scores of great originality have been the exception, not the rule. Maybe this applies to a lot things.


----------



## fbjim

Film music as a discipline has evolved quite a bit though - i think a bit similar to capital-P Pop music, it's less about specifically pushing the frontiers of new sounds or whatever, and more about applying existing styles and adapting them to the medium, vis stuff like the famous scores for John Carpenter movies.


----------



## Forster

Chat Noir said:


> Film scores of great originality have been the exception, not the rule


I'm wondering what 'originality' looks like in a film score. Can you offer an example?


----------



## Chat Noir

Forster said:


> I'm wondering what 'originality' looks like in a film score. Can you offer an example?


Probably not without a bit of a think. I did after all say they were the exception!


----------



## mikeh375

Forster said:


> I'm wondering what 'originality' looks like in a film score. Can you offer an example?


Orignality is often breaking new ground and if the parasitical briefs I had in advertising were anything to go on then scores like the ones to 'Amelie', 'Edward Scissorhands' and fantasy music in the lydian mode courtesy of John William's ET where wildly original as they became the bain of many a composer who had to win over the ears of ad agencies, producers and directors who would often use these scores as temp tracks - I don't know how I managed to win some jobs on reflection. So ubiquitous at one point was the request for something "that sounds like"Amelie, that the musical ideas in that and other really great scores became jaded to the point where they were demoted to those lego bricks that @Chat Noir and me have mentioned.

As Hermann has been mentioned, I immediately think of ground breaking and original scores like 'Psycho' and the onomatopoeic contrary motion arpeggios in 'Vertigo' as being incredibly original and iconic.


----------



## Chat Noir

mikeh375 said:


> As Hermann has been mentioned, I immediately think of ground breaking and original scores like 'Psycho' and the onomatopoeic contrary motion arpeggios in 'Vertigo' as being incredibly original and iconic.


Yes, both of those. I was originally more drawn to Psycho, and I still think it is a great score, but Vertigo is perhaps much more influential and the arpeggios turned up in other scores e.g. _Fahrenheit 451. _I like his approach, he often built cues out of an interesting melodic progression or just a little repeated figure. Such as in _The Ghost and Mrs Muir. _He also repeats himself quite a bit and it's understandable when you have to turn things out under pressure and his output was rather large. He still pulled things out of the hat at a late stage though,like his score for _Taxi Driver. _Though this was orchestrated by someone else.

Another composer who was a genuine crossover between classical music/film music was Malcolm Arnold. Overlooked these days for his film output. A superb orchestrator.


----------



## Chat Noir

I think it's worth looking at some other examples of how grand film music has come from not very classical origins. It's also an interesting tidbit of film music history. Two years before the first 'Dollars Trilogy' Ennio Morricone arranged a version of a Woodie Guthrie song _Pastures of Plenty_ for minor folk singer Peter Tevis, who also collaborated on some of his soundtracks.

This song, which is below, sounds a lot like the main theme to _A Fistful Of Dollars_ because that's exactly what that is, without the lyrics. All the music for that film is credited to Ennio Morricone, which might seem dodgy at first, but if you listen to Guthrie's original further down it's clear Morricone added a great deal to his 'arrangement' since Guthrie plays only one chord for 95% of the song. Tevis later said his version was 'copied' for the title music, which is a bit absurd when Morricone wrote both. But still.. Is it plagiarism or inspiration or a complete re-write?

Tevis/Morricone






Woody Guthrie


----------



## Forster

mikeh375 said:


> Orignality is often breaking new ground and if the parasitical briefs I had in advertising were anything to go on then scores like the ones to 'Amelie', 'Edward Scissorhands' and fantasy music in the lydian mode courtesy of John William's ET where wildly original as they became the bain of many a composer who had to win over the ears of ad agencies, producers and directors who would often use these scores as temp tracks - I don't know how I managed to win some jobs on reflection. So ubiquitous at one point was the request for something "that sounds like"Amelie, that the musical ideas in that and other really great scores became jaded to the point where they were demoted to those lego bricks that @Chat Noir and me have mentioned.
> 
> As Hermann has been mentioned, I immediately think of ground breaking and original scores like 'Psycho' and the onomatopoeic contrary motion arpeggios in 'Vertigo' as being incredibly original and iconic.


I can't comment on any of the technical music points, but I can comment on the extent to which the music makes a contribution to the films impact. I've seen all of the movies you mention. Herrmann's scores are certainly striking, especially _Psycho_. _ET is _memorable too. _Amelie_, I can't bring to mind; I've only seen it once, about 15 years ago on DVD (always less memorable than seeing it in the cinema.)

Going back to Herrmann, does his Psycho reflect what was happening more widely with CM? Were there any other composers in the late 50s/early 60s attempting similar things? I looked at Dmitri Tiomkin's output, for example, but he's so busy doing westerns, the last thing you'd want - apparently - is innovation in a genre movie. Hitchcock was trying to break the mould with his thrillers, it's hardly surprising he's looking for different.


----------



## Chat Noir

Forster said:


> Going back to Herrmann, does his Psycho reflect what was happening more widely with CM? Were there any other composers in the late 50s/early 60s attempting similar things?


In some ways the bits everyone remembers from Psycho, the 'stabbing violins' and all that rhythmic string work is in dozens of string works from decades earlier. I'm not saying they're identical or he even knew of them, but the style and tone reflects the same approach. I'd look at Alan Rawsthorne's 2nd string quartet,Polish composer Miecyslaw Weinberg's 1st quartet, certainly Shostakovich. Herrmann was also a Charles Ives fan. 

Alfred Newman, one of the shapers of Hollywood film music, studied for a time with Schoenberg in the U.S.. I think all the composers looking to keep on top of musical progress kept an eye on what was happening.


----------



## HansZimmer

Forster said:


> @HansZimmer
> 
> How old were you when you first watched The Lion King?


I don't know exactly... I was in elementary school. It was not my favourite animation, nor the second. I had other animations in my top 10.

I had almost forgot it until I listened to the music of the film in the last years. I rewatched it thanks to the music, so in my case is not the animated film that attracts me towards the music, but the music that attracts me towards the animated film.
After I rewatched the film, however, I concluded that I prefer to simply listen to the music without the movie: this experience gives me more emotions. The film is too distracting and the voices over the soundtrack ruine the music.
Furthermore I prefer the concert version than the OST.


----------



## mikeh375

Chat Noir said:


> Another composer who was a genuine crossover between classical music/film music was Malcolm Arnold. Overlooked these days for his film output. A superb orchestrator.


Known fondly as 'Master of the Lean's Music' to British musos. Yes, I have a few scores of his and the orchestration is always crystal clear although (and wandering off-topic for a moment), I prefer Britten's clarity and orchestral invention.
Sometines, when listening to Arnold's symphonies, I get a little annoyed at the 'popular' elements such as the Irish jig in the 7th. Other moments in his symphonies, when his more recognisable film score style breaks through can irritate me too if I'm in the wrong mood for it. Unlike Mahler's ländler and other rustic moments, Arnold's dipping into popular culture just seems to jar too much at times - more brazenly juxtaposed rather than integrated.

Arnold's facility for speedy writing was on a par with Herrmmans which as we know is quite the advantage in the film world. I believe Herrmann could re-write cues during lunch breaks at recording sessions if required. Now that facility is in sharp contrast to a contemporary and well known film scorer, who when hearing a cue for the first time fully orchestrated and played live at the scoring session, had to bash one fingered on a (piano) keyboard until he found the note he didn't like (on the horns apparently), sending the team of scorers and copyists into overdrive to sort it out. I heard that particular tale from someone in the control room at the time, but I wont say who the composer was, nor the source. All said though this composer, however he's managed it, has written some iconic music so fair play to him..

But overall, I too really like Arnold's work and his booze fuelled and mentally deteriorating life story is tragic and hilarious in equal measure, the madness and chaos of which explains vividly the mercurial nature of his work.
Put on your Riverdance clogs and listen from 34'30" in. The Irish music is preceded by some Herrmann-esque harmony and gets into full swing at 35'16".






@Chat Noir
You mentioned Alfred Newman, do you know if it was him who had a party after completing a film score, during which he would ritually burn the score such was the disdain he had for the musical worth of composing for film? I remember reading that one well known composer did this but can't recall who it was. If it wasn't him, it was someone from his day I'm sure. An old skool example of how composers viewed utility music compared to listeners perceptions. Nothing has changed in that regard.

More originality for you @Forster, Newman's son Thomas created iconic and much aped and exploited sound for 'American Beauty' using that memorable rhythmic marimba hook. This music's 'feel' shall we say, also flooded advertising for quite some time after it came out. I wonder how many cases went to court for copyright breach as composers where pressed to get ever closer to the original as they pitched for the contract.


----------



## mikeh375

this maybe of interest...

Two Masters, One Artform


----------



## Forster

Well yes, that marimba hook is distinctive, but Zimmer used the marimba prominently in True Romance 6 years earlier. I note that Thomas Newman was part of Zimmer's music dept for that film!


----------



## mikeh375

Forster said:


> Well yes, that marimba hook is distinctive, but Zimmer used the marimba prominently in True Romance 6 years earlier. I note that Thomas Newman was part of Zimmer's music dept for that film!


I haven't seen that movie. I do know I was innundated with requests to write music alla 'American Beauty' though, if that's any sort of measure of originality to be reckoned with. Is the Zimmer as distinctive?


----------



## HansZimmer

mikeh375 said:


>


I like Thomas Newman, but there are much better scores in his repertory.


----------



## HansZimmer

Blakehouse said:


> forgive my ignorance, but what would be an example of "motion music"?


Only the initial theme between 0:00 and 0:25 (the opening) might be used in standalone music.
The rest, after 0:25, is what I call "motion music". When listening to the music, you feel like something is happening, but you don't know what. The one of Tom & Jerry is an example of a score that you can not extract from it's context: this music is really only to follow the images on the screen.






There are persons like @Forster who think (or pretened to think) that all film scores are pure motion music like the one of Tom&Jerry, but in reality a lot of film music is not motion music.



> How would someone like a Bill Conti fit into a classical music composer discussion?



For example the main theme of Rocky has nothing to do with classical music (How we can call it? Pop? Eighties dance?), but it's an example of music that can stand alone (so, it's not motion music). The same is true for many film scores in classical style.

The discussion doesn't suggest that film music=classical music, but that film music is not a genre of music and simply uses existing genre of music (pop, rock, dance, classical, electronic...).
The question is "Why do many people think that WHEN a film score is rooted in classical music, is not classical music?".

No one would say that the theme of Rocky is not pop/eighties dance/whatever... because it has been composed for a film. No one says "This is not pop/dance but film music". "Film music" only describes the usage.


----------



## Forster

mikeh375 said:


> I haven't seen that movie. I do know I was innundated with requests to write music alla 'American Beauty' though, if that's any sort of measure of originality to be reckoned with. Is the Zimmer as distinctive?


I haven't seen either movie! I have watched part of _American Beauty_ and was familiar with its music - though more likely precisely because it was used and copied so much elsewhere. I know about _True Romance_ because my sons and I used to like trying to guess soundtrack composers and Zimmer and Horner were often our first guesses. Consequently, both have developed a fondness for Zimmer's work - they put me on to _True Romance_.

The rest of course was a matter of looking up on IMDb. Zimmer's music is often much more propulsive. Newman seems to go for space, thoughtfulness...more like Part than Reich. It's the use of the marimba up front that is (or seems to me) unusual.



HansZimmer said:


> [...]
> There are persons like @Forster who think (or pretened to think) that all film scores are pure motion music like the one of Tom&Jerry, but in reality a lot of film music is not motion music.


First, I'm not pretending anything. I don't see how I can make my views about film music any clearer, but if there's still something you don't understand, please ask instead of making negative insinuations.

Second, I've never said anything about _all _scores, (though I do recall saying something about "the bulk" of mainstream movies and their scores): that would be stupid, and I'm not stupid. Whilst I think I know what you mean by "motion music", I certainly don't think (and have never said) that film scores are pure motion music. In reality, film scores often comprise a main theme along with many short cues which serve various purposes. Not all movies have a main theme. Some do, but the theme is only heard in full at the end.

Besides, you might also recall that I pointed out that an OST is not just about the music, but the entire blend of sound FX, dialogue and music. It's why although like everyone else, I can enjoy the "tunes" that many movies provide, I'm most interested in the whole OST in context.


----------



## Luchesi

HansZimmer said:


> I don't know exactly... I was in elementary school. It was not my favourite animation, nor the second. I had other animations in my top 10.
> 
> I had almost forgot it until I listened to the music of the film in the last years. I rewatched it thanks to the music, so in my case is not the animated film that attracts me towards the music, but the music that attracts me towards the animated film.
> After I rewatched the film, however, I concluded that I prefer to simply listen to the music without the movie: this experience gives me more emotions. The film is too distracting and the voices over the soundtrack ruine the music.
> Furthermore I prefer the concert version than the OST.


That's interesting. I suspect that the pop offerings at that time weren't naturally appealing to your early adolescent changeover. That's understandable because it got very grungy at that time. If you had been five years older during that decade you might not have become a connoisseur of FM. And then beyond that, I've seen that FM will grow with a listener longer in a young life than most of that pop music.
I'm surely not a psychologist, but the psychology is extremely interesting. I try to compare other peoples' introductions to more difficult music with what had been my own path. The hows and whys.


----------



## Luchesi

HansZimmer said:


> Only the initial theme between 0:00 and 0:25 (the opening) might be used in standalone music.
> The rest, after 0:25, is what I call "motion music". When listening to the music, you feel like something is happening, but you don't know what. The one of Tom & Jerry is an example of a score that you can not extract from it's context: this music is really only to follow the images on the screen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are persons like @Forster who think (or pretened to think) that all film scores are pure motion music like the one of Tom&Jerry, but in reality a lot of film music is not motion music.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For example the main theme of Rocky has nothing to do with classical music (How we can call it? Pop? Eighties dance?), but it's an example of music that can stand alone (so, it's not motion music). The same is true for many film scores in classical style.
> 
> The discussion doesn't suggest that film music=classical music, but that film music is not a genre of music and simply uses existing genre of music (pop, rock, dance, classical, electronic...).
> The question is "Why do many people think that WHEN a film score is rooted in classical music, is not classical music?".
> 
> No one would say that the theme of Rocky is not pop/eighties dance/whatever... because it has been composed for a film. No one says "This is not pop/dance but film music". "Film music" only describes the usage.


You can answer your own question by thinking about what are the goals and intentions and achievements and history and development of CM (as the highest art of music). It's the same in the history of painting and other arts.


----------



## HansZimmer

HansZimmer said:


> There has been a rain of deserved awards on the score of the Lion King and if you tell me that it's forgettable music it probably means that you have a musical ear outside of the average (which doesn't mean that it's superior or inferior, but only different).
> Try to think about this: if it was really forgettable music for the normal human ear, why would the music have won so many awards?





> For the same reasons many other similar things have accrued awards from mass appreciation I suppose. I know it's unpopular to say that the general listener might not have such a sophisticated ear and is therefore more easily satisfied, but there is some of that at play. This is a difficult area because it strays into matters of taste. It's likely that quite a lot of people who were children when _The Lion King_ was released have a more emotional attachement to it as a whole package and through repeated viewings/listening were probably first awakened to the power of music as an emotional stimulus.


@Chat Noir I've noticed that in my post I was speaking about AWARDS, while in your reply you speak about the APPRECIATION of the general public.

Maybe you don't know that AWARDS are not given by the GENERAL PUBLIC.

We can start with this example.
The film "Titanic" has a good vote in IMDB (8/10), but for the general public is not the best film.
For the Academy Awards, however, it is, because it's still the film with the highest number of awards.

The appreciation of the general public is probably mostly based on pure emotional appreciation, while at the Academy Awards different technical aspects of the film are considered.
I read the judges of the Academy Awards are circa 7'000 persons who work in the film industry and that they are divided by branch, which means that, for example, the nominations for the "Best actor" award are given by actors.
I don't know specific details about the judges for the "Best original score" (maybe @pianozach has more information than me), but it would be logic if the nomations were given by composers. If it works so, then your argument is not valid: The Lion King has not been nominated and awarded by the kids, but by a group of adults who were probably (?) composers.

Now, look at all the awards: The Lion King - Awards - IMDb

The score was also nominated at the grammies, where the judges are musicians.
There is also a nomination for *the International Film Music Critics Award, *where the judges are critics of music.

What I want to say is that in order to win so many awards and nominations, the score of The Lion King had to be largely valued by the critics and not by the general public.


Finally, it must be noted that the general public probably loves Hans Zimmer more than the critics. Infact, the records of the Academy Awards suggest that Alfred Newman, John Williams, Thomas Newman and Alex North are the best composers: Academy Award for Best Original Score

There is no bias in favour of Hans Zimmer. He simply received an award when he deserved it, but in general he is not so much considered.

Maybe you should only surrender to the fact that your negative view about the score of the Lion King is a personal thing and that many other persons have different opinions.


----------



## HansZimmer

Luchesi said:


> That's interesting. I suspect that the pop offerings at that time weren't naturally appealing to your early adolescent changeover. That's understandable because it got very grungy at that time. If you had been five years older during that decade you might not have become a connoisseur of FM. And then beyond that, I've seen that FM will grow with a listener longer in a young life than most of that pop music.
> I'm surely not a psychologist, but the psychology is extremely interesting. I try to compare other peoples' introductions to more difficult music with what had been my own path. The hows and whys.


You are wrong. I used to listen exclusively to popular music during my childhood and teenhood, and it worked perfectly for me. It stopped to work during my adulthood and so I abandoned popular music in favour of orchestral music.

My luck is that I'm not picky and so I can appreciate anything inside tonal orchestral music: baroque, classical, romantic, modern, contemporary and film music. I am not subscribed to a style or a composer because I think that you can find good music in all categories.
I see that other persons have not my luck and so as soon as they leave their narrow perimeter they start ranting.

if you are not closed of mind, you can see that there is excellent music in all categories of orchestral music, including film music.


----------



## Forster

It's not difficult to find out how the process of nomination and voting for the music Oscars works. Here's an extract:



> Works shall be judged on their effectiveness, craftsmanship, creative substance and relevance to the dramatic whole, and only as presented within the motion picture. Extended, revised, enhanced or alternate versions outside of the film shall not be considered.
> B. Films eligible for Original Score and film clips of eligible Original Songs shall be viewed by all members of the Music Branch who will use a preferential voting system to produce a shortlist of fifteen titles in each category. Five nominees for Original Song and five nominees for Original Score will then be chosen by a second round of balloting, again using a preferential voting system.
> C. In all three categories, the five achievements receiving the highest number of votes will become the nominations for final voting for the award


Those who nominate and vote are those who belong to the music section of the academy. They have to be people currently active in the film music industry, or have served with distinction in the FM industry including previous Oscar winners.

_The Lion King_ does have a score that has gained a recognised accolade. That counts for something. But as anyone who has followed the history of the awards industry knows, an Oscar does not confer a unanimous view of the superiority of quality of one film over another.


----------



## Chat Noir

HansZimmer said:


> Finally, it must be noted that the general public probably loves Hans Zimmer more than the critics. Infact, the records of the Academy Awards suggest that Alfred Newman, John Williams, Thomas Newman and Alex North are the best composers: Academy Award for Best Original Score


There's a lot of usage of 'good' and 'best' whilst at the same time claiming personal opinion to be illegitimate. 'Good' and 'best' seem to be based upon either judges' opinions when that suits and public opinion when that suits. I suspect that the vast majority of people bought that soundtrack for the pop songs on it, since these were the hits,and because of the film. So we'll put that down as the reason for the sales. If anyone has information to challenge that, so be it.
The judges are also people swayed by opinion and since we already know that things like the Academy awards and the Grammy awards are famous for so-called 'upsets' or cases where something wins because of overwhelming public and sales figures approval, it might not be the best way of judging something on artistic merit.

However, The Lion King did well against fairly stiff competition from Forrest Gump and The Shawshank Redemption, but look at any list of films released in 1994. It's worth asking what criteria had to be met for shortlist inclusion? Why e.g. Rachel Portman's soundtrack to _Sirens_ wasn't on a shortlist? Or any from the same year. Not that I'm saying they're better or great, just what are criteria?


----------



## DaveM

It should be noted that the Academy Awards has removed the category of ‘Best Original Score’ from the main programming. The playing of the main themes of soundtracks up for an award throughout the program used to be one of the high points. Fwiw, there is an ongoing concern over the programming of Best Original Songs up for an award during the program. From what I’ve seen over the last few years, music at the Academy Awards, in general, is getting short shrift.

Fond memory from the past:


----------



## Chat Noir

It does sound a bit like mawkish country music though.


----------



## Forster

Chat Noir said:


> [...] It's worth asking what criteria had to be met for shortlist inclusion? Why e.g. Rachel Portman's soundtrack to _Sirens_ wasn't on a shortlist? Or any from the same year. Not that I'm saying they're better or great, just what are criteria?


"Works shall be judged on their effectiveness, craftsmanship, creative substance and relevance to the dramatic whole, and only as presented within the motion picture. Extended, revised, enhanced or alternate versions outside of the film shall not be considered."



https://www.oscars.org/sites/oscars/files/95aa_music_rules.pdf


----------



## pianozach

HansZimmer said:


> @Chat Noir I've noticed that in my post I was speaking about AWARDS, while in your reply you speak about the APPRECIATION of the general public.
> 
> Maybe you don't know that AWARDS are not given by the GENERAL PUBLIC.
> 
> We can start with this example.
> The film "Titanic" has a good vote in IMDB (8/10), but for the general public is not the best film.
> For the Academy Awards, however, it is, because it's still the film with the highest number of awards.
> 
> The appreciation of the general public is probably mostly based on pure emotional appreciation, while at the Academy Awards different technical aspects of the film are considered.
> 
> I read the judges of the Academy Awards are circa 7'000 persons who work in the film industry and that they are divided by branch, which means that, for example, the nominations for the "Best actor" award are given by actors.
> I don't know *specific details about the judges for the "Best original score" *(maybe @pianozach has more information than me), but it would be logic if the nomations were given by composers. If it works so, then your argument is not valid: The Lion King has not been nominated and awarded by the kids, but by a group of adults who were probably (?) composers.


Correct. Except for the "Best Picture" category, Oscar nominees are selected by members of the particular branch voting for artists from their own category using both paper and online ballots. For instance, only directors can nominate directors, actors can nominate actors. 

Academy members in each category are chosen two ways: One must either have been a nominee (or maybe you had to actually WIN, I'm not positive which), or have been sponsored for Academy membership by two existing members. 

I think that the entire Academy gets to vote on all categories, once they're chosen.


----------



## pianozach

Just an observation regarding the objective and subjective "worth" of film scores: Both the Motion Picture Academy (The Oscars) and the Recording Academy (The Grammys) give out awards for film scores. The five nominees for each are rarely identical. They'll usually share two or three film scores, but differ on two or three as well.

Does that make these seven or eight scores the "best" from each year? Of course not. They are the ones that the particular judging panels feel are the best. 

But any given list of music, whether it's the best symphony, best Prog album, best pop group, etc., isn't necessarily the best. Terrible films have won the Best Picture award, and great Rock Bands have been excluded from the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

At best these lists are a decent indicator of "worth", but never are they the final word.


----------



## Luchesi

HansZimmer said:


> You are wrong. I used to listen exclusively to popular music during my childhood and teenhood, and it worked perfectly for me. It stopped to work during my adulthood and so I abandoned popular music in favour of orchestral music.
> 
> My luck is that I'm not picky and so I can appreciate anything inside tonal orchestral music: baroque, classical, romantic, modern, contemporary and film music. I am not subscribed to a style or a composer because I think that you can find good music in all categories.
> I see that other persons have not my luck and so as soon as they leave their narrow perimeter they start ranting.
> 
> if you are not closed of mind, you can see that there is excellent music in all categories of orchestral music, including film music.


You and Forster are rare folks. 

I wonder if I'm rare, I don't think I'm quite as rare as them.

CM fans are rare. We must not assume that other people are like us.


----------



## HansZimmer

Luchesi said:


> You and Forster are rare folks.


What do you mean?



> CM fans are rare.


In an italian forum for politics a poll reveals that classical music is the most appreciated genre of music by the members of the forum after rock.

I vostri generi musicali preferiti tra questi (termometropolitico.it)

I don't know if the members of that forum represents the general population, though.


----------



## Chat Noir

I have to say that in general I find film music to be mostly mediocre and hackneyed, especially modern film music. Older TV music, although also pretty formulaic and sourced from library music, used to throw up some right old gems.

Anyone remember the old theme to '_New Scotland Yard_'? Sounds like it's in 7/8. And then the theme used for a forgotten 70s series called '_The Hangman_' or later for the Two Ronnies' parody serial '_The Worm That Turned_'.

This was music that did the job and wasn't trying to too hard to be 'art'. I hope they paid the drummers well.


----------



## Chat Noir

HansZimmer said:


> In an italian forum for politics a poll reveals that classical music is the most appreciated genre of music by the members of the forum after rock.


I can't say 'most', but indeed there are plenty places where classical music is widely appreciated. Sometimes people live in cultural backwaters and assume that no-one else in the world (or just a few dozen mad people on forums) listens to classical or jazz.


----------



## Forster

Chat Noir said:


> I have to say that in general I find film music to be mostly mediocre and hackneyed, especially modern film music. Older TV music, although also pretty formulaic and sourced from library music, used to throw up some right old gems.


Ah, the good old days. 

No, wait a minute, I didn't mean The Good Old Days.


----------



## Forster

Chat Noir said:


> Increasingly the field has narrowed to a particular sound and style which is considered 'correct'; especially for large productions. And of course Hans Zimmer's name will have to be mentioned as his approach is the one responsible for this.


You're not suggesting that a single individual is responsible for the "narrowing" of film music, are you? Zimmer (like Williams) may seem to be ubiquitous, and he's certainly successful, but as I posted earlier, possibly in another thread, there are plenty of other FM composers busy in the field producing successful scores that others wouldn't consider "mediocre".

The list of nominees for the past 5 years at the Oscars shows that there's more to score than Williams and Zimmer, Morricone and Goldsmith, Steiner and Herrmann.

Nicholas Britell
Germaine Franco
Jon Batiste
Trent Reznor
Atticus Ross
Terence Blanchard
Hildur Guðnadóttir
Thomas Newman
Ludwig Goransson
Marc Shaiman
Alexandre Desplat
Jonny Greenwood
Alberto Iglesias
Emile Mosseri
James Newton Howard
Randy Newman
Carter Burwell
...and, yes, John Williams and Hans Zimmer. (Out of these two titans, only Zimmer won in the last 5 years.)


----------



## HansZimmer

fbjim said:


> Of course it's not as if we can't listen to music out of context all the time - any time we put on liturgical music we're doing this - but I do find it interesting that an "average listener"'s conception of "great film music" is likely entirely different to that of someone working in that industry.





mikeh375 said:


> You mentioned Alfred Newman, do you know if it was him who had a party after completing a film score, during which he would ritually burn the score such was the disdain he had for the musical worth of composing for film? I remember reading that one well known composer did this but can't recall who it was. If it wasn't him, it was someone from his day I'm sure. An old skool example of how composers viewed utility music compared to listeners perceptions. Nothing has changed in that regard.


Don't cherry-pick, guys!

John Williams is smiling here while conducting the Imperial March.







James Horner was in the public for the event "Hollywood in Vienna 2013" and was crying during the performance of the Titanic Suite. You see him at 00:52.







In all jobs there are persons who only want to make a living and persons who put their hearts in the profession. Obviously it works like this in the world of film scores too.

That said, I don't see the point. A cook might not like the food he has to prepare for a customer, but this doesn't mean that there is no quality in the result.


----------



## pianozach

Forster said:


> You're not suggesting that a single individual is responsible for the "narrowing" of film music, are you? Zimmer (like Williams) may seem to be ubiquitous, and he's certainly successful, but as I posted earlier, possibly in another thread, there are plenty of other FM composers busy in the field producing successful scores that others wouldn't consider "mediocre".
> 
> The list of nominees for the past 5 years at the Oscars shows that there's more to score than Williams and Zimmer, Morricone and Goldsmith, Steiner and Herrmann.
> 
> Nicholas Britell
> Germaine Franco
> Jon Batiste
> Trent Reznor
> Atticus Ross
> Terence Blanchard
> Hildur Guðnadóttir
> Thomas Newman
> Ludwig Goransson
> Marc Shaiman
> Alexandre Desplat
> Jonny Greenwood
> Alberto Iglesias
> Emile Mosseri
> James Newton Howard
> Randy Newman
> Carter Burwell
> ...and, yes, John Williams and Hans Zimmer. (Out of these two titans, only Zimmer won in the last 5 years.)


*John Williams* has been ignored in favor of less entrenched film composers. He hasn't won since _Schindler's List_ in 1994. There's been an unintentional backlash, although it is not a mean-spirited one.

The Academy KNOWS his scores are great, but Williams has been _*nominated*_* for 52 *_*Academy Awards*_, winning 5 (for "_Fiddler on the Roof_," "_Jaws_," "_Star Wars_," "_ET: The Extra-Terrestrial_" and "_Schindler's List_.");
6 Emmy Awards, winning 3;
25 Golden Globe Awards, winning 4; and
72 Grammy Awards, winning 25;

. . . and bunches of other accolades, like the Saturn Awards.

*Williams* received his 52nd Oscar nomination in 2019, this time for his work on _"Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker."_ He was nominated alongside *Hildur Gudnadottir* ("_Joker_"), *Alexandre Desplat* ("_Little Women_"), *Randy Newman* ("_Marriage Story_") and *Thomas Newman* ("_1917_").

Given his age, he had a good chance of winning that year. I believe that he's "officially" retired from composing film scores, so the Academy might have felt it was their last chance to give him the award before he passes away.

But no, they felt it was time to recognize the "new" composer, *Gudnadottir*. She was also the only _female_ nominated. (Yes, I'm aware it's not her first film score, but among the nominees, she's the "newest", with her first film work in 2011.)


----------



## Forster

^ Maybe her score was the best. As we've both said, an Oscar is not an incontrovertible indicator of bestness, but then how on earth can one make the comparison anyway?


----------



## Alfacharger

Forster said:


> Well yes, that marimba hook is distinctive, but Zimmer used the marimba prominently in True Romance 6 years earlier. I note that Thomas Newman was part of Zimmer's music dept for that film!


Ah yes. Your so Cool.. Zimmers reworking of Orff...


----------



## HansZimmer

> I suspect that the vast majority of people bought that soundtrack for the pop songs on it, since these were the hits,and because of the film. So we'll put that down as the reason for the sales. If anyone has information to challenge that, so be it.


You wrote that the tastes of the musicians/composers are the relevant ones, not the ones of the masses, and now that we have explained that the "Best original score" nominations/awards are given by composers you are trying to use the tastes of the masses to demonstrate that the score of the Lion King is not good?

It's difficult to say what is the main reason for which persons buy the OST album. However we can look at the list of the OST albums of Hans Zimmer and ascertain that the average rating is good: Hans Zimmer Albums: songs, discography, biography, and listening guide - Rate Your Music

If the OST albums containing ONLY his music have good ratings, it's unlikely that his most awarded score doesn't play any role for the ratings of the OST album of The Lion King.


What we can do is to check the feedback of the youtube users in the video containing "This Land".






1.4 millions of views
11'701 likes

Here below you can find some comments posted under the video (I will consider the first comments who speak about the music and you can check that I don't cherry-pick the positive comments). This score is an example of music that it has not only been awarded by composers, but which is also loved by many persons of the general audience.

--------------------------------

_"Hans Zimmer definitely knows how to play with your feelings..."


"In my opinion, the Lion King is in the top 5 of the best soundtracks ever composed. "


"Disney, you must remember who you are. "


"I want this to be played at my funeral. I DEMAND IT. "


"when you hear such a masterpiece like this, you really understand the value of your ears "


"Hans Zimmer is a genius! I love him! "


"Hans Zimmer was born to bless us with his music. "


"1:10 - 1:35 ... chills.... "


"When Hans said that his father died when he was 6 and thats why he agreed to make this soundtrack because it was kinda similar story and Hans always wanted to tell that story to the people and every time i hear that 1:11 I feel like Hans is telling Good Bye to his father "


"This is not music, this is magic "


"I always liked the incidental non-song music in this movie; now, realizing it was Hans Zimmer all along, I know why. Even at 8 I was a Zimmer fan. "


"1:45. Perhaps the most beautiful melody ever composed. This is not an opinion, these people are facts! "


"I was 6 years old when this movie came out. On this day, it is the best disney movie what i every seen and it will always. The music on this movie give me always goosebumps. "


"Just watched the sunset while listening to this music. What an epic moment. "


"Holy ****, I had no idea that Hans Zimmer did this. "


"This is one of the best pieces I've EVER heard...Stay wild The Lion King,And everyone who's reading this,God Bless and find peace...know who you are,And Have HOPE...I also adore animals and it will never change "


"You know something is legendary when it always brings the same feelings no matter what you are doing "


"Destroys you from the inside and then fixes you with the ending "


"Listening to this music at the job is a bad idea, getting emotional every second more and more. I am 32 and this is my favorite music of all time, not only because of nostalgia of Lion King movie, but because this music is very deep and can touch the core. Hans Zimmer psychologist of the emotions of the universe. "_




Chat Noir said:


> There's a lot of usage of 'good' and 'best' whilst at the same time claiming personal opinion to be illegitimate. 'Good' and 'best' seem to be based upon either judges' opinions when that suits and public opinion when that suits.


I have never written that personal opinion is illegitimate, but the contrary. I say that "quality" in music is subjective, and therefore opinions is everything that we have.

Honestly, I think that the discussion like "what are the best composers" or "what are the best pieces" are quite sterile if the partecipants take it too much seriously. If you take this kind of discussions as "simple chats for fun", it's fine, but when the partecipants start to argue and offend the tastes of other people and declare the superiority of their own tastes I start to think that there are children at the other side of the wire.

I want to be clear about what is my opinion: fortunately, there is a lot of choice inside orchestral music and so everyone can have the music that satisfies his tastes. It's very much like food: there is not food that it's good for everyone, but there is food that it's good for YOUR TASTES, so the notion of "good", "better", "best" or whatever is only really useful when you are creating your personal playlist, but the "social charts" are quite useless.
For me the Academy Awards belong to the field of entertanment: they can not determine what is good for the single individual, but if you take them like a game (in the same way of the games in this forums) than you can get some simple fun.

The useful thing of the charts is that you can search for material inside of them. If many persons like something, it's more likely that you will also like it. It's simple statistic. However, you sometimes like a work that most people don't like and you sometimes don't like a work that most people like, so your individual charts are the only one that really counts.

I recommend to everyone to read books written by liberal philosophers/economists, which explain that there is no such thing as "objectively better": only the individual tastes can determine what is better for each individual.

So, is the music of The Lion King one of the best works in the history of music? In my INDIVIDUAL charts it is, and it's the exclusive thing that really counts. What I was saying is simply that if many individuals (composers included, because the awards are given by composers) like it there are probably reasons. Instead of telling us that we don't have reasons, you should simply consider the fact that that you simply don't understand our individual reasons.




> The judges are also people swayed by opinion and since we already know that things like the Academy awards and the Grammy awards are famous for so-called 'upsets' or cases where something wins because of overwhelming public and sales figures approval, it might not be the best way of judging something on artistic merit.


This is an arbitrary conclusion. It probably simply means that many times something has good sells because it's actually good from the point of view of many persons, included composers.



> However, The Lion King did well against fairly stiff competition from Forrest Gump and The Shawshank Redemption, but look at any list of films released in 1994. It's worth asking what criteria had to be met for shortlist inclusion? Why e.g. Rachel Portman's soundtrack to _Sirens_ wasn't on a shortlist? Or any from the same year. Not that I'm saying they're better or great, just what are criteria?


They have to choose only five and it's normal that your personal charts don't correspond to the charts created by a group of other individuals. This is what I'm trying to explain here above. The charts which are not individual are not really useful: they must be taken as simple "games".


----------



## Chat Noir

99% 'inspiration', 1% perspiration. They should be shunned.


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

Forster said:


> ^ Maybe her score was the best. As we've both said, an Oscar is not an incontrovertible indicator of bestness, but then how on earth can one make the comparison anyway?


Williams's _The Rise of Skywalker_ was turned into a musical mincemeat by editors and drowned in the audio mix. Everything that could be done to sabotage its Oscar chances, short of not playing it at all, had been done.


----------



## fbjim

Ironicallly, from film enthusiasts, the bias about the film music academy award I hear complained about most often is a bias toward orchestral music. Kinda like how period films almost always win best costuming.


----------



## HansZimmer

fbjim said:


> Ironicallly, from film enthusiasts, the bias about the film music academy award I hear complained about most often is a bias toward orchestral music. Kinda like how period films almost always win best costuming.


Maybe it's simply because orchestral music, especially if rooted in classical music, is more effective in films. Try to imagine Schindler's List with pop, jazz or rock. In action films you can use everything you want (rap music too), but what about drammatic, fantasy, adventure and historic films? It's usually in these last genres that you have to care a lot about music. Classical-orchestral music works well because is timeless and expressive.


----------



## pianozach

Forster said:


> ^ Maybe her score was the best. As we've both said, an Oscar is not an incontrovertible indicator of bestness, but then how on earth can one make the comparison anyway?


Possible.

I haven't sat down and listened to any of the nominated scores, or soundtrack suites. I have no doubt that all the nominated scores were very good, as were maybe a dozen other non-nominated scores.

*Hildur Gudnadottir *("_Joker_")*, WINNER
John Williams* _"Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker",_
*Thomas Newman* ("_1917_"),
*Alexandre Desplat* ("_Little Women_"), and
*Randy Newman* ("_Marriage Story_") 


Strangely and timely enough, the *Grammys* now include scores/soundtracks of _other_ visual media in their nominee list, calling it *Best Score Soundtrack for Visual Media*:

*Hildur Gudnadottir *("_Joker_")*, WINNER
John Williams* _"Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker",_
*Thomas Newman* ("_1917_"),
*Max Richter* ("_Ad Astra_"), and
*Kamasi Washington* ("_Becoming_")


----------



## Chat Noir

fbjim said:


> Ironicallly, from film enthusiasts, the bias about the film music academy award I hear complained about most often is a bias toward orchestral music. Kinda like how period films almost always win best costuming.


When I watched Baz Luhrman's version of _The Great Gatsby_ I was actually somewhat annoyed that the music wasn't hot jazz and some orchestral. Though I accept why the soundtrack was the way it was and it does work. Yet I do also think it was done to promote and market the film as much as for 'artistic' choices. There are many ways to score a film and filling it full of generic orchestra cues is only one way.


----------



## Forster

HansZimmer said:


> Try to imagine Schindler's List with pop, jazz or rock.


And if I can so imagine, then what?

It would be a different film.

Having a "good" score isn't just about making the right choice between classical, jazz, rock or pop.



pianozach said:


> I haven't sat down and listened to any of the nominated scores, or soundtrack suites. I have no doubt that all the nominated scores were very good, as were maybe a dozen other non-nominated scores.


Nor have I. I saw three of the movies at the cinema, one on TV, and two again afterwards on TV. Whatever one thinks of the John Williams score, the movie got a mixed reception, quite poor with the public (and the Star Wars fans were deeply split). Mind you, so did _Joker_. though it scored better with the public (I'm using Metacritic figures).

The information I posted about the process for nomination isn't quite sufficient to be clear how the judging occurs. It seems that the composer submits their film to the music branch of the Academy who have to consider the music as submitted, rather than as screened. If the final choice goes to all Academy members who've probably seen it in context at a screening, this might explain the final outcome.

Whatever the process, how does one compare the effectiveness of one score against another for 5 quite different films?


----------



## HansZimmer

Forster said:


> And if I can so imagine, then what?
> 
> It would be a different film.
> 
> Having a "good" score isn't just about making the right choice between classical, jazz, rock or pop.


I have to say that I also have some personal issues with the idea that cinema should promote popular music.
Given the fact that popular music is already promoted by the music industry, I think that the cinema must mantain his current role in the field of music: promoting classical and folk* music.
I don't see why the popular genre should monopolize everything.

*For persons who are not familiar with the musica dictionary, folk music is the traditional music that existed before the birth of the music industry.
Very often, the orchestral film music takes some elements of classical music and combine them with some elements of a determined folk music.
For example, if you produce a film about indigenous americans, you will probably compose an orchestral score with melodies that have an american touch, or you will insert in the orchestra some particular instruments that are typical of that culture.

Do we really want to destroy this wonderful cinematic tradition?
Everyone is free to create the music he wants for his own film, but I'm happy if the Academy Awards promote the good traditions of cinema.


----------



## Forster

HansZimmer said:


> I have to say that I also have some personal issues with the idea that cinema should promote popular music.
> Given the fact that popular music is already promoted by the music industry, I think that the cinema must mantain his current role in the field of music: promoting classical and folk* music.
> I don't see why the popular genre should monopolize everything.
> 
> *For persons who are not familiar with the musica dictionary, folk music is the traditional music that existed before the birth of the music industry.
> Very often, the orchestral film music takes some elements of classical music and combine them with some elements of a determined folk music.
> For example, if you produce a film about indigenous americans, you will probably compose an orchestral score with melodies that have an american touch, or you will insert in the orchestra some particular instruments that are typical of that culture.
> 
> Do we really want to destroy this wonderful cinematic tradition?
> Everyone is free to create the music he wants for his own film, but I'm happy if the Academy Awards promote the good traditions of cinema.


Trying sticking to the point. You want to claim that



HansZimmer said:


> orchestral music, especially if rooted in classical music, is more effective in films.


You have yet to set out any evidence to support your view and when challenged, seem to argue that _Schindler's List_ wouldn't be right if it had a pop soundtrack. 🤣🤣🤣


----------



## Chat Noir

HansZimmer said:


> Given the fact that popular music is already promoted by the music industry, I think that the cinema must maintain its current role in the field of music: promoting classical and folk* music.
> I don't see why the popular genre should monopolize everything.





HansZimmer said:


> Everyone is free to create the music he wants for his own film, but I'm happy if the Academy Awards promote the good traditions of cinema.


These two don't sit well together. You say 'cinema _must _maintain and promote classical and folk music.' Yet also 'everyone is free to create the music he wants for his own film'?

What happens when a fair number of all film-makers freely decide to _not_ use generic orchestral-type music?

And also the fact you refuse to concede, that what is used now isn't necessarily 'classical', but sometimes a bit like art music/sometimes actual art music/increasingly just cheap 'sounds like' stuff run off at speed in a studio.


----------



## HansZimmer

Chat Noir said:


> Then they are pastiches of pastiche. I don't buy this view that this was somehow a groundbreaking score of its time and since then only seems ordinary because it set a great standard.


Is a pastiche of what the score of The Lion King? Titles, please!

It's not that I don't admit that there are some cliché in film music that make it recognizable, but I simply think that you're not honest if you pretend that in classical music there are not cliché, if you consider determined segments of time.

Come on, Chat Noir: the first symphony of Mendelssohn sounds like a Beethoven's Symphony. How can you say that it's a very personal work?






Who is the original author of the theme in the fourth movement of the first symphony of Beethoven?






At least, with the laws that we have today you can not copy in such a blatant way, if you don't want to risk a civil case.

If there were not cliché in classical music you wouldn't be able to guess (without to know the author) if a piece of music is baroque, classical, romantic or whatever...
You can because obviously the composers used to copy from other composers of their time.

Film music is less than 100 years old. Classical music exists than more of 300 years old. When I wrote that there is not a so great evolution in film music @pianozach corrected me, but you can't expect the same evolution in film music in less than 100 years.
What is your argument? That the scores of today composers sound like the ones of other today composers? So what?

Remember that creating a pastiche means to copy in a blatant way, not simply taking inspiration.




> It set a new low standard for hackneyed devices and otherwise just makes use of people orchestrating basic themes. It's essentially orchestra pops.



Are you saying that Hans Zimmer arrange the music with computer programs and that he doesn't use actual orchestras? This is what you mean with "hackneyed device"?

If it's so, I don't want to defend him, because I don't like the heavy use of digital technology in music in general, but what does this have to do with the quality of the composition, which is high in The Lion King? The quality of the composition and the quality of the "recording" are two separate things. Even if the "recording" is digitally created, the melody is still stunning and to compensate the defect of the OST there are the live concerts, where the music is played by an actual orchestra.




> There is something in this, but not entirely. You don't have to be a cook to recognise good food, but you need to be a good cook to make it. There are plenty of good listeners, but there are plenty of mediocre ones too. There are also mediocre composers and I don't know how a mediocre listener can tell the difference either way


If you are able to demonstrate scientifically that a composer is better than an other composer, please, do it! Otherwise "good", "better", "best" and so on are only subjective judgements.
I sometimes read the silly conversations in youtube where some persons argue about who is better between Bach, Mozart and Beethoven. Everyone simply write his own opinion and the endless this discussion never closes.

If you know how to measure "how good is a composer" in a scientific way, then you should open a discussion in this forum and tell us who is the best composer, so we can finally close this endless discussion.


----------



## Chat Noir

HansZimmer said:


> Is a pastiche of what the score of The Lion King? Titles, please!


I don't know what this means!


HansZimmer said:


> What is your argument? That the scores of today composers sound like the ones of other today composers? So what?


They all sound like each other and the ones that are lauded turn out to be stolen from classical music of the past. There have been several examples of that posted in this thread. It's not that inspiration or borrowing is necessarily bad; inspiration plays a a weighty role in art. Yet the worst examples are egregious. The one 'borrowed' from Orff posted above. And then people accept praise and awards? It's pretty appalling. If it was some faceless music editors who admitted to re-arranging music for a purpose (what I've done on many occasions) fair enough, but being known as 'the guy who composed it'? Dishonest. Theft even.
Back in the 18th century you could get away with it. In a world with no recording or easy access to media there could even be a stronger argument for coincidence or unconscious influence. Nowadays it is largely theft and plagiarism - _mutatis-mutandis_.


HansZimmer said:


> Are you saying that Hans Zimmer arrange the music with computer programs and that he doesn't use actual orchestras? This is what you mean with "hackneyed device"?


By 'hackneyed device' I mean using easy-access tropes and tricks. Sad film scene = sad solo violin (with a theme probably stolen from Tchaikovsky) or a solo cor anglais. All following a algorithm known to tug at heart strings. Certain chord progressions. Deafening percussion (and little else) for battles.. It's like a cartoon. Sometimes it is a cartoon.


----------



## Forster

^^ Not quite Carl Orff, but Carl Orff's Schulwerk, apparently. I'm not sure who was getting awards for this. True Romance didn't win an Oscar for anything.

Borrowing and claiming complete originality is dishonest. Borrowing and repurposing - like Vaughan Williams' use of folk tunes - may be legitimate because of the status of CM. FM is, obviously, part of a ruthless industry with no scruples and even poorer tunes.


----------



## Chat Noir

Forster said:


> I'm not sure who was getting awards for this. True Romance didn't win an Oscar for anything.


Yes, I went and edited my post to fix the unclear sentence:



> And *then* [not 'ten'] people *accept*[ed] praise and awards?


I meant in general people accept praise and awards, not specifically for that piece. I'm typing to quickly and becoming disjointed and unclear!


----------



## DaveM

Chat Noir said:


> I don't know what this means!
> 
> *They all sound like each other and the ones that are lauded turn out to be stolen from classical music of the past.* There have been several examples of that posted in this thread. It's not that inspiration or borrowing is necessarily bad; inspiration plays a a weighty role in art. Yet the worst examples are egregious. The one 'borrowed' from Orff posted above. And then people accept praise and awards? It's pretty appalling. If it was some faceless music editors who admitted to re-arranging music for a purpose (what I've done on many occasions) fair enough, but being known as 'the guy who composed it'? *Dishonest. Theft even.*
> Back in the 18th century you could get away with it. In a world with no recording or easy access to media there could even be a stronger argument for coincidence or unconscious influence. *Nowadays it is largely theft and plagiarism - mutatis-mutandis.
> 
> By 'hackneyed device' I mean using easy-access tropes and tricks.* Sad film scene = sad solo violin (with a theme probably stolen from Tchaikovsky) or a solo cor anglais. All following a algorithm known to tug at heart strings. Certain chord progressions. Deafening percussion (and little else) for battles.. *It's like a cartoon. Sometimes it is a cartoon.*


When the criticism and hyperbole is this extreme, one starts to question the objectivity. Almost sounds like a grudge going on.


----------



## Chat Noir

DaveM said:


> When the criticism and hyperbole is this extreme, one starts to question the objectivity. Almost sounds like a grudge going on.


What do you mean? I'm pretty open about saying I think a fair amount of film music is tired and recycled stuff. It doesn't mean I dislike it all, not even some scores to current releases, though it's fewer and fewer. Is it just my taste and opinion? Yes, of course, but also with some objective critique I think. In the same vein as that offered by a few others in the thread.

It's hard to say anything about especially modern film music without being tarred and feathered. I look at it from a musical point of view, from a musician's point-of-view I mean. Yet this is also dismissed as belittling the non-musician listener's opinion. Can't win. I can be even more open for clarity: I find a lot of (mostly mainstream) film music basic, unoriginal, lazy, regurgitated and made to please bosses who have a tin ear and an eye on the box office above all. Some of this is often not the fault of composers, though it is a deliberate choice by some.

You know it's not even that I don't enjoy a good old-fashioned piece of music with soaring strings and rousing brass. Not at all, but when the exaggerated acclaim starts pouring-in, especially when you think 'hang on, this is just repurposed, simplified Wagner..!' or generic Muzak, something seems odd.


----------



## DaveM

One of the great (IMO) Tier 1 film composers is Jerry Goldsmith. His career spanned more than 3 decades, ending (sadly) in 2004. He was particularly skilled at composing music customized for the particular movie. That may sound like an obvious goal for any film composer, but my guess is that it’s easier said than done. Simply put, a Jerry Goldsmith score was value-added to the movie. He was one of the most prolific of film composers and yet, each work was highly original; his works didn’t tend to be reminiscent of his others compared to a few of his peers.

And the man knew how to compose a melody:

Sleeping With the Enemy: 1991





Star Trek First Contact: 1996





Rudy: 1993


----------



## mikeh375

The score extract above to 'First Contact' is what we typically called in the trade 'Amerikana'. Any brief that included that word usually had us all reaching for the nearest Copland CD and playing with basic triads that used more than their fare share of first inversions in order to find the best solid and smooth bass line. That said, I like that score's main theme very much and the film's good fun.
I'm partial to Goldsmith's sensuous theme to 'Basic instinct'. Even though he uses what is now a hackneyd chord progression by thirds now and again, he does it in relative style and grace imo and with a delicate balance of the orchestral and electronic.






Then there's this John Barry like earworm from 1'09" in that is quite lovely.....and yes...classically constructed too imo.


----------



## Prodromides

I've been listening to Jerry Goldsmith soundtracks for 40 years and have just about each one of his 'bottlecaps' from the late-1950s *City of Fear* to *The Sum of All Fears* (2002).
Aborbing his early, middle-period & late works, I have come to regard the years 1970 & 1971 as his 'white-heat' streak of creativity.

Consider:

*Tora! Tora! Tora!
The Brotherhood of the Bell
A Step Out of Line
The Mephisto Waltz
Crosscurrent*
& 
*Escape from the Planet of the Apes*

All of these were recorded between April of 1970 and April of '71. Goldsmith even did a couple more films during this timeline that I didn't list above, but the ones I cite contain his most idiosyncratic blends of avant-garde with jazz & classical.
There are a multitude of threads on Goldsmith's music at the Film Score Monthly site - a message board in which Goldsmith is considered #1 by many.
I'm a member there myself and I can state that there are quite a number of JG fans who regard Goldsmith's output from 1990 onwards as Goldsmith 'Lite' or diet Goldsmith - a period of time wherein Goldsmith seemed partially on auto-pilot and streamlined his scores away from intricate 12-tone details towards thinner textures to accomodate cinema's increased reliance upon sound design and CGI effects.

I'm dismayed that posters above linked YouTube videos of latter-day Goldsmith music - all from the 1990s!

I feel that if Goldsmith is to be remembered, then he should be remembered for *The Illustrated Man*, *Morituri*, *The Reincarnation of Peter Proud* ... or at least POTA:


----------



## Forster

I wonder whether there is a connection between the quality of a soundtrack...or a perception of the quality...and the quality of the films they accompany.

There is no doubt that composers go through periods of popularity with studios/directors. If the top directors stop asking for a composer, maybe their scores for 2nd or 3rd rate directors are less likely to be well received.


----------



## pianozach

Forster said:


> I wonder whether there is a connection between the quality of a soundtrack...or a perception of the quality...and the quality of the films they accompany.


My opinion is "absolutely".

Many hear soundtracks for the first time when viewing the film, which imprints on our recollection of the audio-only music.

That's partly why songs with excellent music videos do so well.


----------



## HansZimmer

Alfacharger said:


> Ah yes. Your so Cool.. Zimmers reworking of Orff...


The both pieces are an arrangement of "Ein Guter Gassenhauer" of Hans Neusidler, a composer of the reinassance period.






So, Hans Zimmer has not stolen the melody to Orff. They have both stolen the melody to Hans Neusidler.


----------



## HansZimmer

Chat Noir said:


> I don't know what this means!


You wrote that the score of the Lion King is a pastiche. I'm simply asking the title of the original work.



> They all sound like each other and the ones that are lauded turn out to be stolen from classical music of the past.


So, the themes of "This Land" and "To Die For" are stolen from classical music, since they are lauded. What is the title of the original piece?



> By 'hackneyed device' I mean using easy-access tropes and tricks. Sad film scene = sad solo violin (with a theme probably stolen from Tchaikovsky) or a solo cor anglais.


I don't hear any solo violin here. Is this a theme of Tchaikovsky or of any other classical music composer? Title?

"Funeral" from Avalon (by Randy Newman). The film has been nomated for "Best original score".









> All following a algorithm known to tug at heart strings. Certain chord progressions.


So, are you saying that the theme of Mufasa's death in the Lion King is built in the same exact way as "Funeral" from Avalon. Can you explain?









> Deafening percussion (and little else) for battles


I don't hear percussions here.


----------



## Chat Noir

Every single one of these responses takes a general statement and applies it to a specific personal example. Along the lines of: 'The buses never turn up on time'. Whereupon you answer: 'well my bus turned up on time! So how do you explain _that_?!'



HansZimmer said:


> You wrote that the score of the Lion King is a pastiche. I'm simply asking the title of the original work.


In general pastiches using common devices of 'classical music' in general there is no 'source work'. I don't know that I specifically said the Lion King underscore is a specific pastiche, but rather that it is generic-sounding music.



HansZimmer said:


> So, the themes of "This Land" and "To Die For" are stolen from classical music, since they are lauded. What is the title of the original piece?


Same answer



HansZimmer said:


> I don't hear any solo violin here. Is this a theme of Tchaikovsky or of any other classical music composer? Title?


That was an example, not a statement that: 'all sad themes have a solo violin and they're all cribbed from Tchailovsky'!



HansZimmer said:


> "Funeral" from Avalon (by Randy Newman). The film has been nomated for "Best original score".


Well done Randy!



HansZimmer said:


> So, are you saying that the theme of Mufasa's death in the Lion King is built in the same exact way as "Funeral" from Avalon. Can you explain?


No, I'm not saying that, so there's really nothing to explain with regard to it.



HansZimmer said:


> I don't hear percussions here.


Me neither. There's probably no percussion in it.


----------



## HansZimmer

Forster said:


> FM is, obviously, part of a ruthless industry with no scruples


You are right: in the titles of the pieces of Vaughan Williams based on themes of other composers, the name of the composers is mentioned. However, in Beethoven's works based on Mozart's themes, Mozart is not credited.

What's the difference in respect to film music composers who steal themes for their compositions?




> and even poorer tunes.


Some of my favourite pieces of film music..

Star Wars -. Across the Stars







Home Alone - Somewhere in My Memory







Pirates of Caribbeans - He's a Pirate







Beauty and the Beast - Transformation







Schindler's List - Main theme







Ok. The ratings of the OST albums?

Star Wars: Attack of the Clones: 3.59/5

Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones by John Williams


Home Alone: 3.56/5 (+ nomination for "Best original score")

Home Alone by John Williams


Pirates of Caribbeans; 3.74/5

Music From the Pirates of the Caribbean Trilogy by Hans Zimmer


Beauty and the Beast: 3.76/5 (+ award for "Best original score")

Beauty and the Beast by Alan Menken


Schindler's List: 3.87/5 (+ award for "Best original score")

Schindler's List by John Williams


Your idea of "poor tunes" seems quite unpopular.


----------



## Chat Noir

HansZimmer said:


> What's the difference in respect to film music composers who steal themes for their compositions?


They squander them.


----------



## HansZimmer

Chat Noir said:


> They squander them.


Not at all.

For example this arrangement of E.M. Forster Brasil of "Mock Morris" (by Percy Grainger) IMO is very good (and Percy Grainger is credited). I wonder if a film music composer has hit you with the car or what.







In the same film there is also a good arrangement of the Bridal Lullaby.


----------



## Chat Noir

You're right. It's not too late for me to mend my deviant views.


----------



## EdwardBast

HansZimmer said:


> You are right: in the titles of the pieces of Vaughan Williams based on themes of other composers, the name of the composers is mentioned. However, in Beethoven's works based on Mozart's themes, Mozart is not credited.
> 
> What's the difference in respect to film music composers who steal themes for their compositions?


Writing variations on a theme isn't "stealing a theme." One necessarily states the theme before writing variations on it. It's a standard feature of the form. Citing the composer isn't necessary when the theme and its source are well known.


----------



## HansZimmer

EdwardBast said:


> Writing variations on a theme isn't "stealing a theme." One necessarily states the theme before writing variations on it. It's a standard feature of the form. Citing the composer isn't necessary when the theme and its source are well known.


I'm not speaking of theme and variations.

One example. The theme at 00:32 here. I'm quite sure that I've heard it in a Mozart's symphony, but I don't remember which one. The theme at 1:08 too. @hammeredklavier 






It's also not uncommon that a composer creates an arrangement of a piece of an other composer. The first four piano concertos of Mozart are based on melodies of other composers.


----------



## Prodromides

HansZimmer said:


> I wonder if a film music composer has hit you with the car or what.


Lenny Rosenman hits us with *The Car* - we haven't been the same since.


----------



## HansZimmer

Here an other example.

Doesn't the theme at 00:53, contained in the overture of the opera Bastien un Bastienne composed by the 12 year old Mozart, sound familiar?


----------



## Chat Noir

The entire work is a parody of your countryman J.J.Rousseau's _Le devin du village. _


----------



## hammeredklavier

HansZimmer said:


> Doesn't the theme at 00:53, contained in the overture of the opera Bastien un Bastienne composed by the 12 year old Mozart, sound familiar?







+


----------



## Prodromides

If one tuned-into a radio station during its mid-broadcast of _Ilya Muromets_, then the colorful descriptive story-telling opus might be taken by one as music from a film. But it is not from cinema - it's Reinhold Glière's _Symphony No. 3 in B minor_.






If one were to hear this "Fiat Misericordia", one might think it liturgical music for _A cappella_ choir from the Middle Ages. It is not - it was written by Piero Piccioni for a European nunsploitation flick *Storia di una monaca di clausura*.






... things that make you go _'hhmmm'_ ...


----------



## Forster

HansZimmer said:


> You are right: in the titles of the pieces of Vaughan Williams based on themes of other composers, the name of the composers is mentioned. However, in Beethoven's works based on Mozart's themes, Mozart is not credited.
> 
> What's the difference in respect to film music composers who steal themes for their compositions?
> 
> [...]
> 
> Ok. The ratings of the OST albums?
> 
> Star Wars: Attack of the Clones: 3.59/5
> 
> [...]
> 
> Your idea of "poor tunes" seems quite unpopular.


You do know what this emoji implies...?



When I said that "FM is, obviously, part of a ruthless industry with no scruples and even poorer tunes.  " I was being somewhat tongue-in-cheek. But giving me a list of your favourite movie themes is not much of an argument in reply. And you also need to know the difference between 'poor' and 'poorer'. I didn't say 'poor'. So, for example, one might say that Stamitz was a 'poorer' symphonist than Mozart without implying that Stamitz was 'poor'.

The Vaughan Williams I was referring to was, for example, the Norfolk Rhapsody No.1. The name of the 'composer' is _not _mentioned because it was based on a folk song that had no acknowledged composer, but undoubtedly had a singer that RVW heard in King's Lynn. VW rolls up, writes down the tune and away he goes. All quite legitimate, because he's a CM gent and no-one would accuse him of plagiarising something that was not his...but was not exactly someone else's either. Shostakovich and Dvorak are other famous composers who "borrowed" folk songs for their own purposes.

Lastly....where are you getting these ratings for film scores from?


----------



## Forster

HansZimmer said:


> For example this arrangement of E.M. Forster Brasil of "Mock Morris" (by Percy Grainger) IMO is very good (and Percy Grainger is credited).


"E.M.Forster Brasil"? That's just the name of the Youtube poster! The English writer of _Howard's End_ had nothing to do with the score for the movie of his novel.



HansZimmer said:


> I'm not speaking of theme and variations.
> [...]


No, you're quite right that CM composers did "borrow" from each other without giving credit. And they don't receive the same opprobrium that FM composers get for "borrowing" themes from CM composers, despite the fact that both "borrowings" can nevertheless lead to acclaim for their plagiarising works.


----------



## Forster

VoiceFromTheEther said:


> Williams's _The Rise of Skywalker_ was turned into a musical mincemeat by editors and drowned in the audio mix. Everything that could be done to sabotage its Oscar chances, short of not playing it at all, had been done.


The material that has to be submitted to the academy suggests that the mix heard in cinemas is not all that gets considered:

SUBMISSION FORMS (ORIGINAL SCORE)  The Oscars Submission Form (OSF) signed by all submitting composers  Final music cue sheet  Music Breakdown Form MATERIALS FOR THE ACADEMY SCREENING ROOM (ORIGINAL SONG ONLY)  3-minute digital video clip showing how the song is used in the motion picture: Streaming Asset Technical Specifications 

95aa_music_requirements.pdf (oscars.org) 

Maybe Academy members had just tired of Star Wars. I know I have: I paid to see _Star Wars_ back in 1978 six times! By the time SW:TESB came out I'd gone off it as it had become a soap opera, and the Ewoks in SW:ROTJ just confirmed my worst fears. The Williams scores and the SFX were the best things about the whole enterprise.


----------



## pianozach

Forster said:


> The material that has to be submitted to the academy suggests that the mix heard in cinemas is not all that gets considered:
> 
> SUBMISSION FORMS (ORIGINAL SCORE)  The Oscars Submission Form (OSF) signed by all submitting composers  Final music cue sheet  Music Breakdown Form MATERIALS FOR THE ACADEMY SCREENING ROOM (ORIGINAL SONG ONLY)  3-minute digital video clip showing how the song is used in the motion picture: Streaming Asset Technical Specifications
> 
> 95aa_music_requirements.pdf (oscars.org)
> 
> Maybe Academy members had just tired of Star Wars. I know I have: I paid to see _Star Wars_ back in 1978 six times! By the time SW:TESB came out I'd gone off it as it had become a soap opera, and the Ewoks in SW:ROTJ just confirmed my worst fears. The Williams scores and the SFX were the best things about the whole enterprise.


I maintain that it's not Star Wars that the Academy tired of, but a non-vindictive backlash against Williams for being the most decorated Film Composer of all time. They collectively feel it's more fair to give other composers (and films) a break.


----------



## HansZimmer

Chat Noir said:


> Every single one of these responses takes a general statement and applies it to a specific personal example. Along the lines of: 'The buses never turn up on time'. Whereupon you answer: 'well my bus turned up on time! So how do you explain _that_?!'


1) You only need one example to refute that statement. After the refutation, you will have to modify your statement with "The buses almost never turn up on time".
So, if you say that there is no originality in film music I only have to put on the table a basket of examples to refute your statement and after my refutation you will have to modify your statement with "A lot of film scores are unimaginative, while some are distinctive".

2) Once you have modified your statement with "The buses almost never turn up on time" you still have to prove it with statistics. The problem is that you didn't provide a basket of examples to prove what you are saying. As stated by Russell, "I don't have to refute your idea that there is a teapot between the earth and Mars. You have to prove that there is!" (semicit.).

That said, I don't agree with you because in my basket of examples I don't see what you are saying. Keep in mind that my basket of examples is composed by film scores who have been nominated at the Academy Awards for "Best original score", so there is a quality filter.
I can't speak for the general situation of film music because, to be honest, the film is too distracting and I don't notice so much the music. If you really want to evaluate the music, you have to listen to the OST alone, without any distraction, AFTER you have watched the film.

I wonder if the users who say that film music is not good have done their homeworks. I am doing my homeworks thanks to the Talkclassical best film score award. For each film nominated for "Best original score", I have to listen to the full suites, select the best pieces and put them together in one single video. I have to avoid repetitions, because the goal is to listen to many different themes and not to many versions of the same theme.
Believe me: this is a demanding work, because just to listen to the entire suite sometimes require more than a hours, but the point is that I have to pay attention to details. I don't see how someone who only listen to film scores inside the films (which is really distracting) can notice all the details that I notice.

So, as I wrote I can not speak for all films, but I can speak for the films nominated for "Best original score" between 1990 and 1995 + the score of Star Wars + other soundtracks of videogames.
IMO, in this basket not only there are very good melodies, but there is also a lot of distinctiveness: there is not a score that sounds like an other one.

Some examples.

John Williams - Star Wars - Imperial March







John Williams - Home Alone - Somewhere in my Memory







John Barry - Dances With Wolves - Return to the Winter Camp







Yes, strings sound always as string, so it's obvious that the orchestral scores have at least a bit of similarity between each others, but beside the instrumentation, what do these pieces have in common between each others?

Finally, in my basket of examples there are more scores of Dave Grusin, who is a jazz composer who write scores in many different styles, including jazz (obviously).

Dave Grusin - Havana - Main Tiitle







Dave Grusin - Havana - Cuba Libre







Basically, you are saying that the film composers are low skilled in a compositional quality in which, in reality, they are excellent (at least those whose names appear frequently in the Oscar nominations): being able to write pieces in many different styles and moods.
In this regard, the great film music composers are more skilled than the classical music composers. After you have listened to a signifcant number of Mozart's orchestral pieces, you know that the difference between a piece and an other is only the melody, while the style is always the same and the mood is almost always happy.

The difference between a piece of John Williams and an other one is not only in the melody. There is more. I know that you have already recognized that John Williams is a skilled composer, but the observation is valid for Hans Zimmer too.


----------



## Chat Noir

HansZimmer said:


> 1) You only need one example to confutate that statement. After the confutation, you will have to modify your statement with "The buses almost never turn up on time".
> So, if you say that there is no originality in film music I only have to put on the table a basket of examples to confutate your statement and after my confutation you will have to modify your statement with "A lot of film scores are unimaginative, while some are distinctive".


No, that's not what that example meant. It meant exactly that people turn up with exceptions to a rule and demand explanations for why the general rule should apply. These are not examples that refute it.

It's quite difficult replying to you because you attribute to me things I haven't written and merely post videos of music you happen to think is great.
I never said there weren't good film scores or ones with originality. I said, once again, that on the whole it is most often written to a specific purpose, within specific narrow parameters and demands, sometimes at speed. That there is a lot of repurposing and borrowing among composers (even from themselves and each other), because it is volume work. This doesn't mean you need to unearth examples of Mozart repeating his own work for one of his bonbons or someone else using someone else's theme. We know this has happened.

Film music is production music, not specifically art music. A sort of spiv tangent from the art-music world. It is made to order within ever-narrowing parameters. There has been good film music and a lot of middling and mediocre film music. It is useless to say what is and isn't considered 'good' because some of that will be a matter of taste. Most of the videos you post above I find generic-sounding and some just boring. From a technical point of view a lot of music is competent, but this is not enough to start handing out awards. It tells me that the competition must be either absolutely awful or there is a particular view of what the judges consider 'good' film scores.



HansZimmer said:


> 2) Once you have modified your statement with "The buses almost never turn up on time" you still have to prove it with statistics. The problem is that you didn't provide a basket of examples to demonostrate what you are saying. As stated by Russell, "I don't have to confutate your idea that there is a teapot between the earth and Mars. You have to dprove that there is!" (semicit.).


No, it does not need to be proven with statistics. This is why I specified it as a general rule. There's no point in me posting a lot of music videos which I might consider 'better' than your examples. If as a result you want to reject my 'general rule' and you have decided that the majority of film music is 'good', original, accomplished, artful and the equal of art-music. So be it. I disagre with you, but there we are.


----------



## fbjim

what i've heard about the production of film music reminds me a lot of capital-p Pop music and i think it's why some have a bit of resistance to them being great art - it frequently comes off as more constructed-for-purpose than anything, and is omnivorous in its appropriation of aesthetics to produce an end product. someone makes a striking aesthetic and an executive says "make some music that sounds like this".

this absolutely does not preclude great artistry or genuine innovation in the field of either film music or Pop, but the nature of those genres promote more artisanship than what gets considered artistry. 


by the way, if you think film composers are disrespected, try being a production/library music guy (there actually is a scene of production music enthusiasts, they're lovely people)


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

Forster said:


> The material that has to be submitted to the academy suggests that the mix heard in cinemas is not all that gets considered:
> 
> SUBMISSION FORMS (ORIGINAL SCORE)  The Oscars Submission Form (OSF) signed by all submitting composers  Final music cue sheet  Music Breakdown Form MATERIALS FOR THE ACADEMY SCREENING ROOM (ORIGINAL SONG ONLY)  3-minute digital video clip showing how the song is used in the motion picture: Streaming Asset Technical Specifications
> 
> 95aa_music_requirements.pdf (oscars.org)
> 
> Maybe Academy members had just tired of Star Wars. I know I have: I paid to see _Star Wars_ back in 1978 six times! By the time SW:TESB came out I'd gone off it as it had become a soap opera, and the Ewoks in SW:ROTJ just confirmed my worst fears. The Williams scores and the SFX were the best things about the whole enterprise.


The music branch listens / used to listen at the time (2019) to the promotional music albums submitted. They are the ones who have given Williams 52 nominations thus far. The voting for actual Oscars is done by all the members, not just the music branch, and the vast majority of them do not listen to the score albums before making a decision. Like in other categories, people vote without necessarily having seen / heard all of the nominees. Like in other categories, whoever gets the buzz / is "trending" right before the voting, typically wins.


----------



## Forster

VoiceFromTheEther said:


> The music branch listens / used to listen at the time (2019) to the promotional music albums submitted. They are the ones who have given Williams 52 nominations thus far. The voting for actual Oscars is done by all the members, not just the music branch, and the vast majority of them do not listen to the score albums before making a decision. Like in other categories, people vote without necessarily having seen / heard all of the nominees. Like in other categories, whoever gets the buzz / is "trending" right before the voting, typically wins.


So, what you're saying is that whoever wins, non-musical criteria have played a part in both nominating and final voting. I guessed that already. Does that undermine the validity of these awards? To some extent, and it's one reason why I pay little attention to who has won what, and more attention to what I like and what other bodies say.



HansZimmer said:


> [...] If you really want to evaluate the music, you have to listen to the OST alone, without any distraction, AFTER you have watched the film. [...]


No, if _you _want to evaluate the music, that's what _you _choose to do. Some of us prefer to "evaluate" the music in its right context. Stop telling us what we must do.



HansZimmer said:


> I don't see how someone who only listen to film scores inside the films (which is really distracting) can notice all the details that I notice.


You're right, but then I don't have to notice all the details, because I'm not carrying out a musical analysis divorced from the film itself.


----------



## HansZimmer

Chat Noir said:


> And also the fact you refuse to concede, that what is used now isn't necessarily 'classical', but sometimes a bit like art music/sometimes actual art music/increasingly just cheap 'sounds like' stuff run off at speed in a studio.


"What is art?".

This is the question with wich my teacher of "history of art" in high school used to open every lesson.
I think that he was a good teacher, because instead of saying "art is XY and if you think otherwise you are dumb", he pushed us to reflect about what is art. We never came to a conclusion, because in reality there is not a clear definition, but we reflected about the different point of views.

Now, what is art in music?
Some pieces of music are entertaining (basically, every piece with a catchy melody can be entertaining), while others are more than entertaining: they transport your mind in an other planet.
I would say that the second ones are "art". So, for me the meaning of the word is "a creative work that give you strong emotions and that elevates your spirit".

Take this work of J.S. Bach for example: "Jesus bleibet meine Freude".






Here below two comments that I found under the video.

_"For me this is like an ascension to heaven. It’s flow is like a very soft feather is flown by a gentle current of the wind going up until it finally reaches its destination with triumph , with tranquility, in contentment and indescribable joy. "

"I lost my only son 41 years ago, and to console myself, I played this music at his wake, until now, am still shaken when I hear. it."_


These two comments don't simply say "Good piece". The first uses very strong word, like "heaven". The second one basically describes the piece as "psychological medicine", something to listen to in the worst moment of your life.
So, this piece must be ART MUSIC... and it was also probably intended to be art (in the meaning that I give to the word art), since it's sacred music. At least, it is art from the perspectives of the two commenters.

So, ma definition of ART is not objective, but subjective, because your psychological medicine is probably different than mine. Tell me what are the pieces of music that you would listen in the worst moment of your life: these are your ART MUSIC.


In an other post I wrote that you have to consider that the opinion of some musicians about what is good music and what is not good music might be distorted, because they could consider parameters like: difficult to play=good, easy to play=bad, but such parameters are irrelevant in the listening experience.
It doesn't seem to me that _"Jesus bleibet meine Freude" _is particularily elaborated, but yet it helped a father who lost his son.
If someone thinks that in order to create a higher form of musical art you just have to write something more complicated than the piece, he's very ingenuous and it seems to me that this kind of ingenuousness is not uncommon in musicians, especially in classical music.


All that said, given an arbitrary, rigid and categorical definition of art which doesn't allow in any way to consider the music of The Lion King (and similar things) as ART MUSIC, I wouldn't recommend to anyone to invest his time in ART. It would be a meaningless word for my ears.

Finally, whatever film music is, I think that the composers of it help people in developing a curiosity towards classical music in general much more than someone who say "your favourite soundtracks suck and are not art".


----------



## pianozach

Forster said:


> So, what you're saying is that whoever wins, non-musical criteria have played a part in both nominating and final voting. . . .


Um, no, not _exactly_.

The entire Academy DOES vote between the 5 nominees in the category. But the slate of nominees are chosen only by people that have credentials in that BRANCH...

SAME for _all_ categories (except Best Picture). _Costume_ nominees are picked by _costumers_. _Cinematography_ nominees are picked by _cinematographers_. _Score_ nominees are picked by _music branch members_.

As I understand it, they consider _all_ potential nominees, whether it's 50 or 150, and narrow it down to 12 or 15. _Then_ they vote again to get it down to the five final nominees.


----------



## Chat Noir

HansZimmer said:


> Finally, whatever it is film music, I think that the composers of it help people in developing a curiosity towards classical music in general...


Yes, it has done for many.



HansZimmer said:


> ...much more than someone who say "your favourite soundtracks suck and are not art".


Then you might be in the wrong thread if you don't want to hear any critique at all about music for films.


----------



## Forster

pianozach said:


> Um, no, not _exactly_.
> 
> The entire Academy DOES vote between the 5 nominees in the category. But the slate of nominees are chosen only by people that have credentials in that BRANCH...
> 
> SAME for _all_ categories (except Best Picture). _Costume_ nominees are picked by _costumers_. _Cinematography_ nominees are picked by _cinematographers_. _Score_ nominees are picked by _music branch members_.
> 
> As I understand it, they consider _all_ potential nominees, whether it's 50 or 150, and narrow it down to 12 or 15. _Then_ they vote again to get it down to the five final nominees.


I knew all that - I posted it myself, just before you did. (#1438 and #1442 are relevant)

It was this that suggested there were non-musical elements:



> Like in other categories, people vote without necessarily having seen / heard all of the nominees. Like in other categories, whoever gets the buzz / is "trending" right before the voting, typically wins.


So although the Academy attempts to have a fair system, it's somewhat undermined by what you might call "interference" (as in radio interference or noise).


----------



## pianozach

OK, I'll buy that.

Even among experts it's still a *popularity contest*, and I imagine some experts don't bother to actually LISTEN to the audio they're sent.

And, of course, it's also likely that they base their opinions of the music largely on their opinion of the film, and the film's subject matter, and maybe even whether they LIKE (or don't like) a particular film composer personally.


----------



## Luchesi

As for the answer to the question I care about (the education of young people) if we ask every musician we know the question,"Why do many people think that classical music composed for film scores is not classical music? what would the tally be?
Would non-musicians be confident of another view - guided by what things sound like? I think it's an interesting topic.


----------



## fbjim

oh everyone knowledgeable about the academy awards knows that they're full of biases. you sometime get pretty blatant "lifetime achievement" nominations/victors and certain institutional biases like period films always winning best costuming. just part of the game of institutional awards like that


----------



## EdwardBast

HansZimmer said:


> Here an other example.
> 
> Doesn't the theme at 00:53, contained in the overture of the opera Bastien un Bastienne composed by the 12 year old Mozart, sound familiar?


The part you cite is a major triad arpeggio. The connection is utterly trivial. Beethoven's theme is 40 odd measures long and is entirely unlike any theme Mozart ever wrote.


----------



## Chat Noir

Whilst it's on a roll of posting video examples considered 'good'. I'd suggest this one from William Walton's rejected score for _The Battle Of Britain. _Though this piece is in the film.


----------



## Forster

Chat Noir said:


> Whilst it's on a roll of posting video examples considered 'good'. I'd suggest this one from William Walton's rejected score for _The Battle Of Britain. _Though this piece is in the film.


Funnily enough, i like this now, but when it came out, I didn't. Much preferred the rousing militarism of Ron Goodwin...splendid opening march !


----------



## Chat Noir

Forster said:


> Funnily enough, i like this now, but when it came out, I didn't. Much preferred the rousing militarism of Ron Goodwin...splendid opening march !


Yes I also like Goodwin's score. Nothing against him, he produced lots of good film music. Including that well-known theme to _Murder She Said._


----------



## DaveM

Since we‘re going back to yesteryear, let’s go back to 1951 and what is actually (based on the number of times I’ve heard it) my favorite film music: The Richard Addinsell soundtrack for the 1951 Alastair Sim Scrooge (A Christmas Carol). As I understand it, the original score was lost and reconstructed by ear several years ago for this recording.

As an original Canadian, I grew up with this movie. It was part of the family tradition to watch the Queen Elizabeth Christmas message and then watch this movie. I still watch it almost every year. The music is exquisite, the high point (for me) being one of the best orchestrations of Barbara Allen I’ve ever heard at 4:05 to 6:20. It is associated with Scrooge’s relationship with his sister Fan and is played in full when he finally reconnects with his nephew (son of Fan) as part of his ‘reclamation’. Brings a tear to my eye every time.


----------



## Forster

HansZimmer said:


> All that said, given an *arbitrary, rigid and categorical definition of art* which doesn't allow in any way to consider the music of The Lion King (and similar things) as ART MUSIC, I wouldn't recommend to anyone to invest his time in ART. It would be a meaningless word for my ears.
> 
> Finally, whatever film music is, I think that the composers of it help people in developing a curiosity towards classical music in general much more than someone who say "your favourite soundtracks suck and are not art".


I'm not a fan of these distinctions either. But that's where we started. Or, rather, that's where you started; wanting something to be admitted to a category of music you recognise as worthier somehow than mere film music, while apparently disdaining the notion of categorising.

Can you just not simply enjoy your favourite scores? I like The Lion King too: it's a great score. I think I said already that we (the kids too) had the cassette in the car and would listen a lot. It's how my sons got to know and recognise Hans Zimmer. (They graduated to Gladiator later) They liked the score just as much - if not more so - than the songs. Why on earth does it matter that others look down on it? It matters not whether it's a gateway to something more "worthy" either.

If you're not going to run a radio station or a shop, you need not worry about classification at all. Just give it up.


----------



## HansZimmer

Forster said:


> I'm not a fan of these distinctions either. But that's where we started. Or, rather, that's where you started; wanting something to be admitted to a category of music you recognise as worthier somehow than mere film music, while apparently disdaining the notion of categorising.


No, this is not where I started. I've already explained that for me the distinction between "art music" and "popular music" is meaningless.

The only categories that make sense are the ones based on the style (pop, rock, jazz, dance,...) and that I use the word "classical music" only to describe a determined style. As I've explained many times, when I say that a film score is "classical" I'm not saying that it's "art music": I'm simply defining the style.

In other words, I think that some classical music pieces are "art music", while some are not, because for me the notion of "art music" is transversal to the styles (so, theoretically, a piece of rock music might be "art music", while a piece of "classical music" might be not).

The category "art music" would make sense only if it contained the pieces of any style which have the carachteristics of "art". We have to discuss about what are the carachteristics: according to me, art is "a human creation with emotional depth, designed to give strong emotions".
My teacher of "history of art" said that some persons see art as "a beatiful human creation", but I would say that the intention of an artist can also be "horror" and in this case it's art what is effective in giving the intended emotion.

So, an artwork can be happy, sad, epic, horror,... or it can narrate a story/situation, and I consider "art music" all the pieces of music that give the intended emotions in a very effective way or that narrate a story in a very effective way.


All that said, in my dictionary to ask "is this film score classical music?" is a completely different question in respect to "is this film score art music?". In the first question, I'm simply asking "Do you feel the classical style in this score?", while in the second question I'm asking "How much effective is the film score in narrating the story or in giving the intended emotions".

A film score in classical style might be uneffective, and in this case it wouldn't be art music.

We are discussing about the quality of FM only because there are users like @Chat Noir that speak about quality, but this discussion is not about quality, it's only about style.

Even if we concluded that there isn't any film score that is really classical in the style and that film music is a separate genre of music with no intersection with classical music, the question "can a film score be art music?" would still be open.


Let's pretend that the question of this thread is closed: FM is a separate style of music. Fine. So, the music of The Lion King is FM and not CM. Fine.
Ok, in this case, I'll say that the music of the Lion King is an example of "art music" inside film music, because it does exactly what my definition of "art" says: it gives you strong emotions and it narrates a story in a very effective way.
Even Chat Noir has admitted this quality. If even the haters of Hans Zimmer recognize this, then it means that the music of the Lion King is really art, given my definition of art.

I conclude: it's possible that some film scores are "art music" while some pieces of classical music are not. 



> Can you just not simply enjoy your favourite scores?


Yes, I can. This discussion is only to chat. It's a bit like asking to the users of this forum "Can't you simply listen to classical music instead of chatting in this forum?". Are we not here to chat? What's wrong in this topic? If we are at the page 76, it means that it stimulates discussions, which is the scope of a forum.


----------



## HansZimmer

Chat Noir said:


> From a technical point of view a lot of music is competent, but this is not enough to start handing out awards. It tells me that the competition must be either absolutely awful or there is a particular view of what the judges consider 'good' film scores.


Two elderly spouses are traveling by car. At a certain point, the radio speaker says "Pay attention, there is a car going in the wrong direction!".
The woman to her husband: "It seems to me that there are many cars who are going in the wrong direction".

I find your obstinacy interesting. Instead of simply concluding "my tastes are different from the average tastes of persons", you conclude that we are all going in the wrong way.


----------



## Chat Noir

HansZimmer said:


> Two elderly spouses are traveling by car. At a certain point, the radio speaker says "Pay attention, there is a car going in the wrong direction!".
> The woman to her husband: "It seems to me that there are many cars who are going in the wrong direction".
> 
> I find your obstinacy interesting. Instead of simply concluding "my tastes are different from the average tastes of persons", you conclude that we are all going in the wrong way.


Taking the contributions of this thread as a whole it clearly isn't just me. 

I find your own recalcitrance much more interesting. Instead of saying: 'I came to classical music via certain film scores, therefore I now have a soft spot for them...' You choose instead to fight to the death to make sure everyone knows how worthy and artistic you find them.


----------



## fbjim

"art music" is notably difficult to define, and most definitions of it imply a level of subjectivity so I'd rather not get into that too much


I think it's pretty clear that there are many works of classical music which were not written out of some capital-R Romantic ideal of an Artist struggling to get his muse realized on paper, and more written to get a paycheck. Many composers have pieces written for music boxes, for instance (the equivalent to the current practice of writing jingles?), but frankly we also have to deal with the entire pre-Romantic era where the social status and view of composers and art were significantly different than they are now. 

There are also very obviously works of film music which - while written on commission and as part of a composer's day job, display great skill and inspiration. if "quality" or "seriousness" are the criteria for being "art", then I'd happily say that some great film scores quality there. 

It's worth noting that like you said, this isn't dependent on style - in fact, the entire conception of what used to be called "light music" included certain classical music which was thought to be of less "serious" value. 



in fact this is kind of the whole point here. "Classical" does not imply artistic value, quality, or even any specific aesthetic - a piece does not stop being "classical" because it is of low quality or seriousness, nor does a work of jazz become "classical" because it is of high quality. The genre merely refers to an ongoing and ever-changing continuous tradition of Western composition.


----------



## HansZimmer

Forster said:


> Lastly....where are you getting these ratings for film scores from?


There is the link after each rating, don't you see?


----------



## Prodromides

HansZimmer said:


> according to me, art is "a human creation with emotional depth, designed to give strong emotions".


'Art' may also provoke thoughts. An artist's perspective and life experiences inform the artwork content, which gets further filtered via the prism of the artist's talent(s) & technique(s) to produce an end result which exhibits that artist's unique 'voice'.
Whether or not listeners/viewers react to such end results determines if the response is emotional, cognitive or indifference. Object X might ellicit emotion(s) from one audience member whilst simultaneously producing disengagement with another audience member. Object X in itself is not emotional.

Music is organized sounds. A composer organizes sounds with intention to express something. This 'something' may communicate on a level that most people can receive, decode & appreciate/respond to. A musical composition, though, might be on different levels of comprehension which fewer people are able to understand & embrace.

So ... 'according to me' ... absorbing music is a cerebral recreation. Some music may 'touch' me, but - honestly - I am unable to recall teardrops ever being induced by music.


----------



## Forster

HansZimmer said:


> No, this is not where I started. I've already explained that for me the distinction between "art music" and "popular music" is meaningless.
> [...]


It is where you started. Your whole post was about categorising music.

"Now, the score of the film "The Fabulous Baker Boys" (one of the film nominated in 1990) could be probably classified as Jazz [...] and Intrumental pop"
"the other four nominated film scores, I think that can be classified as "romantic music"."
"The argument of the writer of this article is that film scores can never be classified as "classical music" "

Etc



HansZimmer said:


> There is the link after each rating, don't you see?


It's not immediately obvious that the link (which I did see) takes you to an explanation of the ratings, and I don't click on every link that you post. You post those ratings as if they are some objective evaluation, but inevitably, they are nothing more than a mathematical collation of subjective ratings. Even the great John Williams only gets 6 ratings above 4.00 for his film soundtracks (though several more for compilation albums; poor old Hans Zimmer gets none. And apparently, the greatest album of the 1960s was not a classical one, but King Crimson, which tells us about the website's bias towards a particular voting demographic.


----------



## HansZimmer

Prodromides said:


> 'Art' may also provoke thoughts. An artist's perspective and life experiences inform the artwork content, which gets further filtered via the prism of the artist's talent(s) & technique(s) to produce an end result which exhibits that artist's unique 'voice'.
> Whether or not listeners/viewers react to such end results determines if the response is emotional, cognitive or indifference. Object X might ellicit emotion(s) from one audience member whilst simultaneously producing disengagement with another audience member. Object X in itself is not emotional.
> 
> Music is organized sounds. A composer organizes sounds with intention to express something. This 'something' may communicate on a level that most people can receive, decode & appreciate/respond to. A musical composition, though, might be on different levels of comprehension which fewer people are able to understand & embrace.
> 
> So ... 'according to me' ... absorbing music is a cerebral recreation. Some music may 'touch' me, but - honestly - I am unable to recall teardrops ever being induced by music.


Yes, you are right.

I wrote that a piece of art in music is something that:
- Gives a deep and strong emotion (happyness, sadness, melancholy, horror,...) in a very effective way
AND/OR
- Tells a story
AND/OR (I add this now, thanks to your observation)
- Sends a serious message


However, to also take in account the vision of @Chat Noir I can also add:
AND/OR
- Introduces an EFFECTIVE novelty (technique/sound) in the field of music
AND/OR
- Experiments an already existing musical technique in an extensive and EFFECTIVE way

I think that it's important the word EFFECTIVE, because everyone is able to introduce novelties (if you introduce farts and burps in the orchestra is a novelty), but the problem is to introduce novelties that work well.

Chat Noir has a very strict view of what is art, because apparently he considers only the last points of the five listed above, while my view of art is larger.

I consider the music of The Lion King as ART MUSIC because of the first three points. We can discuss about the fourth one (did the score sound as something new in 1994?), but I think that it's better to speak about FM in general: does it sound exactly like classical music, or does it have distinctive elements? IMO, FM has distinctive elements, so at least some film scores have introduce novelties in the field of music.


Finally, a work like "The Art of Fugue" can be considered art for the last point, but as I've already written, try to put it in the Lion King and let me know what are the results.


----------



## mikeh375

The Art of Fugue also happens to be deeply sublime and expressive, it is not just technical.


----------



## HansZimmer

Forster said:


> It is where you started. Your whole post was about categorising music.
> 
> "Now, the score of the film "The Fabulous Baker Boys" (one of the film nominated in 1990) could be probably classified as Jazz [...] and Intrumental pop"
> "the other four nominated film scores, I think that can be classified as "romantic music"."
> "The argument of the writer of this article is that film scores can never be classified as "classical music" "


In the OP I speak about stylistic categories, not about abstract categories.



> You post those ratings as if they are some objective evaluation, but inevitably, they are nothing more than a mathematical collation of subjective ratings.


The scope of this is to show to the users who present their low opinions of film music as if the were facts, that they are actually not facts. Try to explain to the many persons who love FM that they don't have to love it.

"You can't listen to FM outside of the context, without the film". Many persons (including me) do so. So what??



> Even the great John Williams only gets 6 ratings above 4.00 for his film soundtracks (though several more for compilation albums; poor old Hans Zimmer gets none. And apparently, the greatest album of the 1960s was not a classical one, but King Crimson, which tells us about the website's bias towards a particular voting demographic.


If you are familiar with this kind of websites, you know that it's extremely difficult that a product get a 10/10 or anything close.
I very often check the ratings of the films in IMDB. It's rare that a film has a rating higher than 7/10, and ratings above 8 are very rare. If you are able to make a film which receieves a rating higher than 9, you have won the lottery.

Someone might think that a rating of 7/10 is not so good, but given the fact that only few films get such votes, a rating of 7-8 is above the average.


In rateyourmusic is very likely the same. 3.5/5 is equivalent to 7/10, so a rating above 3.5 is above the average.

That said, the Hans Zimmer has two OST albums that have a 5/5 in allmusic:

Thin Red Line: Hans Zimmer - The Thin Red Line Album Reviews, Songs & More | AllMusic
Dune: Hans Zimmer - Dune Sketchbook [Music from the Soundtrack] Album Reviews, Songs & More | AllMusic

The Gladiator and The Lion King have 4.5/5.


----------



## HansZimmer

fbjim said:


> what i've heard about the production of film music reminds me a lot of capital-p Pop music and i think it's why some have a bit of resistance to them being great art - it frequently comes off as more constructed-for-purpose than anything, and is omnivorous in its appropriation of aesthetics to produce an end product. someone makes a striking aesthetic and an executive says "make some music that sounds like this".
> 
> this absolutely does not preclude great artistry or genuine innovation in the field of either film music or Pop, but the nature of those genres promote more artisanship than what gets considered artistry.


If someone thinks that a film score is not art because it's not revolutionary (namely, the composer doesn't invent a substantially new aesthetic or technique) it means that he has a monodimensional view of the concept of art.

My view of art is multidimensional.
Art music (see my post 1'520):
- Gives a deep and strong emotion (happyness, sadness, melancholy, horror,...) in a very effective way
AND/OR
- Tells a story in a very effective way
AND/OR
- Sends a serious message in a very effective way
AND/OR
- Introduces an EFFECTIVE novelty (technique/sound) in the field of music
AND/OR
- Experiments an already existing musical technique in an extensive and EFFECTIVE way


A lot of film music is excellent in the first three points of the list, and threfore, given my definition of art, the best film scores are art music.
If you, instead, use the monodimensional definition of "art" explained above, then you probably have to expel most classical pieces from "art music", because they didn't bring any relevant novelty in music. They were composed to satisfy a particular aesthetic expectation. The public liked X and the composers gave them X.


What about pop? The serious songwriters, the ones who write serious lyrics accompained by effective music, surely they create art music.
A growing part of pop music, however, it's pure entertainment: music for clubs, not meaningful songs.

Artisanship? Sure, in the case of serious songwriters (because the serious songwriters are often also technically trained, they take music seriously), but in many other cases there would a start if there was AT LEAST the artisanship.
Infact, a growing part of pop is the thing you see in this video. And that's why I left pop music (although I still respect the serious songwriters).






A lot of pop singers are defined "songwriters", but I'm a bit skeptic about the fact that they really write the songs that they pretend to sing, given the fact that in the production credits there are almost always other names.


----------



## fbjim

Pop as a genre is performer-first. This is a social convention - you can see this where criticism and discussion on capital-P pop is almost always focused on a vocalist, much popular music is promoted and evaluated based on vocalists or ensembles (read: bands), and electronic music is evaluated based on a producer/DJ (unless it's hip-hop, in which case the "artist" is the MC). Classical music, of course, is evaluated by composer - this in fact is one of the performance traditions that _defines_ classical music. 

This is why Bob Dylan performing "All Along the Watchtower" and Jimi Hendrix performing "All Along the Watchtower" are effectively considered separate works, but the LSO performing Beethoven 7 and the Concertgebouw performing Beethoven 7 would mostly be considered two orchestras playing/interpreting the _same_ work. 

I think it's a shame that great pop songwriters often don't get the credit, nor do the many producers who work on pop music, but one could say the same thing about film, where even the "serious" critics often evaluate it director-first, often at the expense of cinematographers, editors, and even actors/actresses.


----------



## HansZimmer

fbjim said:


> films always winning best costuming. just part of the game of institutional awards like that


Are you saying that films in which the characters wear jeans and t-shirts should win the "Best costumes" award?

The films set in the modern world also get nominations if the characters are well dressed.

Short Cuts for example got a nomination.


----------



## HansZimmer

HansZimmer said:


> Are you saying that films in which the characters wear jeans and t-shirts should win the "Best costumes" award?
> 
> The films set in the modern world also get nominations if the characters are well dressed.
> 
> Short Cuts for example got a nomination.


A part from the elegance, the point is that jeans and t-shirts are probably ordered from a factory, while in a period film you have to create custom dresses for the characters. There is a greater creative process.


----------



## HansZimmer

@Forster @pianozach

I don't think that bad music can become good music only because it's inserted in a good film. I think that most persons are able to distinguish music from the rest.

More likely, the persons have a good consideration for the soundtracks of films or videogames in which the music plays a great (if not predominant) role in creating the good atmosphere.

For example, "The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time" is the videogames with the highest score in metacritic (99/100) and I bet that the soundtrack plays a great role in the success of the videogame. When I used to play with it, I felt like I wanted to turn on the videogame especially to experience the romantic atmosphere created by the music and the images. @Ethereality


----------



## HansZimmer

mikeh375 said:


> The Art of Fugue also happens to be deeply sublime and expressive, it is not just technical.


What's your favourite recording?


----------



## pianozach

HansZimmer said:


> A lot of pop singers are defined "songwriters", but I'm a bit skeptic about the fact that they really write the songs that they pretend to sing, given the fact that in the production credits there are almost always other names.


I grudgingly agree.

Take an artist like David Bowie, or Paul McCartney: Musician/singer/arranger/songwriters.

But I've seen the credits for some Singer-Only albums, and there might be a dozen co-writers (more if there are samples of others' work in the track), and producers, arrangers, etc.

Let's talk Elvis Presley, whose manager figured out how to make more money by figuring out how to have Elvis make more money: Songwriting credits. After Elvis became an overnight sensation, songwriters were crowding the doorway trying to get Elvis to record THEIR song, as it could make THEM a great deal of money if it became a hit. 

If the song was good, Elvis would agree to record it, IF he got songwriting credit, and a percentage of the royalties, which the songwriters almost always agreed to. It's better to have a cut of something than "all of nothing".


----------



## HansZimmer

Chat Noir said:


> Taking the contributions of this thread as a whole it clearly isn't just me.
> 
> I find your own recalcitrance much more interesting. Instead of saying: 'I came to classical music via certain film scores, therefore I now have a soft spot for them...' You choose instead to fight to the death to make sure everyone knows how worthy and artistic you find them.


I'm only replying to your arguments.

Your argument is that FM is not art (I don't know what does this have to do with this discussion, since the OP doesn't say that FM is art, but only that some film scores have classical style) and I gave you examples of film scores that I consider art and I explained why.

The difference between me and you is that I don't think that my opinions are facts. For example, at the Academy Awards of 1993 the film "Basic Istinct" got a nomination for "Best original score" and I don't understand why. The soundtrack also won in the poll of the Talkclassical best film score award - 1993.
I don't say that the music judges of the Academy Awards and the voters of TC are wrong. I simply think that they see something that I can't see.

Your reaction in respect to film scores that you don't like is different. Since you don't like the music of the Lion King, you say that the persons who like it are wrong and that the music can not be considered art.


Now, what is the point of the entire discussion? The radio classic FM promote soundtracks with classical style and accept them in the competition Classic FM Hall of Fame and a biased music journalist wrote that they are wrong. It's always the same: you think that the choices of other persons are WRONG.
While I think that the approach of Classic FM is correct, because the quality of the music ("this is art, this is not") must be decided AFTER, the journalist and you seem to have already prejudically decided that there is not quality in soundtracks and you want to block them BEFORE.

This piece based on a videogame theme in the Classic FM Hall of Fame placed in the 84th position. 84/300. It means that it has won against other 216 classical music pieces. Things that happen when the public is free to judge the music AFTER.


----------



## pianozach

HansZimmer said:


> @Forster @pianozach
> 
> I don't think that bad music can become good music only because it's inserted in a good film. I think that most persons are able to distinguish music from the rest.
> 
> More likely, the persons have a good consideration for the soundtracks of films or videogames in which the music plays a great (if not predominant) role in creating the good atmosphere.
> 
> For example, "The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time" is the videogames with the highest score in metacritic (99/100) and I bet that the soundtrack plays a great role in the success of the videogame. When I used to play with it, I felt like I wanted to turn on the videogame especially to experience the romantic atmosphere created by the music and the images. @Ethereality


Sometimes.

One of the most popular videogames is *Grand Theft Auto*, and I don't think anyone here has ever brought up the soundtrack music for THAT.


----------



## Forster

HansZimmer said:


> In the OP I speak about stylistic categories, not about abstract categories.


In the OP, you spoke about categories. I don't recognise the distinction you make between "abstract" and "stylistic".



HansZimmer said:


> T"You can't listen to FM outside of the context, without the film".


Has anyone said this? I haven't said "you can't". You can, and do, but that doesn't work for me, and I think an OST can only be properly evaluated in its right context. Surely we don't need to go round that one again?



HansZimmer said:


> If you are familiar with this kind of websites, you know that it's extremely difficult that a product get a 10/10 or anything close.
> I very often check the ratings of the films in IMDB. It's rare that a film has a rating higher than 7/10, and ratings above 8 are very rare. If you are able to make a film which receieves a rating higher than 9, you have won the lottery.


First, I raise an objection to RYM, so you avoid that by moving on to IMDB. In fact, the top 250 movies on IMDB all score 8.0 or above. But "these websites" do not all do the same thing. For example, Metacritic aggregates critics reviews and, separately, user reviews. So, for example, _Benediction _(which I watched last night) scored 81 with the critics while users only gave it 6.9. What does that tell us about the movie? Nothing much. Only what we already know is often the case, that critics and users differ in their opinions. RYM will be no different.


----------



## Chat Noir

Exhausting and exasperating thread.


----------



## mikeh375

I thought it might be interesting to link the Horner Concerto for 4 horns for your consideration.
It is a pleasant work done well imv however my overall impression of this work is that it is primarily by a film composer. The piece is laden with filmic orchestration and harmonic and thematic tropes so much so that one can often imagine the music accompanying an epic film rather than being an individual, exploratory and 'absolute' work - it does indeed feel a bit like a collage in that sense to me.
I inevitably started to compare this to William's concert music and found to my ears at any rate, that there actually was no comparison to be had as William's music is so obviously 'classically' composed and with a more musically profound intent. Horner's Concerto doesn't quite feel that way because of its reliance on more obvious (actually even corny in places) film traits. Anyway I'm betting heavily that YMMayVary to a great extent given the nature of the thread to date...


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

mikeh375 said:


> I thought it might be interesting to link the Horner Concerto for 4 horns for your consideration.
> It is a pleasant work done well imv however my overall impression of this work is that it is primarily by a film composer. The piece is laden with filmic orchestration and harmonic and thematic tropes so much so that one can often imagine the music accompanying an epic film rather than being an individual, exploratory and 'absolute' work. I inevitably started to compare this to William's concert music and found to my ears at any rate, that there actually was no comparison to be had as William's music is so obviously 'classically' composed and with a more musically profound intent. Horner's Concerto doesn't quite feel that way because of its reliance on more obvious (actually even corny in places) film traits. Anyway I'm betting heavily that YMMayVary to a great extent....


I have a few questions:
Are you suggesting that a style which makes one think of Hollywood film scores is inherently an alien in a classical landscape?
Do you consider it impossible that the language it was written in expresses the author's intent, i.e. do you think that Horner was not free to do whatever he pleased? 
Is Horner's concerto, despite the sacrosanct 'artist's intent' some kind of non-classical concerto for horns and orchestra?


----------



## hammeredklavier

HansZimmer said:


> This piece based on a videogame theme in the Classic FM Hall of Fame placed in the 84th position. 84/300. It means that it has won against other 216 classical music pieces. Things that happen when the public is free to judge the music AFTER.


I'm not sure what you're talking about. I looked up Classic FM Hall of Fame 2022, but I can't find "The Legend of Zelda" placed anywhere in the ranking.








I even followed the link provided in the description of the video you posted, but it's an invalid page. http://halloffame.classicfm.com/2015/chart/position/84/


----------



## mikeh375

VoiceFromTheEther said:


> I have a few questions:
> Are you suggesting that a style which makes one think of Hollywood film scores is inherently an alien in a classical landscape?
> Do you consider it impossible that the language it was written in expresses the author's intent, i.e. do you think that Horner was not free to do whatever he pleased?
> Is Horner's concerto, despite the sacrosanct 'artist's intent' some kind of non-classical concerto for horns and orchestra?


I've actually answered in different ways, all of your questions here in this thread elsewhere. I've referred them to you in an earlier post if I'm not mistaken. If you read them, then you have the context and reasoning behind my thoughts and opinion. But to briefly answer your questions...

_Are you suggesting that a style which makes one think of Hollywood film scores is inherently an alien in a classical landscape?_
No, but a no with provisos. See my personal preferred definitions as to what I think constitutes concert hall music and my comments on film music in said venue. Not everyone here agrees with me but my take on this is clear enough and wont change. Having worked in media and the film industry, I can assure you I'm no musical snob.

_Do you consider it impossible that the language it was written in expresses the author's intent, i.e. do you think that Horner was not free to do whatever he pleased?_
The concerto language expresses his intent, of course it does and yes, it goes without saying that he was free to do whatever he saw fit . Simply regarding the result, I personally want more from a concert work. See previous posts by me for clarification as to why.

_Is Horner's concerto, despite the sacrosanct 'artist's intent' some kind of non-classical concerto for horns and orchestra?_
It's not a 'classical' concerto from my perspective i.e. considering what I like and expect from a composition in that genre. That expectation of mine is mostly guided not so much the style or language, but by the technique and content (material) used in the composing and how they are handled to achieve expression. To me, Horner's concerto is more of a collage of well established and sometimes hackneyed musical tropes - maybe that's why he titled it as such. So although yes it is a concerto in certain aspects (soloists), the quality of the music is not so great for me although it is a nice listen. I'm also suspicious of its language's genesis because I hear it borrowing and relying too heavily on common filmic utility for effect. I agree that an artistic intent is there, it's just not there to any great musical depth for me, my musical expectations and ears.


----------



## HansZimmer

hammeredklavier said:


> I'm not sure what you're talking about. I looked up Classic FM Hall of Fame 2022, but I can't find "The Legend of Zelda" placed anywhere in the ranking.


You put the link to Classic FM Hall of Fame 2022, but that piece of The Legend of Zelda was for the 2015 edition.

In this page you can find references to the Legend of Zelda.

The 2015 Classic FM Hall of Fame: the facts and figures behind this year's chart - Classic FM

I can't find the results of the competition, however.

Anyway, in the results of the Classic FM Hall of Fame 2022 there are various film scores in the first positions, thing that prove that film music is not so bad as described by some users here. At least it's not perceived in that way by many persons in the classical music audience.


----------



## Chat Noir

mikeh375 said:


> To me, Horner's concerto is more of a collage of well established and sometimes hackneyed musical tropes - maybe that's why he titled it as such. So although yes it is a concerto in certain aspects (soloists), the quality of the music is not so great for me although it is a nice listen. I'm also suspicious of its language's genesis because I hear it borrowing and relying too heavily on common filmic utility for effect.


Yes indeed. I would agree and say that his lengthy period working in film had a large influence on every aspect of his writing. It's not unusual that if one works day-in day-out shaping music for films that this would become a reflex action and the most pronounced feature of one's writing.


----------



## mikeh375

Chat Noir said:


> Yes indeed. I would agree and say that his lengthy period working in film had a large influence on every aspect of his writing. It's not unusual that if one works day-in day-out shaping music for films that this would become a reflex action and the most pronounced feature of one's writing.


Spot on.


----------



## pianozach

hammeredklavier said:


> I'm not sure what you're talking about. I looked up Classic FM Hall of Fame 2022, but I can't find "The Legend of Zelda" placed anywhere in the ranking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I even followed the link provided in the description of the video you posted, but it's an invalid page. http://halloffame.classicfm.com/2015/chart/position/84/


According to a Legend of Zelda webpage, it indeed did place 84th in *2015*, not 2022. The Legend of Zelda series music inducted into Classic FM "Hall of Fame" - Zelda Dungeon 

Here's a link to Classic FMs page featuring The Legend of Zelda, again, from *2015*, not 2022. https://www.classicfm.com/radio/hall-of-fame/2015/facts-statistics/kondo/

Yeah, if you want to find verify something you cannot go to the wrong list. You must go to the correct list.


----------



## HansZimmer

mikeh375 said:


> It is a pleasant work done well imv however my overall impression of this work is that it is primarily by a film composer. The piece is laden with filmic orchestration and harmonic and thematic tropes so much so that one can often imagine the music accompanying an epic film rather than being an individual, exploratory and 'absolute' work - it does indeed feel a bit like a collage in that sense to me.
> I inevitably started to compare this to William's concert music and found to my ears at any rate, that there actually was no comparison to be had as William's music is so obviously 'classically' composed and with a more musically profound intent. Horner's Concerto doesn't quite feel that way because of its reliance on more obvious (actually even corny in places) film traits. Anyway I'm betting heavily that YMMayVary to a great extent given the nature of the thread to date...





Chat Noir said:


> Yes indeed. I would agree and say that his lengthy period working in film had a large influence on every aspect of his writing. It's not unusual that if one works day-in day-out shaping music for films that this would become a reflex action and the most pronounced feature of one's writing.



By someone who likes the sound/style of film music your observations are not seen as a defect, but as a value.
The FM sound/style is my favourite one in orchestral music, along with style/sound of classical and baroque periods.

I've listened to some concert works of John Williams. They might be technically good, but I don't like their style/sound. I still have to listen to the piece of Horner, but if you say that it has the cinematic style/sound I will probably like it more than the concert works of John Williams.


Now, if you say that the FM style/sound doesn't do for you I have no problems, but if you want to say that to bring the experience matured in the film music inside the concert works is an objective defect I don't agree at all. I would like to find more works like this in the contemporary classical music.


----------



## HansZimmer

mikeh375 said:


> I agree that an artistic intent is there, it's just not there to any great musical depth for me, my musical expectations and ears.


Apart from your personal expectations, do you understand why many persons (me included) have a so great respect for James Horner and many other film composers, at the point that are often defined as "the greatest composers of our time?".

I mean, look at the results of the Classic FM Hall of Fame posted by hammeredklavier: Classic FM Hall of Fame 2022
At the 10/300 position there is Schindler's List of John Williams.
At the 34/100 position there is Star Wars of John Williams.
At the 37/100 position there is The Gladiator of Hans Zimmer.
At the 39/100 position: Harry Potter of John Williams.
At the 42/300 position: The Lord of The Rings of Howard Shore.

Five film scores in the first 50 positions.


I think that the explanation is really simple: the major film composers not only write excellent melodies (which work well even alone), but melodies that fit very well the films.
This is what the simple music consumers expect from musical pieces.
Your vision of music ( similar to the one of @Chat Noir) is particular and you can not expect that everyone follows it. Most persons only want to get emotions from music, not reading nerdy things in the scores.


----------



## Chat Noir

HansZimmer said:


> Apart from your personal expectations, do you understand why many persons (me included) have a so great respect for James Horner and many other film composers, at the point that are often defined as "the greatest composers of our time?".


I just choked on my caviar. Classic FM though? I only hear that in the supermarket.


----------



## HansZimmer

Chat Noir said:


> I just choked on my caviar. Classic FM though? I only hear that in the supermarket.


... and then there are persons who say that it's not true that there are snobs in talkclassical.


----------



## Chat Noir

HansZimmer said:


> ... and then there are persons who say that it's not true that there are snobs in talkclassical.


Be reasonable. Next you'll be calling me a snob for not listening to James Last.


----------



## mikeh375

^^^^you mean you don't like James Last??? Oh my God @Chat Noir. Do you understand why he is in at number 567 in the Easy listening chart, just below Mantovani? Forget all that nerdy, more profound stuff we know my friend, we and our colleagues been taught all wrong about this. Oh if only I'd known about emotions in music and how they are separate from the nerdy stuff.
Oh yeah, btw, I quite like Horner's scores even if at times he wasn't so original.


----------



## Chat Noir

I take it all Bach:


----------



## Vicomtedelomagne

There are many crude and clunky soundtracks to films. I find Gladiator unwatchable because of the crudity of the soundtrack. But there are films in the 50's in particular that I would watch because of the soundtrack. Films have been 'downgraded' to a certain extent because the audience is younger [and more stupid? or at least less educated]


----------



## PaulFranz

What I've gathered from this exhausting thread is that almost nobody here thinks that art songs and opera are actually classical music, and almost everybody here would have an incredibly difficult time distinguishing musical theater from opera.


----------



## Forster

PaulFranz said:


> What I've gathered from this exhausting thread is that almost nobody here thinks that art songs and opera are actually classical music, and almost everybody here would have an incredibly difficult time distinguishing musical theater from opera.


What _is_ musical theatre?


----------



## Forster

Vicomtedelomagne said:


> There are many crude and clunky soundtracks to films. I find Gladiator unwatchable because of the crudity of the soundtrack.


Well, yes, I guess there must be, given that there are thousands of movies and not all of them are top class. I happen to like the score to _Gladiator_, but having watched it a number of times, it has less appeal now than when I first saw it.

As to your idea that films have been "downgraded" - they've certainly changed since the 50s, but that doesn't mean they've got worse (IMO). But the idea that the audience is "younger" and more stupid? Not sure what that has to do with the quality of film soundtracks these days. Maybe you're just getting older?


----------



## Forster

mikeh375 said:


> I quite like Horner's scores even if at times he wasn't so original.


Can I recall the movies I've seen that he scored? And can I decide which I liked or disliked in spite of, or because of the score?

The man was very busy in the 80s and 90s, decreasingly so in the 21stC. I note on IMDB 16 films that he scored which I saw, between 1980 and 1990, enjoyed them all without recalling anything notable about the soundtracks except for _ST: Wrath of Khan_, along with _An Americal Tail_ (though perhaps a sentimental attachment to it because of children) and _Aliens_. On the other hand, I disliked _Titanic _and, theme song aside (which I disliked), I remember nowt about the score.


----------



## mikeh375

Forster said:


> Can I recall the movies I've seen that he scored? And can I decide which I liked or disliked in spite of, or because of the score?
> 
> The man was very busy in the 80s and 90s, decreasingly so in the 21stC. I note on IMDB 16 films that he scored which I saw, between 1980 and 1990, enjoyed them all without recalling anything notable about the soundtracks except for _ST: Wrath of Khan_, along with _An Americal Tail_ (though perhaps a sentimental attachment to it because of children) and _Aliens_. On the other hand, I disliked _Titanic _and, theme song aside (which I disliked), I remember nowt about the score.


If I'm not mistaken (I could be though), I think Horner did some sort of deal with the producers regarding that song from Titanic, but can't quite recall the specifics. Whatever deal was struck, he allegedly made in the tens of millions from it. Perhaps someone can tell us what actually happened.
I thought he did a decent job on 'Avatar' and 'Aliens', even though I recall the opening music of 'Aliens' has a quote from Bartok in there somewhere.
His death was such a tragic loss to the industry.


----------



## HansZimmer

Chat Noir said:


> Be reasonable. Next you'll be calling me a snob for not listening to James Last.


I don't call you a snob because you don't listen to a determined composer, but because you seem to think that your tastes are superior and you put down "Classic FM" for it's legitimate editorial choice, which allows the audience to say that a soundtrack is better than a concert work.
In other words, you think that the public of classical music should not be allowed to vote, because you think to know what's better for all of us.

The music of James Last is not classical music, it's instrumental pop. Your last post is an other case of snobbism: who says that classical music is better than instrumental pop? Why can't someone prefers the latter? Why can't someone prefer James Last more than Beethoven?

IMO the arrogant attitude of some users in this forum ruins the atmosphere and the quality of the discussions, because to say "the music I don't like is bad and the music I like is superior" doesn't make any sense. IMO in a forum like this one the correct attitude would be "we agree that we all have different tastes and we are all equal".


Now, let's start over. Some persons (including me) put some film scores in the list of the best music ever produced, which means that there is no such thing as "film music is objectively bad".
Take simply note of the fact that your idea that the film scores have a low quality is only your subjective view and that, therefore, your argument is not valid.
That said, instead of going on with this sterile discussion about quality (which is useless, because quality is highly subjective), can we speak about the point of this discussion, which is to discuss about the style of some film scores which sound very much likey classical music?


----------



## Chat Noir

HansZimmer said:


> I don't call you a snob because you don't listen to a determined composer, but because you seem to think that your tastes are superior and you put down "Classic FM" for it's legitimate editorial choice, which allows the audience to say that a soundtrack is better than a concert work.
> In other words, you think that the public of classical music should not be allowed to vote, because you think to know what's better for all of us.


Classic FM is notorious for being a purveyor of 'safe' output. Pretty much every serious classical music listener knows this. It is like those 'best of..' records where you don't have to deal with stuff you don't know or music which might take some effort to get to grips with. It is a Muzak station for commuters and workplaces and supermarkets. It has its valid place.

You don't want to hear it, but I'll say it anyway. The general public isn't always the finest arbiter. You may call this snobbery, but I say it is a matter of depth of appreciation. Without doubt the general listening public is more taken with the idea of attending a concert that plays the theme to Superman or selections from Michael Nyman, rather than the music of e.g. Schnittke but their desire for that doesn't set up some sort of valid ranking system of popularity with which I or anyone else must fall into line.

Who is this 'public of classical music' to which you refer? There are lots of varied listeners. Quite a lot never tune into Classic FM, or the radio at all. Classic FM's 'editorial choice' is based around its type of audience, which is likely very different to that of e.g. BBC Radio 3 or France Musique, not the entire world of orchestral/art music.

and this insistence upon 'emotion'. I'm pretty certain there are people experiencing equally strong emotions from listening to Billie Eilish. That film music you happen to enjoy might be constructed for an orchestra to play (or so often these days partly orchestra and partly synthesised) doesn't raise it above Billie Eilish in the emotional stakes. If her next album is entirely scored for an orchestra should we be making moves for it to be brought into the classical music fold? If not, why not? Mr Zimmer, whom you value so much, is really only a rock musician who has worked out how to transfer it to the orchestrator's hands for output you recognise as 'classical'.

I like film music, but some of it is not much more little cues and chord progressions strung together. Having this played by a symphony orchestra is not the equal of, say, Rachmaninov slaving over a concerto. In fact the world of classical music has really just been a well from which film music has drawn and watered-down/simplified for film production. It's great that it draws people into further listening to art music, but it is what it is, and the few outliers displaying originality don't alter that. Classical music doesn't pretend to be film music either.


----------



## HansZimmer

Chat Noir said:


> Classic FM is notorious for being a purveyor of 'safe' output. Pretty much every serious classical music listener knows this. It is like those 'best of..' records where you don't have to deal with stuff you don't know or music which might take some effort to get to grips with. It is a Muzak station for commuters and workplaces and supermarkets. It has its valid place.


The point is that if you allow to a group of persons to make charts by voting, some film scores get high ranks. This fact should simply suggest you that your negative view about film music is PERSONAL and not OBJECTIVE, so your argument about quality is not valid. Many persons (including me) think that there is a high quality in film music and our point of view is as valid as yours.

Since quality is highly subjective, I implore to anyone in this discussion to abandon this silly argument, because we look like kindergarten children who argue about what is the best color.



> The general public isn't always the finest arbiter.


The point is that an arbiter is not necessary. It's not necessary that a piece of music wins against an other piece of music. Just listen to what you like and I'll do the same.
The musical competitions/charts shoud be taken as simple games, not as something that actually establish anything. The liberal theory explains very well why the individual charts and the freedom of each individual to follow them is the most efficient thing. A collective chart will be always inefficient: it won't nevery satisfy the individuals.

Keep in mind that the concept is 100% valid inside classical music too: in the charts of many persons there is "The Art of Fugue" at the top, while I have other pieces of Bach at the TOP. My individual charts work for me and there is no reason to touch it. I don't want that someone decides for me what is "the best of Bach".

What I'm doing in the "games section" is only a game, as well as my polls in the main section: BWV 1080 Vs BWV 1059 - Best pieces of J.S. Bach award



> You may call this snobbery, but I say it is a matter of depth of appreciation. Without doubt the general listening public is more taken with the idea of attending a concert that plays the theme to Superman or selections from Michael Nyman, rather than the music of e.g. Schnittke but their desire for that doesn't set up some sort of valid ranking system of popularity with which I or anyone else must fall into line.


This is a strawman, because the public doesn't think that film music is better than concert works or viceversa. It doesn't make sense.

The public, as you can see in the charts of Classic FM Hall of Fame 2022, simply doesn't discriminate between the two. So, at the end of the charts you might find concert works as well as film music and at the top of the charts you might find concert work as well as film music.

No one has ever said that film music is better. I don't know where did you take the information that the public prefers the music of Superman more than any concert work. If someone goes to a concert of John Williams doesn't mean that he doesn't like Mozart's music and viceversa if someone likes Mozart's music doesn't mean that he doesn't like William's music. One doesn't exclude the other. You can like both.
The tastes of persons are not binary as you think. Your binary view doesn't make any sense to me.



> and this insistence upon 'emotion'


I'm simply describing how tastes in music normally work. The persons simply perceive the "high quality" in musical pieces that give them strong emotions. You can pretend that for you it works differently, but even if it was true, to be honest I think that it's quite unnatural to force yourself to like what you don't like and to don't like what you like. You can't tell us that we have to follow a so unnatural approach to music: we want to amouse with music, not to get bored by it.

However, I repeat this simple concept: if something moves me doesn't mean that it's objectively good. It means that it's good for me, and this is what really counts. It wouldn't make any sense to try to elevate my personal tastes to objectivity, like you do with your own personal tastes.



> I'm pretty certain there are people experiencing equally strong emotions from listening to Billie Eilish


Good for them. So the music of Billie Ellish must be at the top of their individual charts. What will you do now? Will you try to convince us that Billy Ellish is objectively bad because you don't like her music?



> That film music you happen to enjoy might be constructed for an orchestra to play (or so often these days partly orchestra and partly synthesised) doesn't raise it above Billie Eilish in the emotional stakes.


Who says this? I still have to hear a song of Billie Elish that moves me as much as the music of the Lion King. A the moment, at the top of my individual charts I have only film music and classical music. It works for me, but I'm sure that it doesn't work for other persons. My individual charts must work for me, not for other persons.

Just like there are persons who prefer classical music more than pop music or viceversa, there also persons who prefer film music more than pop music or viceversa. Finally, there are, without any doubt, persons who like both equally.



> If her next album is entirely scored for an orchestra should we be making moves for it to be brought into the classical music fold?


Only if she will also adopt the style of classical music. The instrumentation alone doesn't make a piece classical.

This strawman has been brought in the discussion more than once and I've already said that there is no chance that I confuse the orchestral version of "Yellow Submarine" with classical music.







It's obvious that it's not simply the instrumentation alone that creates the sound of classical music. There's more.
I don't say that some film scores sound as classical music only because they are orchestral, but because they actually sound like it.

This is one of the best examples I can offer.









> Mr Zimmer, whom you value so much, is really only a rock musician who has worked out how to transfer it to the orchestrator's hands for output you recognise as 'classical'.


I have never said that Hans Zimmer is a classical music composer in general. He's not even a rock composer. The right definition of a lot of his music IMO is "crossover".

There are some film music composers that sound almost always classical (see for example John Williams) and Hans Zimmer is not one of them.

However, I consider the suite of Gladiator 100% classical, and infact the score has been accepeted in the Classic FM Hall of Fame 2022 and it obtained a good position in the charts.






Some parts of the score of The Lion king are also close to classical music, IMO, but maybe not as much as The Gladiator.



> I like film music, but some of it is not much more little cues and chord progressions strung together. Having this played by a symphony orchestra is not the equal of, say, Rachmaninov slaving over a concerto. In fact the world of classical music has really just been a well from which film music has drawn and pared-down/simplified for film production. It's great that it draws people into further listening to art music, but it is what it is, and the few outliers displaying originality don't alter that.


You are right about the fact that the suites of film music are usually composed by many short pieces instead of only a few large movements like in concerto works.
That's why I asked to stop to make comparison between film music and symphonies and I wrote that we should compare film music with classical incidental music.

For example, "The Snow Maiden" of Tchaikovsky is useful for a comparison (many short pieces that create a large suite): youtube playlist



> Classical music doesn't pretend to be film music either.


IMO this symphony sounds a lot like film music.


----------



## Chat Noir

HansZimmer said:


> This fact should simply suggest you that your negative view about film music is PERSONAL and not OBJECTIVE, so your argument about quality is not valid.


This would also hold for your own view then I imagine? That it's just a personal taste with really nothing objective to say about it? Which is puzzling considering you've spent innumerable posts trying to convince everyone about the objective greatness of the score to The Lion King and its deserved place in the canon of classical music. Using league tables, the fact that orchestras play it, that Classic FM has compiled it into some greatest hits table.


HansZimmer said:


> Many persons (including me) think that there is a high quality in film music and our point of view is as valid as yours.


You can have that view. I think you're wrong. A lot of is extended jingles. There is a giant pile of pre-recorded library music which is equal or better than even the best examples, and which is still thought of as filler music and made-to-order cues. The Lion King's non-song component is hardly different. It is a lot of generic-sounding music with no real interesting techniques or material. It is chiefly praised by people who are devoted to that film and who likely watched it as a wide-eyed youth. I think that is your position and that it brought you to classical music (which is good) and that consequently you have great admiration for it, but that it's still orchestrated pop music and nursery rhyme-type music..


HansZimmer said:


> Good for them. So the music of Billie Ellish must be at the top of their individual charts. What will you do now? Will you try to convince us that Billy Ellish is objectively bad because you don't like her music?


Well no, because I never said I like or don't like her music. This really is a straw man (take note for when you next employ that term for the nth time). I think that people would probably appreciate the music, that it might make them think about what type of music orchestras are capable of producing, but that they wouldn't dress Billie in a powdered wig and give her a lifetime membership of the classical music club just because a string section happened to be employed for a song.


----------



## pianozach

Forster said:


> Can I recall the movies I've seen that he scored? And can I decide which I liked or disliked in spite of, or because of the score?
> 
> The man was very busy in the 80s and 90s, decreasingly so in the 21stC. I note on IMDB 16 films that he scored which I saw, between 1980 and 1990, enjoyed them all without recalling anything notable about the soundtracks except for _ST: Wrath of Khan_, along with _An Americal Tail_ (though perhaps a sentimental attachment to it because of children) and _Aliens_. On the other hand, I disliked _Titanic _and, theme song aside (which I disliked), I remember nowt about the score.


Some might say that the mark of a well-done score is that you DON'T necessarily remember it, as it manages to accompany the film without drawing attention to itself.


----------



## Chat Noir

Like unobtrusive wallpaper.


----------



## pianozach

mikeh375 said:


> If I'm not mistaken (I could be though), I think Horner did some sort of deal with the producers regarding that song from Titanic, but can't quite recall the specifics. Whatever deal was struck, he allegedly made in the tens of millions from it. Perhaps someone can tell us what actually happened.
> I thought he did a decent job on 'Avatar' and 'Aliens', even though I recall the opening music of 'Aliens' has a quote from Bartok in there somewhere.
> His death was such a tragic loss to the industry.


Going by the information on *Wikipedia:* 

" . . . Horner had originally composed the music for the song as an instrumental motif which he used in several scenes during Titanic_._ He then wanted to prepare a full vocal version of it, to use during the film's end credits. Lyricist Will Jennings was hired, who wrote the lyrics "from the point of view of a person of a great age looking back so many years". Director James Cameron did not want such a song, but Will Jennings went ahead anyway and wrote the lyrics. When Dion originally heard the song, she did not want to record it as she felt she was pushing her luck by singing another film theme song after Beauty and the Beast and Because You Loved Me. . . . "

"James Cameron felt obligated to include a theme song to promote the film. Glen Brunman also stated that the soundtrack album was supposed to be "No song, no Céline".

"Dion's husband/manager "convinced her to sing on this demo version, which she had not done for many years. [Producer] Tommy Mottola claimed that Dion recorded the song in one take, and that demo is what was released in the film. However, she re-recorded the song for her album release after the film's release and its tremendous success. It was an edited version with few note changes at the end of the song. Horner waited until Cameron was in an appropriate mood before presenting him with the song. After playing it several times, Cameron declared his approval, even though he worried that he might be criticized for "going commercial at the end of the movie". Cameron also wanted to appease anxious studio executives and "saw that a hit song from his movie could only be a positive factor in guaranteeing its completion"."

But wait, there's more:

"The original Horner/Franglen produced "demo" version of the ballad runs a little over five minutes and has an extended ending with longer, segmented vocalizations by Dion. Franglen mixed the final film and soundtrack version, expanding on the demo and adding orchestra to the final chorus. It is this version which appears on the _Titanic_ soundtrack album and is also played over the ending credits of the film.

"When the single was to be released to radio, it was produced further by Walter Afanasieff who added string and electric guitar, as well as rearranged portions of the song. This version, which runs a little over four and a half minutes, appears on both the 4-track maxi single and Dion's album _Let's Talk About Love_. At the height of the song's popularity, some radio stations in the US and the UK played an edited version of the song, [with] dramatic moments of dialogue from the Jack and Rose lead characters in the film inserted in between Dion's vocal lines.

"The lyrics contain an extra line "There is some love that will not go away" between the third chorus and the final verse on the official Celine Dion website and the Let's Talk About Love booklet."


----------



## Luchesi

"In 1989, the estate of the late composer Nino Rota accused Horner of plagiarism, claiming that Horner's score for "Honey, I Shrunk the Kids" blatantly borrowed Rota's music composed for "Amarcord" (1973).

"Film music is this weird, demonic thing where every score has to be absolutely different from any other score--or so the legal paper says. But if you're an artist it's impossible. There's only so many ways to skin a cat. And when you actually look at 'Casper' or any adventure movie I've done or John Williams has done--when you sort of squint your eyes, they all sound the same. Maybe one's better crafted than the other or more subtle, but when you kind of look at the overview, they all sound the same." --Horner quoted in Los Angeles Times, February 13, 1995."

- - - https://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/person/89079|174489/James-Horner/#overview


----------



## HansZimmer

Chat Noir said:


> This would also hold for your own view then I imagine? That it's just a personal taste with really nothing objective to say about it?


Of course. My personal tastes are also not objective. Infact, unlike you, I don't say that the pieces that I don't personally like are bad.
Furthermore, I usually prefer to say what I like instead of saying what I don't like, because I don't want to spread negativity. It's a bit like the difference between saying "I like women" and "Homosexuality suck". The latter can be taken offensively, while the first one not.



> Which is puzzling considering you've spent innumerable posts trying to convince everyone about the objective greatness of the score to The Lion King and its deserved place in the canon of classical music.


I was simply writing my contrasting point of view to show you that what you consider "bad music" for someone else is the best music ever produced. From this you should simply learn the subjectivity of the quality in music. I have never said that the music of The Lion King is OBJECTIVELY great. I was saying that it's great in my mind (and in the mind of many other persons).



> You can have that view. I think you're wrong.


Fine. Now, if you understand that you think that I'm wrong simply because you have different SUBJECTIVE tastes than mine, we are done.



> The Lion King's non-song component is hardly different. It is a lot of generic-sounding music with no real interesting techniques or material.


For me there must be very interesting technique and material because they produce a very good sound. The results decide what are the interesting technique. Don't pretend that a determined technique is objectively interesting or not. The technique is functional to the result. I want the result X, I use the technique Y. If you like the result X, the technique Y is interesting.



> It is chiefly praised by people who are devoted to that film and who likely watched it as a wide-eyed youth. I think that is your position and that it brought you to classical music (which is good) and that consequently you have great admiration for it


I've already said that I'm not devoted to the film. I have never been a fan of The Lion King. I simply love the music.

And I don't like the film scores because they brought me in classical music, but because I simply like them, period.



> but that it's still orchestrated pop music and nursery rhyme-type music..


I don't know what does it have to do with pop music. This is not how orchestrated pop sounds. To my ears, the aesthetic is much closer to classical music, maybe with a folk touch.

Finally, "This Land" is not rudimental. IMO is one of the best examples of what you can do with a theme in 2 minutes and 30 seconds.
There is a well built drammatic arc, which brings the theme through different stages with emotional contrast. The construction of the melody sounds brilliant to my ears.


----------



## pianozach

pianozach said:


> Going by the information on *Wikipedia:*
> 
> " . . . Horner had originally composed the music for the song as an instrumental motif which he used in several scenes during Titanic_._ He then wanted to prepare a full vocal version of it, to use during the film's end credits. Lyricist Will Jennings was hired, who wrote the lyrics "from the point of view of a person of a great age looking back so many years". ...


Just to finish the thought . . . 

*Horner* and *Jennings* have co-writing credit for an international #1 Hit song (I'd like to think they split the royalty agreement 50/50, but it's possible that it Jennings agreed to less than 50% when he signed on to create lyrics). They get A-list royalty scale for sales and broadcasts. So Horner may have made far more on the song than on the score for the film, because it had a life OUTSIDE of its film inclusion. As *Cameron* had no claim as a creator of the song, he gets no royalties.


----------



## Forster

pianozach said:


> Some might say that the mark of a well-done score is that you DON'T necessarily remember it, as it manages to accompany the film without drawing attention to itself.


Which was precisely my point; at least, as far as my preference for listening to film scores in context is concerned. FM is meant to be heard, not listened to. CM is meant to be listened to.


----------



## Forster

^ Just to elaborate on my distaste for _Titanic_, and _that _song, it seems to me that what was a terrible marine disaster for 1500 souls was trivialised by the reduction of the whole thing to a "tragic" tale of thwarted love. But then, to be fair, the whole tale of the sinking of the Titanic has been used and ill-used for decades by filmmakers and documentarians alike. Our fascination has led to a kind of weird romanticising of the whole saga, and _that _song just about sums it up.


----------



## EvaBaron

Vicomtedelomagne said:


> There are many crude and clunky soundtracks to films. I find Gladiator unwatchable because of the crudity of the soundtrack. But there are films in the 50's in particular that I would watch because of the soundtrack. Films have been 'downgraded' to a certain extent because the audience is younger [and more stupid? or at least less educated]


I feel like the new generation is definitively not more stupid, I feel like the older generation thinks we are so they make stupid movies that we don’t like


----------



## pianozach

Forster said:


> ^ Just to elaborate on my distaste for _Titanic_, and _that _song, it seems to me that what was a terrible marine disaster for 1500 souls was trivialised by the reduction of the whole thing to a "tragic" tale of thwarted love. But then, to be fair, the whole tale of the sinking of the Titanic has been used and ill-used for decades by filmmakers and documentarians alike. Our fascination has led to a kind of weird romanticising of the whole saga, and _that _song just about sums it up.


It is a trait of Hollywood films to trivialize and romanticize monumental events.

Gone With the Wind
The Birth of a Nation
From Here to Eternity
Pearl Harbor
Somewhere in Time

I'm sure that there's a list online somewhere . . . .


----------



## DaveM

Forster said:


> Which was precisely my point; at least, as far as my preference for listening to film scores in context is concerned. *FM is meant to be heard, not listened to. CM is meant to be listened to.*


Apparently, given the sale of soundtrack recordings, a lot of people think differently. If you think that is supposed to be profound, IMO, it isn’t.


----------



## pianozach

DaveM said:


> Apparently, given the sale of soundtrack recordings, a lot of people think differently. If you think that is supposed to be profound, IMO, it isn’t.


Excellent point.

If Film Music wasn't meant to be heard, they wouldn't bother to release soundtrack albums at all, and if they did, people wouldn't buy them.


----------



## Forster

pianozach said:


> It is a trait of Hollywood films to trivialize and romanticize monumental events.
> 
> Gone With the Wind
> The Birth of a Nation
> From Here to Eternity
> Pearl Harbor
> Somewhere in Time
> 
> I'm sure that there's a list online somewhere . . . .


Aside from the last, which I've not seen at all, the others I've seen only once and some while ago, so I can't give an up-to-date comment. But GWTW didn't seem to me to trivialise. It was just a better film than Titanic. But I take your point all the same.



pianozach said:


> *If Film Music wasn't meant to be heard,* they wouldn't bother to release soundtrack albums at all, and if they did, people wouldn't buy them.


I didn't say it wasn't meant to be heard.

Of course, the marketing dudes will tell the composer that the priority is to write something that can be turned into a product, a movie tie-in, so lots of swooning melodies and exciting bits like William Tell will do nicely, and never mind what the director wants.

What the studio does with a soundtrack after it's served its primary purpose is, IMO opinion, not the point of this discussion.


----------



## DaveM

Forster said:


> So what?
> 
> I didn't say it wasn't meant to be heard.


You’re right, you didn’t. What you said was worse, which was:


Forster said:


> ..FM is meant to be heard, not listened to. CM is meant to be listened to.


Which is a play on the well-known phrase, ‘_You may be hearing me, but you’re not listening to me_’ which means that one is perceiving the sound, but not processing it. So, in effect, you’re diminishing FM in general which is what you’ve been doing this whole thread. Not to mention diminishing the whole thread itself since it was supposed to have ended when, according to you, you had answered all relevant questions last April.


----------



## Forster

DaveM said:


> Just for the record, my position is that some, not all, film music reminds of classical music. And if push comes to shove, I’m not as fired up about the subject as some here -those on the side of dismissing all film music as classical music- seem to be.


And, just for the record, your post roughly coincides with my position. It's always good to agree on such things, isn't it?


----------



## Chat Noir

DaveM said:


> You’re right, you didn’t. What you said was worse, which was:


That' not the case at all. What Forster said is not only true, it's self-evident. Music written as music alone is designed to be a pure listening experience; film music isn't. CM isn't meant to match a temp track, it doesn't follow any running time or match any images or specifically act to aid any visuals at all. One could now object and ask: so what is opera or ballet doing? Yet even that is different, the music plays a full role. It's not the case that at some point the ballet director listens to the music and decides he doesn't like it and just engages another composer for a different score. It does have some similarity in that suites and cues from such stage works can sometimes feel a bit out of place divorced from the whole.


----------



## HansZimmer

Forster said:


> Which was precisely my point; at least, as far as my preference for listening to film scores in context is concerned. FM is meant to be heard, not listened to. CM is meant to be listened to.


The best film music composers actually write music that is meant to be listened (because they already know that there will be concerts and that OST albums will be released), although, as I've already written, while watching the film you only hear the music. This is why I recommend to LISTEN to concerts after you've watched films. Of course everyone does what he wants, but if you want to speak about the quality of film music you have to LISTEN to it.


----------



## Luchesi

HansZimmer said:


> The best film music composers actually write music that is meant to be listened (because they already know that there will be concerts and that OST albums will be released), although, as I've already written, while watching the film you only hear the music. This is why I recommend to LISTEN to concerts after you've watched films. Of course everyone does what he wants, but if you want to speak about the quality of film music you have to LISTEN to it.


"if you want to speak about the quality of film music"

As I read the replies I suspect I am at the extreme end. It doesn't really surprise me.

Quality. If you want to speak about the quality of film music my answer still is;
You need to know a little about the history of music and how it developed.
You need to look at the scores and see what the composer was doing. I can't just listen and hear all the details that I need, and I doubt that many people can. (But I might get an argument..)
Once you know the score well enough to play it and express yourself with it then you have a reliable perspective. 

What the music does for some people, likes and dislikes, I don't see how it's relevant to a musician. Unless you mean by "quality" whether it will sell, or whether it will entertain a large number of people (casual listening), or whether it will somehow be better than other films scores.

And that applies to any music, pop, jazz etc. For me, it's always the same approach.


----------



## DaveM

Chat Noir said:


> That' not the case at all. What Forster said is not only true, it's self-evident. Music written as music alone is designed to be a pure listening experience; film music isn't.


True? Self-evident? If I was a film composer of the sort of film music this OP is/was addressing and I was told that it was meant to be heard and not listened to, I would be insulted. It’s an inappropriate distinction given its true meaning. Particularly regarding CM-like film music, people buy soundtrack recordings to listen to which means process the music much the way one would with a CM recording.



> CM isn't meant to match a temp track, it doesn't follow any running time or match any images or specifically act to aid any visuals at all. One could now object and ask: so what is opera or ballet doing? Yet even that is different, the music plays a full role. It's not the case that at some point the ballet director listens to the music and decides he doesn't like it and just engages another composer for a different score. It does have some similarity in that suites and cues from such stage works can sometimes feel a bit out of place divorced from the whole.


Well, after all this, you don’t appear to be aware what this thread is supposed to be about.


----------



## HansZimmer

User: "This program is fantastic, it works very well!"
Computer programmer: "It sucks! There is nothing interesting in the code!"
User: "So what? It helps me a lot and there are no bugs! It works very well!"
Computer programmer: "No, it sucks!"

I want to further elaborate my thought about the argument that film music is not good because is not complex and because the "code" is not interesting.

1) *"The code is not interesting"*

Just like the essence of a computer program is in the functionalities (namely, the user experience), the essence of music is the listening experience.
If I say that a determined piece of film music is excellent, you can not tell me that it's not so because there is nothing interesting in the "code". Infact, music has an aesthetic/emotional goal and the "code" is simply subservient to this purpose.

A skilled composer is not someone who writes complex code, but someone who is able to reach the aesthetic/emotional goal in the best way.
In my opinion (which is shared by many persons) the major film composers are extremely skilled in what they do.


2) *"The music is not good because is not complex"*

To say that a piece of music is improved with more complexity is very much like saying that food is improved with more salt.
Yes, if the food is insipid to add a bit of salt is a good idea, but if you put too much salt is even worse.

The same can be said for a piece of music. If what you have composed is trivial, it's a good idea to elaborate your composition a bit more, until the ideal point is reached. Once the ideal point is surpassed, the quality of music starts to reduce.
Still, the goal of music is emotional/aesthetic and the right level of complexity is the one that it's effective for the purpose. We will call this point "balanced complexity".

I see the obsession for complexity of some folks like a form of fetishism, which obviously contrasts with some of the movements of classical music, like for example the so called "galant music".

From wikipedia: _"In music, *galant* refers to the style which was fashionable from the 1720s to the 1770s. This movement featured a return to simplicity and immediacy of appeal after the complexity of the late Baroque era. This meant simpler, more song-like melodies, decreased use of polyphony, short, periodic phrases, a reduced harmonic vocabulary emphasizing tonic and dominant, and a clear distinction between soloist and accompaniment."_

Galant music - Wikipedia

The greatest composer of this artistic movement is Mozart, which is not exactly an irrelevant composer. The philosophy of "keep things simple" (balanced complexity) is quite evident if you listen to most Mozart's orchestral works after you have listened to orchestral works of Bach.
Basically, Mozart used to wrote a single melodic line and then he decorated it with an accompainment. The themes are usually lyrical (you can sing along with them).
A symphony is like a large-scale sonata: more instruments to play the melody louder and to add color, not for playing more melodies together.

In the movements of Beethoven's symphonies, the development section usually covers a large part of the movement.
In most Mozart's symphonies, the movements are almost entirely covered by the exposition, the refrain and the recapitulation. The devlopment is so much compressed that it's almost irrelevant.

In few words, Mozart's music is melody centered.
For the reasons explained here above, some fetishist of complexity say that Mozart is inferior in respect to Bach and Beethoven, but he was not. He simply had an aesthetic idea in his mind, and his technique was subservient to that.
I think that this is why Mozart is my favourite composer: the "high aesthetic" in music was his primary goal and he wrotes a lot of memorable themes.

The symphony 14 (one of my favourite orchestral works of Mozart) is a good example.
The theme at 00:18 is lyrical and memorable, as well as the theme at 13:06.
The development in the first movement starts at 3:12 end ends at 3:43 (30 seconds of development, similar to to development time of the first movement in "Eine Kleine Nachtmusik").







Surely, the philosophy in film music is very much like the one of "galant music", namely "keep things simple". It's usually melody centered and the melodies are lyrical.
However, the major film composers don't compose trivial music. It's balanced complexity.
Alghough I understand why TRIVIAL music can hardly claim a place in art music, you are wrong if you think that music with balanced complexity can not be art.
Not only I think that some film scores are "art music", but they are even one of the best things of art music.
Their balanced complexity is not a defect, but a value!


----------



## HansZimmer

Luchesi said:


> You need to look at the scores and see what the composer was doing. I can't just listen and hear all the details that I need, and I doubt that many people can. (But I might get an argument..)


No, I don't have to read the code of a computer program to know if it works well. The music is supposed to be listened, not to be read, so I judge it exclusively by the listening experience.
See my previous post.


----------



## Chat Noir

It's nice to read the actual scores (not always available), though I _can_ hear/picture what is going on from listening. If you've been through a lot of scores you end up familiar with certain techniques and it's very rare in film music now that you hear something which strikes you by standing out. I'm what Walter Piston referred to in his orchestration manual as one of those 'practising the lesser art of transcribing for orchestra' music which is already written. I know what is done and I've looked at and read dozens of other people's scores done for this purpose. I've even done it for music I've cobbled together myself.
What I hear in 99% of these scores is 'functional writing'. That goes for both the composition and the fleshing out for ensembles/orchestras. Mike375 perhaps already said it, but in this arena, especially the mainstream films, there is a basic tool kit and a shared grab-bag of commonplace ideas and techniques that most of these scores employ, and which they are required to employ unless the person supplying a score has a very free hand and is known as a 'serious' composer outside the film medium, e.g. Philip Glass or someone like that.

Other than that the music is samey, hackneyed sometimes. As this thread shows it's pointless trying to get this across because there's no arguing with the 'I like it and that's all that matters!' However that 'matter of taste' pronouncement is no argument against the plain fact that film music is functional music. That it is often full of recycled and simplistic formulas. It _has_ to be like this for broad appeal. As has been demonstrated in another thread 'music for horror etc' the broad audience doesn't care for music that deviates from the type of music being discussed here.

Yes, there will be exceptions to this general rule. Which do little more than prove it as a rule. Yes, some of the 'classical music' in the cannon is also little more than bonbons and meant to be so. This is being used to construct winding warrens of pseudo-philosophical argument concerning: 'what is art music?' Is Mozart then not art music since he dashed off some bonbons? Well maybe not because he also wrote cycles of string quartets of the like you'll never find flowing from the pens of the average film composer. So vaguely same club, entirely different sorts of members.


----------



## Chat Noir

DaveM said:


> True? Self-evident? If I was a film composer of the sort of film music this OP is/was addressing and I was told that it was meant to be heard and not listened, I would be insulted. It’s an inappropriate distinction given its true meaning. Particularly regarding CM-like film music, people buy soundtrack recordings to listen to which means process the music much the way one would with a CM recording.


Yes, both true and self-evident. That you would be insulted is a pity, but just tough luck because the fact is that unless the music is especially arresting it really is just a type of Muzak. Sometimes the music _is_ arresting, though this tends to be a 'theme' rather than the rest of the underscore. Sometimes you get a gem of an entire score. Gems as we know are usually rare.



DaveM said:


> Well, after all this, you don’t appear to be aware what this thread is supposed to be about.


'Appear' is the correct word; like 'seems', but not the correct conclusion. That I don't agree with you doesn't mean you've understood it and I haven't.


----------



## Luchesi

HansZimmer said:


> No, I don't have to read the code of a computer program to know if it works well. The music is supposed to be listened, not to be read, so I judge it exclusively by the listening experience.
> See my previous post.


I immediately think what is there besides the code? Effectiveness of parts from the code are seen in the score, so that there's no personal opinion involved. Some parts are more affecting than others, if we're talking about emotions.


----------



## Forster

A possibly unexplored angle is to listen to the soundtrack to some of the versions of the same story. I've just been reading an article on Bachtrack about John Williams score for Jane Eyre (1970). It prompted me to listen to the Williams, followed by Herrmann's 1943, Marianelli's 2011 and Lane's 2006 for the BBC. Comparison isn't quite straightforward, but I tried to compare the piece that accompanies Jane's return to stay with Rochester...the finale, more or less.

I'm not posting the links; they're easy enough to find on YouTube if you've a mind to do so, and then consider the question:

Which is "right"?


----------



## DaveM

Chat Noir said:


> That you would be insulted is a pity, but just tough luck because the fact is that unless the music is especially arresting *it really is just a type of Muzak..*


This thread was meant to point out FM that is classical-like which would imply ‘arresting’. Why are you bothering with a thread about music that (you think) is Muzak.


----------



## Chat Noir

DaveM said:


> Quote without comment.


No, please do comment or don't bother quoting. Is the assumption that if it's quoted and bolded it will stand out as obviously wicked?


----------



## DaveM

Chat Noir said:


> No, please do comment or don't bother quoting. Is the assumption that if it's quoted and bolded it will stand out as obviously wicked?


So I commented. People can interpret the bolded part for themselves. Funny that you worry that it implies something ‘obviously wicked’.


----------



## Chat Noir

DaveM said:


> So I commented. People can interpret the bolded part for themselves. Funny that you worry that it implies something ‘obviously wicked’.


It wasn't commentary though was it? Be direct, what was the quote with that bolded part supposed to imply? Set aside others' interpretations, I'm interested in your intent, and indeed what you think others would interpret from your curation.


----------



## Luchesi

Some people like to discuss - - and some people really get a charge out of winning an argument. I guess there's a little of that in each of us.

Sometimes I'm more one than the other and I feel guilty about it (because it's not really healthy for a forum. Unless we're careful, the tactics for winning an argument can be distasteful for readers (without the emotional investment in the debate)). 

Everyone knows this but I'm writing it out for myself..


----------



## Forster

HansZimmer said:


> The best film music composers actually write music that is meant to be listened (because they already know that there will be concerts and that OST albums will be released), although, as I've already written, while watching the film you only hear the music. This is why I recommend to LISTEN to concerts after you've watched films. Of course everyone does what he wants, but if you want to speak about the quality of film music you have to LISTEN to it.


No-one is denying that some soundtracks are made into suites for concert performance or for release on record, and some of these are very attractive products. It does give the listener a much greater opportunity to listen more closely than in the cinema.

Looking back over the roughly 120 years of cinema, those who've composed specifically for a film soundtrack are more likely to have known that their music will be making a more subliminal, less deliberate listening experience. Whilst there is no doubt that the marketing of movies over the past, say, 50 years has increased the likelihood that a soundtrack will end up as a CD release, it doesn't negate the fact that most FM composers know that while they might make some money from a released recording, the PRIMARY purpose of a soundtrack is to accompany a film. I wouldn't mind betting that some composers know that they'll make precious little money from any CD release unless the film is a big hit.

If _I _want to speak of the _effectiveness_ of a soundtrack, I will do so on the basis of its contribution to the whole cinematic experience. But as you say, we must all do as we please.



Chat Noir said:


> [...]
> What I hear in 99% of these scores is 'functional writing'. That goes for both the composition and the fleshing out for ensembles/orchestras. Mike375 perhaps already said it, but in this arena, especially the mainstream films, there is a basic tool kit and a shared grab-bag of commonplace ideas and techniques that most of these scores employ, and which they are required to employ unless the person supplying a score has a very free hand and is known as a 'serious' composer outside the film medium, e.g. Philip Glass or someone like that.
> 
> Other than that the music is samey, hackneyed sometimes. As this thread shows it's pointless trying to get this across because there's no arguing with the 'I like it and that's all that matters!' However that 'matter of taste' pronouncement is no argument against the plain fact that film music is functional music. That it is often full of recycled and simplistic formulas. It _has_ to be like this for broad appeal. As has been demonstrated in another thread 'music for horror etc' the broad audience doesn't care for music that deviates from the type of music being discussed here.
> 
> Yes, there will be exceptions to this general rule. Which do little more than prove it as a rule. Yes, some of the 'classical music' in the cannon is also little more than bonbons and meant to be so. This is being used to construct winding warrens of pseudo-philosophical argument concerning: 'what is art music?' Is Mozart then not art music since he dashed off some bonbons? Well maybe not because he also wrote cycles of string quartets of the like you'll never find flowing from the pens of the average film composer. So vaguely same club, entirely different sorts of members.





Chat Noir said:


> Yes, both true and self-evident. [...] the fact is that unless the music is especially arresting it really is just a type of Muzak. Sometimes the music _is_ arresting, though this tends to be a 'theme' rather than the rest of the underscore. Sometimes you get a gem of an entire score. Gems as we know are usually rare.
> [...]


Whilst I wouldn't agree with the use of the generally derogatory 'muzak' or that gems are 'rare', these two posts capture what is true for much mainstream film production.

Part of the problem in this discussion is that there has been little common ground on which scores we are talking about. Either the choices have been about the best known of the last 30 years (Williams, Zimmer, Goldsmith et al) or about people's individual personal favourites (eg The Lion King, or movies made between 1985 and 2010). There are, and have been, thousands and thousands of movies made over the last 120 years, and not all of it in the Hollywood film factory. Consequently, it is difficult to generalise about film music except in obvious ways without a more comprehensive overview than some members seem to have.


----------



## mikeh375

As @Chat Noir has mentioned above, the grab bag of common and technically simple musical tropes are an established and necessary reality for film score composers, although the best composers do tend to utilise them with originality and verve imo. The link from Berklee below gives a flavour of how composing for films technical and expressive demands has the potential to impose even further on the more liberal and personal expression a concert composer would expect to have. Tropes aside, you can see that every aspect of composing is available and subservient to events on screen as well as the creative whims of a director and producer.

All of which combine to determine the music's timings, narrative, timbre and aesthetics. Absolute music? Absolutely not from a composer's perspective. Classical? Well that depends on a few factors for me, but leaving the superficially obvious aside, imo I'd say 'yes' to classical compositional roots in some cases and absolutely not in others. Not that anyone here has specifically done so, but I also feel that applying a 'classical' designation to too many scores (and especially 'Trailer' music) in the era of the DAW can be erroneous and even undeserving. Of course YMMV.

Here's the last paragraph, but it's worth reading the article as it also comes with clips from the movies. The only real freedom a composer has is in the amount of booze they can consume during the engagement.

*Musical Characteristics*
_We looked at instances where the music changed in structure to follow contour shifts in a scene. This included changes in the instrumentation, tempo, harmony, and other aspects of the music. For brainstorming purposes, it is helpful to maintain a list of musical characteristics we can change when there is a shift in the picture, referring to the list when necessary while composing to picture. Below is one possible list:_


_Make a change in instrumentation_
_Move melody or other musical ideas from one instrument to another_
_Increase overall instrumentation_
_Decrease overall instrumentation_
_Make a change in harmony_
_Modulate to a new key_
_Arrive at an important point in the progression, such as a resolution to tonic or a deceptive cadence_
_Increase or decrease the harmonic rhythm_
_Change the harmonic language, e.g. shift from a major to a minor key_
_Make a rhythmic change_
_Increase or decrease the tempo_
_Change the meter_
_Miscellaneous changes_
_Stop the music entirely_
_Start the music_
_Switch to a new melody or musical idea entirely_
_Change the counterpoint structure, e.g. move from a homophonic chord progression to a melody-countermelody-harmony structure_
_Change the overall pitch register_
source....
Film Scoring Tips from 5 Classic Movies – Berklee Online Take Note


----------



## Luchesi

Forster said:


> No-one is denying that some soundtracks are made into suites for concert performance or for release on record, and some of these are very attractive products. It does give the listener a much greater opportunity to listen more closely than in the cinema.
> 
> Looking back over the roughly 120 years of cinema, those who've composed specifically for a film soundtrack are more likely to have known that their music will be making a more subliminal, less deliberate listening experience. Whilst there is no doubt that the marketing of movies over the past, say, 50 years has increased the likelihood that a soundtrack will end up as a CD release, it doesn't negate the fact that most FM composers know that while they might make some money from a released recording, the PRIMARY purpose of a soundtrack is to accompany a film. I wouldn't mind betting that some composers know that they'll make precious little money from any CD release unless the film is a big hit.
> 
> If _I _want to speak of the _effectiveness_ of a soundtrack, I will do so on the basis of its contribution to the whole cinematic experience. But as you say, we must all do as we please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whilst I wouldn't agree with the use of the generally derogatory 'muzak' or that gems are 'rare', these two posts capture what is true for much mainstream film production.
> 
> Part of the problem in this discussion is that there has been little common ground on which scores we are talking about. Either the choices have been about the best known of the last 30 years (Williams, Zimmer, Goldsmith et al) or about people's individual personal favourites (eg The Lion King, or movies made between 1985 and 2010). There are, and have been, thousands and thousands of movies made over the last 120 years, and not all of it in the Hollywood film factory. Consequently, it is difficult to generalise about film music except in obvious ways without a more comprehensive overview than some members seem to have.


I don't think it matters what year it was. If a composer gets a gig to compose for a film he's not going to think, okay good, now I'm going to get paid to compose CM. No, he starts looking at the requirements for the score.


----------



## HansZimmer

Chat Noir said:


> 'I like it and that's all that matters!' However that 'matter of taste' pronouncement is no argument against the plain fact that film music is functional music.


If my thought is reported in this way, it seems like I'm saying "I am free to like bad music".

My argument is more elaborated. What I'm saying is that IMO doesn't make any sense to evaluate music from a pure and cold technical perspective, but that we should instead evaluate the ARTISTIC OUTPUT. Technique is only subservient. I don't know how you can analyze the poetry of music with the cold music theory.
It's very much like saying that photoshop must be evaluated from the point of view of functionalities and that the user doesn't have to understand the code to evaluate it.

So, let me be clear about what I think. I'm not saying that I like bad music. I'm saying that some film scores are brilliant from the point of view of the ARTISTIC OUTPUT. Unlike you, however, I'm aware of the fact that someone might not agree with me because in the field of arts there is a lot of space for subjectivity, but this doesn't mean that in my mind the film scores that I promote are not OBJECTIVELY GREAT. It's just that it doesn't make sense for me to argue with someone who doesn't agree with me, because I can't provide any scientific demonstration of the fact that they are actually great, as I see them.
If I had a discussion with someone who says that the earth is flat I could reply with scientific proofs, but I don't know how to resply to someone who says that the music of The Lion King is anything under "excellent". I could say that I'm a superior human being who understands ART and that there are inferior people who don't understand it, but I would feel ridiculous.

Instead of ridicule myself like some other persons, I prefer to close the matter with the diplomatic statement that "art is highly subjective and everyone is free to enjoys his art", which is also scientifically correct, since music is only vibrations in the air. It's our brain that decodes the vibrations and give them a sense, so it's scientifically correct to say that the quality of music is mind dependent.


However I want to clarify that I don't take Hans Zimmer so seriously, because he's quite an obscure composer. In the OST albums of John Williams you read "composed and conducted by John Williams", while in the OST albums of Hans Zimmer you only read "music by Hans Zimmer". As far as I know, the director of an orchestra is also the (final) arranger, which means that the soundtracks of Hans Zimmer are probably not individual works and that he needs other professionals for the final orchestral arrangements.
Furthermore, I've read that Hans Zimmer only compose some digital demos for each score, and then his collaborators refine them, so, if this is true, even in the melodies there are more hands.
Finally, some journals have supported the idea that sometimes there could even be ghostwriters behind him, which means that he take credits for melodies written by other persons.

Maybe this is the real reason for which some persons say that the soundtracks with the "Hans Zimmer" name suck: they don't like this system and so they force themselves to not like the outputs.
In regards to me, I'm able to separate the outputs from the name, so I'm free to say that I like the music of The Gladiator and the Lion King even if I don't understand exactly what happened during the production process.


On the other extreme end, there is Mozart who wrote individual orchestral works directly on the paper and already wrote mature orchestral works in prepubertal age.
It's not that I can't see the objective greatness of Mozart in respect to many film music composers, but when it comes to simply evaluate the result, I can give a 10/10 to a film score even if it's not an individual works and even if the composer doesn't have the high musical IQ of Mozart and therefore he is able to compose music only with a computer program.



All that said, it's not that I don't see that there is at least a bit of objectivity in the quality of music.

If you said that no one can compare the typical trivial soundtrack of a videogame of the eighties with a Beethoven's Symphony I would agree.







But I also see the objective gap that there is between that and this brilliant piece of Alan Menken: an orchestral piece with a wonderful melody that explores different themes and with a stunning drammatic arc.
I would like that @Forster explain me how someone can actually follow the development of this melody if he doesn't LISTEN carefully.






As I said, I don't buy that soundtracks with a more than decent elaboration are objectively inferior to supercomplex works, since the supercomplexity might even the deteriorate the quality of the aesthetic. Above the line of "decent elaboration", art is highly subjective, and I think that you should stop to use pejorative words as "extended jingles" or "Muzark music" to describe the best soundtracks of the last decades because these words are objectively dishonest.

IMO the musicologist and composer Alan Menken (who started to win the first musical awards in the prepubertal age) is one of the best composers we have seen in the industry in the last decades and his 8 Oscars for music are deserved.




> Yes, there will be exceptions to this general rule. Which do little more than prove it as a rule. Yes, some of the 'classical music' in the cannon is also little more than bonbons and meant to be so. This is being used to construct winding warrens of pseudo-philosophical argument concerning: 'what is art music?' Is Mozart then not art music since he dashed off some bonbons? Well maybe not because he also wrote cycles of string quartets of the like you'll never find flowing from the pens of the average film composer. So vaguely same club, entirely different sorts of members.


Can you give an example of a Mozart's work that you consider a "bonbon" and a Mozart's work that doesn't belong to the category?

I don't know what does "bonbon" exactly means, but if it means "sugary"... well, I don't know why a sugary piece can not be art music. And if the word actually means "sugary", then it's not that SOME works are "bonbons", but I could say that I've never heard a Mozart's piece that doesn't fit the description. So, you should expell Mozart from art music.


----------



## Chat Noir

HansZimmer said:


> and I think that you should stop to use pejorative words as "extended jingles" or "Muzark music" to describe the best soundtracks of the last decades because these words are objectively dishonest.


That you think they are "the best soundtracks of the last decades" is laughable really and says more about the rapid decline of film music. Almost everything posted up t now has been for cartoons or cartoon-like films, so it might be skewed.


----------



## HansZimmer

Chat Noir said:


> That you think they are "the best soundtracks of the last decades" is laughable really and says more about the rapid decline of film music. Almost everything posted up t now has been for cartoons or cartoon-like films, so it might be skewed.


The Disney in the so called "reinassance period" was trying to relaunch his products with music, which means that the music was considered a fundamental part of the products.
This is why the animated films of the Disney in the reinassance period have stunning music.

The funny part is that in 1996 the award "Best original score" was splitted in two parts because, according to someone, the Disney was stealing the Oscars to more serious films.
So, between the 1996 and the 2000 there are two awards for "Best original score": one for comedies, and one for drammatic films. The animated films were considered "comedies" and so they didn't steal the Oscars to the drammatic films.

From wikipedia: _"Following the wins of four Walt Disney Feature Animation films in six years from 1990 to 1995 (The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, and The Lion King) during a period called the Disney Renaissance, it was decided to once again split the Best Original Score category by genres, this time by combining comedies and musicals together. As Alan Bergman, the chairman of the Academy's music branch said, "People were voting for the songs, not the underscores. We felt that Academy members outside the music branch didn't distinguish between the two. So when a score like The Lion King is competing against a drama like Forrest Gump, it's apples and oranges – not in the quality of the score, but in the way it functions in the movie. There's a big difference."[5] The category was therefore split into *Best Original Dramatic Score* and *Best Original Musical or Comedy Score* in 1996. This change proved unpopular in the other branches of the Academy as Charles Bernstein, chairman of the Academy's rules committee, noted that "no other Oscar category depended on a film's genre" and "the job of composing an underscore for a romantic comedy is not substantially different from working on a heavy drama."[5] This split was reverted in 2000."

Academy Award for Best Original Score - Wikipedia _


What I want to say is that I have basically no interest for the Disney films, but I can see that the quality of music in the Disney's products was intentionally great in that period.
It's not that I'm interested in convincing everyone of this, considering that the value of the Disney's music in that period has been already widely recognized with a rain of musical awards.
You are however free to ridiculize yourself by saying an other time that your personal tastes are objectively better and that society is wrong because it doesn't agree with you.


----------



## HansZimmer

However, to discuss about technique, I've seen that there is a user in this forum who has some degrees in film music and he thinks that John Williams is one of the greatest composers in history: @pianoedvard_b93.
Although IMO the quality of the music is not in the technique but in the aesthetic (or, more in general, in the "poetry") and technique is subservient, if you really want to discuss about technique pianoedvard might be the right person to counterargument in this discussion.


----------



## Luchesi

HansZimmer said:


> However, to discuss about technique, I've seen that there is a user in this forum who has some degrees in film music and he thinks that John Williams is one of the greatest composers in history: @pianoedvard_b93.
> Although IMO the quality of the music is not in the technique but in the aesthetic (or, more in general, in the "poetry") and technique is subservient, if you really want to discuss about technique pianoedvard might be the right person to counterargument in this discussion.


Does JW think that film scores are CM? That's what this thread's about. If he is said that in a debate like this I would have to reconsider my perspective, but I would have many questions..


----------



## mikeh375

Luchesi said:


> Does JW think that film scores are CM? That's what this thread's about. If he is said that in a debate like this I would have to reconsider my perspective, but I would have many questions..


His work for the concert hall reveals exactly how differently he views it to film music.


----------



## Forster

HansZimmer said:


> [...]
> I would like that @Forster explain me how someone can actually follow the development of this melody if he doesn't LISTEN carefully.
> [...]


Why do I need to "follow the development" at all? I've watched this movie several times, each time enjoying the music and the transformation scene in particular. That's what the music is designed to do - to carry my emotions along with the dialogue, visuals, SFX. I don't need to analyse it.

See this article - about John Williams, but with some interesting things to say about FM generally.

The Guardian view on John Williams and movie music: a complex magic | Editorial | The Guardian 



> Even those who might not immediately have recognised the name of John Williams, who turned 90 this week, will know his work – and many of these won’t just know it, but respond viscerally to it, as we do to childhood smells, or the pop songs of our teenage years.


For me, it's the visceral response that's most important.


----------



## HansZimmer

mikeh375 said:


> His work for the concert hall reveals exactly how differently he views it to film music.


I agree, but the aesthetic that he uses in film scores is not incompatible with classical music. For films he simply writes more melodic music: music that caresses the ears. He is more inspired to romantic music when writing for films, while in the concert works he follows the trend of the contemporary classical music.


----------



## Chat Noir

HansZimmer said:


> What I want to say is that I have basically no interest for the Disney films, but I can see that the quality of music in the Disney's products was intentionally great in that period.


I can't, because it isn't.


----------



## HansZimmer

Chat Noir said:


> I can't, because it isn't.


The quality is subjective, because you have to feel the poetry in the notes and a poem induces subjective emotions. Alan Menken, like all the major film composers, knows how to touch the heart of people, but it's not "an exact science", so the poetry doesn't work with all persons.

Let me know if you know a composer who makes everyone happy and explain me why the composers who make you happy should be objectively better than the ones who make other people happy.
Evidently, they are objectively better only because they make you happy and not the other persons.


----------



## Chat Noir

This thread is nonsensical. The question is dishonest and crafted to answer itself, and the upshot is that no-one can say anything about it, because the answer is either: 'because I like it' with some claims about 'greatness' (which are subjective/objective to suit the moment) or a tiresome collection of lists referring to 'best of' lists compiled by radio stations, awards ceremonies etc.


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

Luchesi said:


> I don't think it matters what year it was. If a composer gets a gig to compose for a film he's not going to think, okay good, now I'm going to get paid to compose CM. No, he starts looking at the requirements for the score.


Precisely. Mozart would relate to that.


----------



## Forster

Luchesi said:


> I don't think it matters what year it was. If a composer gets a gig to compose for a film he's not going to think, okay good, now I'm going to get paid to compose CM. No, he starts looking at the requirements for the score.


Um...I'm not quite sure what your first sentence refers to...is it something I said in my post which you quoted?


----------



## Luchesi

Forster said:


> Um...I'm not quite sure what your first sentence refers to...is it something I said in my post which you quoted?


Oh sorry. I must've gotten the idea from some other post.


----------



## DaveM

“Hi there, nice to meet you. And what do you do for a living?” 
“I’m a composer.”
“Well that’s great. What kind of music do you compose?” 
”People call it Muzak.” 
“Fantastic! I ride the elevator all the time. What would I have heard that you composed.”


----------



## Simon Moon

Chat Noir said:


> *This thread is nonsensical. The question is dishonest and crafted to answer itself, *and the upshot is that no-one can say anything about it, because the answer is either: 'because I like it' with some claims about 'greatness' (which are subjective/objective to suit the moment) or a tiresome collection of lists referring to 'best of' lists compiled by radio stations, awards ceremonies etc.


Yep.

The question, as I pointed out previously, is flawed.

It is a classic example of begging the question, or assuming the conclusion.

The OP has the conclusion that orchestral film score, is classical music, without first establishing that it is, in fact, classical music.

The way the question is phrased, is no different to, "Why do so many people disagree with my personal conclusion concerning something that is a matter of opinion?".

Of course, the more honest way of stating the question would be, "Why do many people think that orchestral music composed for film scores is not classical music?".


----------



## DaveM

Simon Moon said:


> Yep.
> 
> The question, as I pointed out previously, is flawed.
> 
> It is a classic example of begging the question, or assuming the conclusion.
> 
> The OP has the conclusion that orchestral film score, is classical music, without first establishing that it is, in fact, classical music.
> 
> The way the question is phrased, is no different to, "Why do so many people disagree with my personal conclusion concerning something that is a matter of opinion?".
> 
> Of course, the more honest way of stating the question would be, "Why do many people think that orchestral music composed for film scores is not classical music?".


My question to you would be, why does some of the music you prefer, that is being called classical music, sound less like what we have known as classical music (prior to the early 20th century) than some orchestral film music? Not to mention that the latter is more likely to be preferred by audiences at concerts than the type of CM you keep saying you prefer. I don’t have a problem with your preferring that music, but my primary argument in this thread has been that some film music reminds of ‘traditional’ CM more than so-called avant-garde music.


----------



## HansZimmer

Simon Moon said:


> Yep.
> 
> The question, as I pointed out previously, is flawed.
> 
> It is a classic example of begging the question, or assuming the conclusion.
> 
> The OP has the conclusion that orchestral film score, is classical music, without first establishing that it is, in fact, classical music.
> 
> The way the question is phrased, is no different to, "Why do so many people disagree with my personal conclusion concerning something that is a matter of opinion?".
> 
> Of course, the more honest way of stating the question would be, "Why do many people think that orchestral music composed for film scores is not classical music?".


I don't see the problem. The users have the chance to reply to the content of the OP... and even the users who don't agree with me have admitted that many film scores have a very similar aesthetic to classical music.


----------



## Luchesi

Chat Noir said:


> This thread is nonsensical. The question is dishonest and crafted to answer itself, and the upshot is that no-one can say anything about it, because the answer is either: 'because I like it' with some claims about 'greatness' (which are subjective/objective to suit the moment) or a tiresome collection of lists referring to 'best of' lists compiled by radio stations, awards ceremonies etc.


Yes, but I've taken the extreme position that musicians, in order to play a score, can see what's 'great', what's high quality (original, well-developed, new for its time), how and why, where it is in the history of music (historical integrity, I've heard that phrase) and what's intended by the composer to be CM. 

And for the new student of music, the unintended consequences of teaching that FM is CM.


----------



## Chat Noir

DaveM said:


> My question to you would be, why does some of the music you prefer, that is being called classical music, sound less like what we have known as classical music (prior to the early 20th century) than some orchestral film music?


Isn't the answer to this sort of thing already in this thread and multiple times? Specifically the questions around the nature of music written as art music as compared to that written-to-order and limited due to production requirements? And that some film music is very artful in many ways whilst quite a lot of hackneyed and slapdash and derivative?

In any case lots of film music has drawn from the kind of music that might be preferred by Mr Moon (I assume you are referring to modernist and beyond?) It depends how broad your viewing tastes are.

In fact I find your question should run in reverse. Rather: 'why has so much mainstream film music employed similarities to classical music prior to the 20th century?' The answer is pretty clear. That film music started off just repurposing that music, then writing deliberate scores that mimicked that music (or even paraphrased it - _Warsaw Concerto_ etc). Then that style became expected as 'proper' film music for quite a long time. That film music and pre-20th century classical music have similarities is not a basis for an argument that perhaps music after 1900 is possibly not 'classical' or art music. This would be like arguing that because biscuit tins have pictures that look like Dutch great masters, and modern art doesn't look like biscuit tins, modern art is therefore not in the art continuum!


----------



## HansZimmer

Luchesi said:


> Yes, but I've taken the extreme position that musicians, in order to play a score, can see what's 'great', what's high quality (original, well-developed, new for its time), how and why, where it is in the history of music (historical integrity, I've heard that phrase) and what's intended by the composer to be CM.
> 
> And for the new student of music, the unintended consequences of teaching that FM is CM.


Music is meant to be listened. So, what you should do in order to evaluate a piece is to listen to it carefully and paying attention to details. Then you have to ask yourself "Do I feel the poem that the author wants to transmit?". If you don't hear the poem, while other persons are able to, maybe the problem is not that the author is not skilled, but it's that you can't feel the poetry.

You have to read the scores if you want to learn how to compose music. You have to play the music if you want to learn how to play an instrument. A simple listener doesn't need this.


It's basically like saying that in order to evaluate food you have to eat it and that if you want to learn to cook you have to worry about the technical part. To say if the taste of the food is good you don't have to be a cook, but maybe you must have tried a lot of food to have a comparison.

So, maybe we might say that to be able to evaluate a piece of music you must have listened to a lot of music.


----------



## DaveM

Chat Noir said:


> Isn't the answer to this sort of thing already in this thread and multiple times? Specifically the questions around the nature of music written as art music as compared to that written-to-order and limited due to production requirements? And that some film music is very artful in many ways whilst quite a lot of hackneyed and slapdash and derivative?


Well, that assumes I accept the explanation which I don’t. What is being repeated are all the reasons why there isn’t a legitimate reason for considering some film music as classical-like. And as long as that is being repeated, I’ll repeat my counter-view likewise. Besides, you are hardly one to talk about repetition.



> In any case lots of film music has drawn from the kind of music that might be preferred by Mr Moon (I assume you are referring to modernist and beyond?) It depends how broad your viewing tastes are.


That’s another subject.


> In fact I find your question should run in reverse. Rather: 'why has so much mainstream film music employed similarities to classical music prior to the 20th century?' The answer is pretty clear. That film music started off just repurposing that music, then writing deliberate scores that mimicked that music (or even paraphrased it - _Warsaw Concerto_ etc). Then that style became expected as 'proper' film music for quite a long time. *That film music and pre-20th century classical music have similarities is not a basis for an argument that perhaps music after 1900 is possibly not 'classical' or art music.* This would be like arguing that because biscuit tins have pictures that look like Dutch great masters, and modern art doesn't look like biscuit tins, modern art is therefore not in the art continuum!


That wasn’t my argument and is another subject so your response is, again, irrelevant.


----------



## Chat Noir

DaveM said:


> Well, that assumes I accept the explanation which I don’t. What is being repeated are all the reasons why there isn’t a legitimate reason for considering some film music as classical-like. And as long as that is being repeated, I’ll repeat my counter-view likewise. Besides, you are hardly one to talk about repetition.


I don't think anyone disputes that 'some film music is classical-like'. That's the reason for the confusion in the first place. In fact that's somewhat on the button: classical 'like'. Like classical, but not classical. Gucci handbag and 'like' a Gucci handbag, but actually not.



DaveM said:


> That’s another subject.


It's very relevant and related subject, completely in line with the thread's (dubious) question.



DaveM said:


> That wasn’t my argument and is another subject so your response is, again, irrelevant.


It actually was your argument. You wrote that since modern music resembles pre-20th 'classical' music less than mainstream film music resembles it (which is not really true anyway) that there was some kind of question mark hanging over it? I don't need to make arguments for this, it's up there in a post.

Replying by deciding things are 'another subject', when they aren't, or 'irrelevant' to avoid engaging with them, is not very good form.


----------



## DaveM

Chat Noir said:


> Replying by deciding things are 'another subject', when they aren't, or 'irrelevant' to avoid engaging with them, is not very good form.


Read carefully: the subject was about rejecting some CM as possibly being under the CM tent when it is closer to ‘traditional CM’ than some music called CM. You want to make the subject about whether some music already called CM, should be. Of course, trying to explain this to someone who calls most film music Muzak may be futile.


----------



## Forster

To be fair to the OP, whilst the thread title might seem to "beg the question", being somewhat clumsily phrased, the fact that some of us have been around here for six months discussing this subject suggests that there is nevertheless something worthwhile to consider. Chat Noir may only have been here for the last three weeks, but if "the question" was really that rigged, we might all have said so from the beginning and left Hans alone with his Lion King.


----------



## Chat Noir

DaveM said:


> Read carefully: the subject was about rejecting some CM as possibly being under the CM tent when it is closer to ‘traditional CM’ than some music called CM. You want to make the subject about whether some music already called CM, should be. Of course, trying to explain this to someone who calls most film music Muzak may be futile.


I have read it all carefully.. You might take your own advice and stop being capricious to suit yourself per reply. The reason the film music is rejected is because the bulk of it it is like warmed-up tins of soup, only faintly resembling fresh soup. Just a lukewarm representation. That it superficially looks like 'classical music' does not mean it _is_ so. These pastiches of historical standards rendered down to simplistic forms.

You also proposed a failed argument about modern classical music as point of comparison then disowned it and backtracked when it was clear it had no legs. You seem to be making dishonest arguments. It's clear to me now that your real aim in this thread is that you favour historical classical music, pre-20th century, and therefore think film music which 'sounds like' that music is therefore worthy of the name. And that additionally modernist music is questionable.


----------



## DaveM

Chat Noir said:


> The reason the film music is rejected is because the bulk of it it is like warmed-up tins of soup, only faintly resembling fresh soup. Just a lukewarm representation. That it superficially looks like 'classical music' does not mean it _is_ so. These pastiches of historical standards rendered down to simplistic forms..


Well, in addition to your Muzak comment, there is no equivocation where you stand on the subject. Good to know.

I, on the other hand, believe that many film composers are highly skilled and sometimes create beautiful music that reminds me of classical music.


----------



## HansZimmer

I'd like to reply to some posts written by @fluteman in an other discussion.
I also invite @MatthewWeflen to continue the discussion here, as it is the right place to discuss the subject.



fluteman said:


> The vast majority of music of films will not live outside of films. Soundtrack recordings of some hit movies will sell for a while, but once the movie is forgotten, the soundtrack is usually forgotten as well. That is what my post has to do with the argument. The fact that film soundtracks are almost entirely a popular music genre and not classical music in no way diminishes them. Some here seem to have a profound misconception of what classical music is. They seem to think the term refers to high-quality, well-composed, sophisticated, effective music. It does not.


Do you have data about the fact that the soundtracks of the films are forgotten as soon as the films are forgotten? If not, your argument hasn't any serious base.

Furthermore, we have to consider the possibility that the good soundtracks help the films to remain alive.
I've recently watched The Lion King (as well as many other films) only because I wanted to listen to the score in their context.
How many people with a passion for soundtracks do the same thing?

I've also said that the soundtrack of the videogame "The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time" has played a major role in my case for the appreciation of the game.




fluteman said:


> I've written so many posts in so many threads on this exact issue, it's genuinely tempting to just put a "see" citation. I guess I'll try again. Popular music, or popular art generally, seeks to capitalize on the zeitgeist or mood of the moment as much as possible, and capture the largest possible audience, at least within a particular social context or demographic, as quickly as possible. Classical music, or classical art generally, seeks to highlight longer term cultural traditions and more universal and permanent (within a specific culture, anyway, as nothing is permanent in the end) themes.
> 
> So, the two serve different cultural functions or purposes. I see art generally as a celebration of our humanity. Popular art celebrates the fashion of the moment, with all of its sparkle and excitement. Classical art celebrates what is enduring about a society and its principles and values. Both are worthy endeavors. Both require great skill and talent from the artist to bring to their greatest potential. Either can be studied in a serious academic context, if that is your thing. One can be snobby and elitist about either, and as someone here has already mentioned, many are quite snobby and elitist indeed, in the popular music arena as well as in the classical.


@hammeredklavier has reported some citations of music experts who say there isn't any proof to support the idea that Mozart was composing music for us.
According to them, he simply wanted to compose good music for the living people of his time and he wanted to be celebrated.


----------



## HansZimmer

Some days ago I randomly found youtube video that says that to listen to operas and ballets (as well as incidental music, I'd add) without images should be against the law.
I agree, although I think the death penalty is too much.






Infact, I WATCH operas and ballets. If I want to WATCH an opera, but I only find simple audio recordings, I give up.

In the case of film soundtracks I also want to WATCH the film AT LEAST once, but since the film is distracting, afterwards I listen to the soundtrack alone to focus on musical details.
I think that the best thing to enjoy film music is to use videos like this one, with the distracting audio removed, but only ONCE you have watched the film and you know the story.






What I want to say is that I basically agree with the persons who say the film music shouldn't be separated from the rest and that, therefore, is not standalone music, but I think that the same principle has to be applied to operas.
This doesn't mean that you can't enjoy the music of films, operas and other programs ALONE (if the music is beatiful, it will work also well as standalone music), but it's not the intended way and therefore you will always lose relevant artistic informations without the images and the story.

The problems is that some users in this discussion have arbitrarily decided that this principle is valid only for film music, while IMO it's also correct for operas. So, the conclusion of this post is that classical music can be indeed be combined with visual images and stories and it's not true that the music of operas works equally well if removed from the context.


----------



## Forster

HansZimmer said:


> I've recently watched The Lion King (as well as many other films) only because I wanted to listen to the score in their context.
> How many people with a passion for soundtracks do the same thing?


You opted not to take me up on my suggestion of comparing soundtracks for different versions of Jane Eyre. That's a shame. It might have been more instructive than endless chat about kiddie movies.

Still, if we must stick with Disney you do realise that no matter how good the soundtracks for The Lion King and Beauty and the Beast, without a decent script and visual characterisation, no emotional response would be likely engendered in the audience. One has to be made to care about Belle/Simba before anyone would respond emotionally to their dilemmas, and that only happens when there is a story worth telling in the first place.


----------



## mmsbls

I realize that those on each side have made their arguments many times. I will just try again to distinguish between a general view of film and classical music compared to specific definitions.

Most people consider tomatoes to be vegetables because of how they taste, but biologists consider them fruits because they are ripened flower ovaries containing seeds. 

Most people used to, and many perhaps still do, consider dolphins to be fish because of how they looked, but biologists consider them mammals for several reasons including that dolphins are warm-blooded and breathe air through lungs.

Many people likely consider film music classical because of how it sounds, but every composer of film music whom I have read views film music differently from classical music due to the process of composing the music (mikeh375 has given detailed descriptions of this difference in process). 

People on this thread have tried to make clear the distinction between a casual view of film music similar to people's views of tomatoes and dolphins and a definition based on process or intent. It's fine to personally think of some film music as classical music. Certainly much film music does sound similar to classical orchestral music. I assume everyone hear understands why dolphins are not classified as fish even though they look much more like fish than like mammals. So film music might sound like classical music, and sound more like CPT classical music than some contemporary classical music does, but it is classified differently for reasons other than how it sounds. 

Arguing the issue based on how the music sounds really has nothing to do with the reason film music is classified differently from classical.


----------



## Chat Noir

DaveM said:


> I, on the other hand, believe that many film composers are highly skilled and sometimes create beautiful music that reminds me of classical music.


Oh, you added a bit. I also think exactly the same.


----------



## HansZimmer

So, the OP says that since some film scores have a classical aesthetic should be considered classical music.

The counterarguments:
- "No, because classical music is standalone and doesn't require images" ---> False, see my previous post.

- "No, because film music is not art music ---> With a serious definition of "art music", some concert works would excluded from the category, while some works for images (including film scores) would be inserted in the category, since a person can not seriously believe that concert music is automatically art and that there is not art in the music written for images. And, by the way, what does "art" mean? We should, first of all, agree about the definition of "art". I personally consider some film scores as "art".

- "No, because film music is not music of quality" ---> Totally opinion based and therefore an irrelevant argument. If we says that classical music is the music of quality, then everyone has his own "classical music". We have seen that in the "Classic FM Hall of Fame 2022" there are some film scores between the first 50/300 positions, which means that they have won against many concert works. Classic FM Hall of Fame 2022

- "No, because film music is more simple" ---> A part from the fact that there is also complex music in film scores (in this discussion we have seen an example of a fugue written for a film), classical music doesn't mean "romantic symphony". The symphonies, from Beethoven, start to become really complex (as well as the concertos) and surely the film scores are lighter. However, in classical music there also lighter kind of works (waltzes, minuets, romances, songs, incidental music, ballets,...). Furthermore, the symphonies tend to be quite light in the galant music and the early baroque music (see for example Vivaldi) is quite light in general.
Given the so many different kind of works that you can find in classical music, it's impossible to not find a place for classical-style film music.
I want also to say that, according to me, the so called "lighter works" of classical music are not inferior in respect of more complex works. "Complex" only means "complex": it doesn't mean "better". Some of the pieces that I consider masterpieces of classical music are quite light.

- "There is an elite who decides which works are classical music and which one are not. We simply have to take note of their decisions" ----> Who is this elite and who decided that we can't have independent opinions?


----------



## HansZimmer

However, speaking of film music, I've just opened a new poll for my competition in the Movie Corner. You can vote your favourite film score between the five which were nominated at the Academy Awards of 1994: Best Film Score Award - 1994


----------



## fluteman

HansZimmer said:


> I'd like to reply to some posts written by @fluteman in an other discussion.
> I also invite @MatthewWeflen to continue the discussion here, as it is the right place to discuss the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have data about the fact that the soundtracks of the films are forgotten as soon as the films are forgotten? If not, your argument hasn't any serious base.
> 
> Furthermore, we have to consider the possibility that the good soundtracks help the films to remain alive.
> I've recently watched The Lion King (as well as many other films) only because I wanted to listen to the score in their context.
> How many people with a passion for soundtracks do the same thing?
> 
> I've also said that the soundtrack of the videogame "The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time" has played a major role in my case for the appreciation of the game.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @hammeredklavier has reported some citations of music experts who say there isn't any proof to support the idea that Mozart was composing music for us.
> According to them, he simply wanted to compose good music for the living people of his time and he wanted to be celebrated.


Enjoy The Lion King soundtrack, it's one of my favorites, too. I saw the show with my children twice, on Broadway, and then in a traveling production. I too have the recording, except I believe it was made by the Broadway show cast, and not from the movie soundtrack. Prime examples of great movie soundtracks that are not Broadway musical albums of shows later made into movies include many of the Disney movies, both old and new. Mary Poppins, with music by the Sherman brothers, is a favorite of mine (they also composed the music for The Jungle Book), as is the more recent Moana, with music by the great Lin-Manuel Miranda. But these Disney movies owe a great deal to the Broadway musical tradition.
Henry Mancini is a favorite of mine and composed great music both for The Pink Panther and the television series Peter Gunn. The James Bond movies have wonderful soundtracks. The original James Bond theme is by Monty Norman, but the great title song of Live and Let Die is by former Beatle Paul McCartney. Argentine jazz man Lalo Schifrin wrote the famous Mission: Impossible theme that influenced TV soundtracks for many years afterwards. Schifrin's jazz albums are well worth checking out. John Williams, now 90 years old, has a fabulous resume, and I consider his music for the Harry Potter movies some of his finest.
The tradition of fine creative original music for movies and TV continues. I think Michael Giacchino's music for the TV series Lost was of special merit. And of course, hit Broadway musicals with great music continue to be made into movies. I very much liked Mark Shaiman's music for the Broadway show and movie Hairspray. And though I didn't see the Broadway show, Cyndi Lauper's music for Kinky Boots received much acclaim, including the Tony Award. A current BBC TV show called Shetland has an excellent soundtrack by John Lunn that soon will be released as an album.
All that only scratches the surface of movie and TV music that I happen to know well and love, and there is a huge amount more that I don't know at all. Movies and TV shows have long been central sources of popular culture, only recently undermined and supplanted by the internet. I also think it is movies and TV shows that have kept the Broadway musical tradition alive and well. West Side Story became a much bigger hit after the movie was released, even though imo the movie had its flaws and problems. The same was even more true of Grease, a hit as a Broadway musical but a vastly bigger hit as a movie with John Travolta and Olivia Newton-John.
If it makes you feel better to call Henry Mancini, Paul McCartney and Cyndi Lauper classical composers, go ahead. But to do so diminishes their achievements, in my opinion, by implying that their status as popular culture icons is of no account. I suppose I should let this discussion go at this point, but thanks all for some interesting points.


----------



## pianozach

HansZimmer said:


> I'd like to reply to some posts written by @fluteman in an other discussion.
> I also invite @MatthewWeflen to continue the discussion here, as it is the right place to discuss the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have data about the fact that the soundtracks of the films are forgotten as soon as the films are forgotten? If not, your argument hasn't any serious base.
> 
> Furthermore, we have to consider the possibility that the good soundtracks help the films to remain alive.
> I've recently watched The Lion King (as well as many other films) only because I wanted to listen to the score in their context.
> How many people with a passion for soundtracks do the same thing?
> 
> I've also said that the soundtrack of the videogame "The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time" has played a major role in my case for the appreciation of the game.


Films and the film music that's associated with those films are often linked. The popularity of the music from The Lion King is buoyed by the film itself, and vice versa.

There are plenty of songs from films that live on long after the film itself is forgotten, and there are films that are admired that continue to live on even if the soundtrack was never as wildly popular as the film (or not popular at all).

Two cases in point from the record collection of my mother when I was a child. I distinctly remember two soundtrack albums in particular, well, the covers of the albums at least.

One was *Around the World in 80 Days*, a Technicolor Cinemascope extravaganza with a score that was a travelogue of all the placed worldwide that were visited during the film. I fondly remember many pieces of that score, and some of the scenes from the film. 

The other was from the film *Picnic*, a gritty film noirish looking romantic dramedy about a stranger that comes to a small Kansas town mid 20th Century and disrupts and rearranges the lives of several of the town's inhabitants during a Labor Day weekend. The *1955* film is mostly forgotten these days, even though it *won two Academy Awards* (for Color Art Direction and Film Editing) out of six nominations (including Best Picture and Best Director), _and_ was restored in the mid-1990s and enjoyed a short revival in Art Houses. *George Dunning* was nominated for *Best Scoring of a Dramatic or Comedy* *Picture*, and my mom was among those that purchased an LP of the score. The "*Theme from Picnic*" actually hit #1 on the Billboard music charts in 1956, and I seriously doubt if anyone here is familiar with what was once a _very_ popular track.


----------



## Luchesi

mmsbls said:


> I realize that those on each side have made their arguments many times. I will just try again to distinguish between a general view of film and classical music compared to specific definitions.
> 
> Most people consider tomatoes to be vegetables because of how they taste, but biologists consider them fruits because they are ripened flower ovaries containing seeds.
> 
> Most people used to, and many perhaps still do, consider dolphins to be fish because of how they looked, but biologists consider them mammals for several reasons including that dolphins are warm-blooded and breathe air through lungs.
> 
> Many people likely consider film music classical because of how it sounds, but every composer of film music whom I have read views film music differently from classical music due to the process of composing the music (mikeh375 has given detailed descriptions of this difference in process).
> 
> People on this thread have tried to make clear the distinction between a casual view of film music similar to people's views of tomatoes and dolphins and a definition based on process or intent. It's fine to personally think of some film music as classical music. Certainly much film music does sound similar to classical orchestral music. I assume everyone hear understands why dolphins are not classified as fish even though they look much more like fish than like mammals. So film music might sound like classical music, and sound more like CPT classical music than some contemporary classical music does, but it is classified differently for reasons other than how it sounds.
> 
> Arguing the issue based on how the music sounds really has nothing to do with the reason film music is classified differently from classical.


"Arguing the issue based on how the music sounds really has nothing to do with the reason film music is classified differently from classical."

Yes, and to take that point a little farther if we were to teach that FM is CM, then the ideas of what it sounds like would interfere I think with the lifelong appreciation of CM. Because CM is so much more than what's immediately catchy or pleasing to a casual listener. 

There's a little voice in my brain saying that there's no way to state this without sounding condescending and even elitist..


----------



## MatthewWeflen

This is my post from the other thread:


I want to know what words mean. Why is "classical" not "jazz" or "rock?" I simply don't think [fluteman's] formulation of classical music defined as being made with the intent to "achieve something profound, universal and lasting in their music" works. There is a potentially insoluble epistemic difficulty in terms of understanding the composer's intention (i.e. if we don't have letters affirming the intention as such, the music cannot be classical) and the definition makes the category too broad (there are rock and jazz musicians who clearly strive for profound/universal/lasting impact).

As such, I favor an approach that focuses on the sounds and instruments used, and the musical forms involved. If someone is grinding on electric guitars, it's _probably _not classical. But if they used those grinding electric guitars to develop theme, melody, exposition and development in a classical mode, then a good argument could probably be made. Jazz typically uses certain instruments (drum kit, stand up bass, saxophone, trumpet, piano) but it is always marked by more free form composition, if not outright improvisation. Rock has a verse-chorus-bridge structure most of the time, but then there are more wide ranging compositions that break that mold. Trying to use words to categorize the varied creativity of thousands is difficult, and the categories can be fluid.

Orchestral movie/tv music uses typically classical instruments. It frequently uses leitmotif and thematic development similar to romantic classical music. Whether the intention was to speak to the ages or not, it sure sounds to me like it fits best in that category (as do opera, overtures, and incidental music for plays).

Of course there could be movie/tv music that uses rock instruments and forms, or jazz instruments and forms. Then those pieces of music would be rock and jazz, respectively (whether they would be _good _instances of those genres is another matter entirely).

"Film music" isn't a form. That's a category mistake.


----------



## Forster

HansZimmer said:


> - "No, because classical music is standalone and doesn't require images" ---> False, see my previous post.


Not false. Your argument is that opera and ballet are classical, but they depend on "images" too; therefore FM is also classical. All that does is present the possibility that ballet and opera aren't classical.

You also finally agree that soundtracks should be heard in context, though add, bizarrely, that the film is a distraction!


----------



## MatthewWeflen

With respect to divorcing a piece of music from its original context and/or visual accompaniment, if doing so removes something from the category of classical music, then a lot of material needs to be expunged from the category.

I have no idea what Bach was thinking, who the Margrave of Brandenburg was and what he was like, and only a passing familiarity with the history of the time. I also have never seen (nor will likely ever see) the operas Coriolan, Egmont, Creatures of Prometheus; the plays Pelleas et Melisande, Belshazzar's Feast, etc.

I think the worst that can be said of movie music is that it is incidental music. But if incidental music (using certain instruments and forms) can be classical music, then by the transitive property, so can film music (using certain instruments and forms).

But again, whether it is _good _classical music is another question entirely. Usually, because of the constraints of the accompanying art, it isn't (for opera, play music, and film music). It tends to be disjointed and meandering, without the sort of developmental structure we tend to find pleasing in classical music composed for itself.


----------



## fluteman

MatthewWeflen said:


> This is my post from the other thread:
> 
> 
> I want to know what words mean. Why is "classical" not "jazz" or "rock?"


I said I was done this this debate, and just in time, as I have no short, neat answers to those good questions. In fact, I have additional questions: What is a culture and how and why are they created? What are cultural traditions and values, what is their purpose, and how do they function in a given society? Again, tough questions, perhaps for another thread.

As for your desire for definitions of words, I'd note that the New Harvard Dictionary of Music, prudently I think, does not include a definition of the word "music". You have chosen a challenging task.


----------



## Chat Noir

MatthewWeflen said:


> Orchestral movie/tv music uses typically classical instruments. It frequently uses leitmotif and thematic development similar to romantic classical music. Whether the intention was to speak to the ages or not, it sure sounds to me like it fits best in that category (as do opera, overtures, and incidental music for plays).


The Beatles Eleanor Rigby is composed of a string quartet and a voice, but so is Schoenberg's 2nd string quartet. They use thematic development. Should Eleanor Rigby be reclassified as 'classical'? Are they of the same category? The list of 'popular' music employing orchestras or orchestral sounds and instruments, sometimes entirely orchestral, is pretty long. I doubt they could be successfully called anything else but popular music or 'crossover' at best.

Categorising things is always a disputed area, but artistic intent does play a role. The relaxation of strict separation and overlap now makes it even more difficult. Still even the characters put forward as e.g. pop musician _and _'classical musician or pop (or classical) musician _and_ film composer or whatever, tend to be stronger in one area. Film composition is its own thing. If a pop musician writes music for a film more-or-less in the pop idiom, I would think that even that composer wouldn't want it to be called merely 'pop music' and thought of as just another album like his others, but rather a 'film score'. A different sort of thing.

Film composers who write outside of film work, sometimes for the concert hall, tend to make obvious distinctions between their film music and their efforts that are meant to be recognised as 'classical' music. As if to say: 'look, I can also write things that look like a symphony/concerto/tone poem what-have-you'. Maybe this really is also down to trying to please audience and critic perception and general categorising of things, though I think once a film composer has a crack at so-called 'real' classical music they are judged more strictly. In my unpopular opinion I think a lot of film composers come unstuck when they compose just for the concert hall. John Barry tapered off his film music as he reached his twilight years and went for writing just music meant to be played for its own sake. It has his film sound fingerprint all over it. Barry was a good writer and arranger/orchestrator, but his style, despite using even full orchestras, just doesn't sound like classical music. He wasn't a classical composer, he had a different background. The music sounds more like what used to be called 'beautiful music' in the U.S.

Here's Barry's _The Beyondness Of Things_. It's extremely well-crafted, I like it, and it sounds like film music. It has chord progressions and melodic devices he used in 40 years of writing film scores. His way of scoring strings has an inimitable fingerprint. Which is great in many ways, but the palette feels contained and narrow in some ways. It also has a slight feel of just being a sophisticated pop ballad written for an orchestra.


----------



## starthrower

I found this conversation very interesting.


----------



## Simon Moon

DaveM said:


> My question to you would be, why does some of the music you prefer, that is being called classical music, sound less like what we have known as classical music (prior to the early 20th century) than some orchestral film music?


Are you sure that people from the Baroque period, would have any musical connection at all, to music of the late Romantic period? Do you really believe they would think they were listening to music that is at all related to the music of their period?

You are speaking from the view of someone that has the advantage of hindsight, and is able to follow the the evolution that classical music has experienced, from the music that preceded classical, up until the music of whatever period is the latest that you enjoy. 

Well, I also have hindsight, and I have no problems following the continued evolution of classical music, starting at the very beginning (probably the same place you do), and continuing up through the present. 



> Not to mention that the latter is more likely to be preferred by audiences at concerts than the type of CM you keep saying you prefer. I don’t have a problem with your preferring that music, but my primary argument in this thread has been that some film music reminds of ‘traditional’ CM more than so-called avant-garde music.


This seems like a non sequitur to me. The fact that most of the stuff I listen to, has a smaller audience is completely unrelated to whether it is classical music, or how much different it is than the classical music you enjoy.

Part of the tradition of classical music, is evolution and change.


----------



## DaveM

mmsbls said:


> I realize that those on each side have made their arguments many times. I will just try again to distinguish between a general view of film and classical music compared to specific definitions.
> 
> Most people consider tomatoes to be vegetables because of how they taste, but biologists consider them fruits because they are ripened flower ovaries containing seeds.
> 
> Most people used to, and many perhaps still do, consider dolphins to be fish because of how they looked, but biologists consider them mammals for several reasons including that dolphins are warm-blooded and breathe air through lungs.
> 
> Many people likely consider film music classical because of how it sounds, but every composer of film music whom I have read views film music differently from classical music due to the process of composing the music (mikeh375 has given detailed descriptions of this difference in process).
> 
> People on this thread have tried to make clear the distinction between a casual view of film music similar to people's views of tomatoes and dolphins and a definition based on process or intent. It's fine to personally think of some film music as classical music. Certainly much film music does sound similar to classical orchestral music. I assume everyone hear understands why dolphins are not classified as fish even though they look much more like fish than like mammals. So film music might sound like classical music, and sound more like CPT classical music than some contemporary classical music does, but it is classified differently for reasons other than how it sounds.
> 
> Arguing the issue based on how the music sounds really has nothing to do with the reason film music is classified differently from classical.


Upfront (probably repeating myself), I don’t argue in favor of classifying some film music as classical because when it comes to the classification issue, that ship has sailed. Likewise, it would be confusing given that it is a minor segment of film music that is classical-like.

But, that doesn’t stop me from arguing that some aspects of these classifications seem arbitrary. The logic behind the fact that after 3 centuries of CM characterized by harmony and melody, music that has neither is defined as CM escapes me. As does your dolphin analogy. Dolphins are classified as mammals and not fish because of the inherent characteristics of the animal. Likewise, one would think that the inherent characteristics of the music itself would likewise determine its classification.

IMO, given the history of CM, harmony and melody are more important in the classification than the fact that some composers from academia have chosen to emphasize dissonance performed by small ensembles. In addition, I think that a lot of concert listeners would be surprised that classical sounding film music is outright rejected as CM for the reasons given in this thread, while music without harmony or melody is automatically accepted as CM.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Chat Noir said:


> Here's Barry's _The Beyondness Of Things_. It's extremely well-crafted, I like it, and it sounds like film music. It has chord progressions and melodic devices he used in 40 years of writing film scores. His way of scoring strings has an inimitable fingerprint. Which is great in many ways, but the palette feels contained and narrow in some ways. It also has a slight feel of just being a sophisticated pop ballad written for an orchestra.


If pressed to classify this piece, I would certainly place it in the "classical music" category.


----------



## HansZimmer

Forster said:


> Not false. Your argument is that opera and ballet are classical, but they depend on "images" too; therefore FM is also classical. All that does is present the possibility that ballet and opera aren't classical.


The problem is that the music of operas and ballets is actually considered "classical music". The persons of this discussion who say that classical music must not be subservient to narratives and images should ask the removal of such products from classical music.



> You also finally agree that soundtracks should be heard in context, though add, bizarrely, that the film is a distraction!


Like Dave, I strongly reject the idea that the greatest film music composers write "muzark music", but it's actually treated like that in movies. The difference is that in operas and ballets the music is INSIDE, while in the films the music is OUTSIDE.
The songs of Elton John in the Lion King are INSIDE, while the score of Hans Zimmer is OUTSIDE. This is why you tend to notice/remember much more the music of Elton John.
It's the same thing for the music of Alan Menken: do you notice more the songs (which are INSIDE) or the score (which is OUTSIDE)?

The reason for why I like so much the major score composers is that they basically write concert music, although in the movies is treatet like muzark music. This means that you have to listen to concerts to fully appreciate their music, but it's a good idea to watch the films before, so that you understand the meaning of the different melodies and you can better evaluate the artistic value of the music.


----------



## pianozach

[Clears throat]

One COULD say that music created for film, ballet, or opera is MORE creative than non-programmatic music, as it has an extra layer of parameters to meet. Music that accompanies visual media has to be MORE clever, therefore requires MORE creativity on the part of the composer.

[Ducks]


----------



## HansZimmer

Forster said:


> You opted not to take me up on my suggestion of comparing soundtracks for different versions of Jane Eyre. That's a shame.


I didn't know that I did this.



> It might have been more instructive than endless chat about kiddie movies.


Maybe I should clarify an other time that I don't care of kiddie movies. I neither like films like "Pirates of Caribbeans" or "Indiana Jones". I like serious films, especially the ones that you might consider "art films".

The music I promote here has nothing to do with my cinematic tastes. I'm a rational being and therefore I simply separate the quality of the music from the quality of the films.

The Disney certainly is specialized in kiddie products, but it's also a company which treat music as an important part of its products.

I hope that everyone here knows the Disney's animated film "Fantasia", which contains different pieces of classical music: Toccata And Fugue In D Minor, BWV 565 [Johann Sebastian Bach

It's not difficult to understand that a company which produces kiddie things can do a better work with music than many Hollywood producers.
IMO, in the nineties the Disney was working harder on music in respect to other producers and I appreciate their effort, although I don't have any particular interest for their products overall.

BTW I also promote the music of art films, when it's is inline with the rest, so I reccomend to listen to the suite of "The Age of Innocence" (which is inside the Best Film Score Award - 1994).









> Still, if we must stick with Disney you do realise that no matter how good the soundtracks for The Lion King and Beauty and the Beast, without a decent script and visual characterisation, no emotional response would be likely engendered in the audience. One has to be made to care about Belle/Simba before anyone would respond emotionally to their dilemmas, and that only happens when there is a story worth telling in the first place.


False, because a beatiful melody can give emotions even it it's extracted from the context, although I agree that the melodies of operas, films and so on should be listened in their context at least once. Then, once you are done, you can also listen to the music alone.


----------



## Chat Noir

DaveM said:


> IMO, given the history of CM, harmony and melody are more important in the classification than the fact that some composers from academia have chosen to emphasize dissonance performed by small ensembles. In addition, I think that a lot of concert listeners would be surprised that classical sounding film music is outright rejected as CM for the reasons given in this thread, while music without harmony or melody is automatically accepted as CM.


This is surely because you think 'classical music' is a perfect synonym for 'common tonality', with minimal to no dissonance, scored in a particular way, following a particular structure, melodies that can be whistled etc. Yet this doesn't describe the sum total of music written before, during or after the period I think you want to describe as being 'classical music'. Your final line "while music without harmony or melody..." is indicative of this view. You need to understand that music you think has no melody or harmony actually does have melody and harmony, but it might not be the sort you recognise.
In this scenario you either have to become familiar with that or not talk about it. There's a reason I would limit my utterances about current modern painting and that's because I am not familiar with it. I may prefer Rembrandt or van Gogh even, but unless I have a good handle on modern painting I don't think I'm qualified to set out a comparative aesthetics.

It may be the vagueness of the name. 'Classical music' is not always a useful name and I prefer 'art music'. People used to say 'serious music'. All of them will be questioned and quibbled over. With 'art music' people start going off into the winding discussion of 'what is art?' With 'serious music' someone will complain that other music isn't being considered 'serious'. So it can be tiresome.
The question here is different. Different even that the question begging of the OP, because the unwanted answer is that film music is something originally a derivative of what was then a standard form of music. That aside from simply using repurposed concert works, the bulk of made-to-order music is written differently, even if similarly. That it very often contains borrowings or outright plagiarism or 'inspirations'. That the requirements of film music are different according to the medium which has its own demands and standards.

Some is of a quality that it will transfer to the concert hall; a lot of it won't because it is made up of cues, one theme, substandard orchestrations, mixed media. Some of it is pop music. Quite a lot that makes it to the concert hall pales in comparison to actual concert works.

Do we find that the argument runs in reverse? For example that Tubin's 4th (or maybe it's the 2nd?) symphony sounds quite a bit like 'film music', especially the finale movement which wouldn't be out of place in something like a western, so can we ask: 'why can't this be considered film music?' After all it 'sounds' like it. Could it be intent and purpose?


----------



## Luchesi

mmsbls said:


> I realize that those on each side have made their arguments many times. I will just try again to distinguish between a general view of film and classical music compared to specific definitions.
> 
> Most people consider tomatoes to be vegetables because of how they taste, but biologists consider them fruits because they are ripened flower ovaries containing seeds.
> 
> Most people used to, and many perhaps still do, consider dolphins to be fish because of how they looked, but biologists consider them mammals for several reasons including that dolphins are warm-blooded and breathe air through lungs.
> 
> Many people likely consider film music classical because of how it sounds, but every composer of film music whom I have read views film music differently from classical music due to the process of composing the music (mikeh375 has given detailed descriptions of this difference in process).
> 
> People on this thread have tried to make clear the distinction between a casual view of film music similar to people's views of tomatoes and dolphins and a definition based on process or intent. It's fine to personally think of some film music as classical music. Certainly much film music does sound similar to classical orchestral music. I assume everyone hear understands why dolphins are not classified as fish even though they look much more like fish than like mammals. So film music might sound like classical music, and sound more like CPT classical music than some contemporary classical music does, but it is classified differently for reasons other than how it sounds.
> 
> Arguing the issue based on how the music sounds really has nothing to do with the reason film music is classified differently from classical.


I assume dolphins are classified according to their evolutionary history. It avoids errors resulting from superficial considerations. I think CM should be too.


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

Chat Noir said:


> Do we find that the argument runs in reverse? For example that Tubin's 4th (or maybe it's the 2nd?) symphony sounds quite a bit like 'film music', especially the finale movement which wouldn't be out of place in something like a western, so can we ask: 'why can't this be considered film music?' After all it 'sounds' like it.


This is fallacious. Is a symphony that sounds operatic an opera? No, but it is still classical music.


----------



## Chat Noir

VoiceFromTheEther said:


> This is fallacious. Is a symphony that sounds operatic an opera? No, but it is still classical music.


Well it's not fallacious from me, because I'm parodying the 'sounds like therefore is' argument being used in this thread.

In any case I don't know how a symphony would 'sound operatic'. Given the fact they already are both 'classical' music it probably doesn't matter. The real question is if a piece of film music 'sounded operatic' is it then an opera? That's what's being claimed.


----------



## mmsbls

DaveM said:


> Upfront (probably repeating myself), I don’t argue in favor of classifying some film music as classical because when it comes to the classification issue, that ship has sailed. Likewise, it would be confusing given that it is a minor segment of film music that is classical-like.
> 
> But, that doesn’t stop me from arguing that some aspects of these classifications seem arbitrary. The logic behind the fact that after 3 centuries of CM characterized by harmony and melody, music that has neither is defined as CM escapes me. As does your dolphin analogy. Dolphins are classified as mammals and not fish because of the inherent characteristics of the animal. Likewise, one would think that the inherent characteristics of the music itself would likewise determine its classification.
> 
> IMO, given the history of CM, harmony and melody are more important in the classification than the fact that some composers from academia have chosen to emphasize dissonance performed by small ensembles. In addition, I think that a lot of concert listeners would be surprised that classical sounding film music is outright rejected as CM for the reasons given in this thread, while music without harmony or melody is automatically accepted as CM.


After the CPT period, composers began to expand the musical language of their compositions by, for example, emphasizing such aspects as rhythm and timbre. My understanding is that musicologists, composers, and conductors viewed the expanded language not as a new music type but rather as a continuation of the classical music tradition, and they have viewed these expanded works as classical music. Many of these works do not sound like CPT music, but the methods used to compose and perform the works are similar. 

You are correct that many concert listeners would find many of these works outside what they have considered classical music. The works do not sound like classical music to them. Those composing. performing, and analyzing these works, in general, feel they are classical music for others reasons.

That is the point of the analogies I mentioned. The basis used by many people in determining what type of animal dolphins are is appearance. It looks like a fish. The basis used by experts differs as in the case of contemporary classical music.

I know we've discussed which works you feel could be considered outside classical music, and I apologize that I forget exactly where you might draw the line. I do think there are works that could reasonably fall outside classical. Merzbow noise has been discussed on TC. One person familiar with the artist felt that he might consider himself a noise artist rather than a composer. Some of Cage's sound works seem outside of classical to me as well. Undoubtedly there are others.


----------



## Forster

HansZimmer said:


> I didn't know that I did this.


Well surely you know if you read the post and decided not to respond to it?

The "kiddie" movies I was referring to were your two Disney animations. I suppose unsurprisingly, you prefer to discuss your favourite movies, repeatedly, rather than give some thought to others you might not be familiar with.

Of course film soundtracks can prompt an emotional response without the images that accompany them. One reason for this is, as Chat Noir has elaborated, the fact that the music often draws on the kind of familiar tropes that tend to easily elicit that response. Another reason is that having watched the movie and enjoyed it, listening to the music afterwards can recall that emotion. However, that can only happen if the connection has been made between the characters and their situation. When Jane Eyre returns to be reunited with Rochester, the emotional response generated in the audience is a culmination of the travails of the characters through ups and downs. The music at that climax heightens or refines the emotions the story has generated. It doesn't provide them.


----------



## Luchesi

mmsbls said:


> After the CPT period, composers began to expand the musical language of their compositions by, for example, emphasizing such aspects as rhythm and timbre. My understanding is that musicologists, composers, and conductors viewed the expanded language not as a new music type but rather as a continuation of the classical music tradition, and they have viewed these expanded works as classical music. Many of these works do not sound like CPT music, but the methods used to compose and perform the works are similar.
> 
> You are correct that many concert listeners would find many of these works outside what they have considered classical music. The works do not sound like classical music to them. Those composing. performing, and analyzing these works, in general, feel they are classical music for others reasons.
> 
> That is the point of the analogies I mentioned. The basis used by many people in determining what type of animal dolphins are is appearance. It looks like a fish. The basis used by experts differs as in the case of contemporary classical music.
> 
> I know we've discussed which works you feel could be considered outside classical music, and I apologize that I forget exactly where you might draw the line. I do think there are works that could reasonably fall outside classical. Merzbow noise has been discussed on TC. One person familiar with the artist felt that he might consider himself a noise artist rather than a composer. Some of Cage's sound works seem outside of classical to me as well. Undoubtedly there are others.


-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwXO3I8ASSg

Bernstein's Delights and Dangers of Ambiguity


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

Chat Noir said:


> Given the fact they already are both 'classical' music


just like a Huppertz or North score.


----------



## fbjim

mmsbls said:


> After the CPT period, composers began to expand the musical language of their compositions by, for example, emphasizing such aspects as rhythm and timbre. My understanding is that musicologists, composers, and conductors viewed the expanded language not as a new music type but rather as a continuation of the classical music tradition, and they have viewed these expanded works as classical music. Many of these works do not sound like CPT music, but the methods used to compose and perform the works are similar.
> 
> You are correct that many concert listeners would find many of these works outside what they have considered classical music. The works do not sound like classical music to them. Those composing. performing, and analyzing these works, in general, feel they are classical music for others reasons.
> 
> That is the point of the analogies I mentioned. The basis used by many people in determining what type of animal dolphins are is appearance. It looks like a fish. The basis used by experts differs as in the case of contemporary classical music.
> 
> I know we've discussed which works you feel could be considered outside classical music, and I apologize that I forget exactly where you might draw the line. I do think there are works that could reasonably fall outside classical. Merzbow noise has been discussed on TC. One person familiar with the artist felt that he might consider himself a noise artist rather than a composer. Some of Cage's sound works seem outside of classical to me as well. Undoubtedly there are others.


Subotnick, who I happen to like a lot, is another one (among a few electronics-leaning avant-garde composers) who stands sort of on the boundary of electronic and classical music. His music is literally electronic, but his background and the scenes he was composing in (he was in the same spheres as Reich and classically trained) were the current-day American classical scene.


----------



## Chat Noir

VoiceFromTheEther said:


> just like a Huppertz or North score.


Isabelle? Oh wait.


----------



## Forster

Chat Noir said:


> Isabelle? Oh wait.


Isabelle North?? Oh, wait.


----------



## HansZimmer

mmsbls said:


> I realize that those on each side have made their arguments many times. I will just try again to distinguish between a general view of film and classical music compared to specific definitions.
> 
> Most people consider tomatoes to be vegetables because of how they taste, but biologists consider them fruits because they are ripened flower ovaries containing seeds.
> 
> Most people used to, and many perhaps still do, consider dolphins to be fish because of how they looked, but biologists consider them mammals for several reasons including that dolphins are warm-blooded and breathe air through lungs.
> 
> Many people likely consider film music classical because of how it sounds, but every composer of film music whom I have read views film music differently from classical music due to the process of composing the music (mikeh375 has given detailed descriptions of this difference in process).
> 
> People on this thread have tried to make clear the distinction between a casual view of film music similar to people's views of tomatoes and dolphins and a definition based on process or intent. It's fine to personally think of some film music as classical music. Certainly much film music does sound similar to classical orchestral music. I assume everyone hear understands why dolphins are not classified as fish even though they look much more like fish than like mammals. So film music might sound like classical music, and sound more like CPT classical music than some contemporary classical music does, but it is classified differently for reasons other than how it sounds.
> 
> Arguing the issue based on how the music sounds really has nothing to do with the reason film music is classified differently from classical.


The classifications about which you are speaking are based on the intrinsic properties of the objects and what I'm saying in this discussion is that music should be categorized in the same way.

If the classifications are based on intrinsic properties (like in biology), this piece is a waltz. There is not so much to discuss about this simple fact.
To say that this is not a waltz because it's born in Hollywood is like saying that a cat is a cow and not a cat because it's born in a stable. Biology would be funny with this kind of classifications!


----------



## fbjim

HansZimmer said:


> - "There is an elite who decides which works are classical music and which one are not. We simply have to take note of their decisions" ----> Who is this elite and who decided that we can't have independent opinions?


The "elite" are the people who listen and study classical music/art music - in other words, if you have an interest in classical music you are part of this "elite" (note the scare quotes). 

Genre distinctions are a social phenomenon and, like the definitions of words, are sort of formed by consensus in certain audiences. This is why the definitions of words can change when you shift from one audience to another, which may be where the "elite" thing comes in. There isn't a group of know-it-alls who decide what classical music is, and isnt - this is done by general consensus and disagreement can come when the group deciding the meaning changes.

For a general listener, anything with an orchestra in it might be "classical music". For someone with a passing interest, it may be works in the classical or romantic style. For people who study music history, it may refer to the ongoing tradition of Western art music dating from pre-Renaissance liturgical music, and so on. On this forum, I'd say that there's going to be a lot more people in the last category than you'd find in a general audience which is why there's a lot of pushback to statements about what classical music is and isn't. 

Think about the word "Bug". Very generally speaking, some people might use "bug" to describe anything that's tiny and crawls on the floor. A less general audience would insist that bugs have six legs, and spiders aren't bugs. If you start speaking in an entomologist forum, they might insist that bugs are specifically members of the order _Hemiptera_ and therefore ants aren't bugs. None of these groups are "wrong", but using the word correctly depends on context. Someone who says "Spiders are bugs" would be wrong if they started posting on an entomologist forum, even if it'd be fine to call a spider a bug in casual language where strict literal accuracy is less important than being easily understood.


----------



## Chat Noir

I like film music. And I like bananas, though not in the same way.


----------



## Forster

fbjim said:


> The "elite" are the people who listen and study classical music/art music - in other words, if you have an interest in classical music you are part of this "elite" (note the scare quotes).
> 
> Genre distinctions are a social phenomenon and, like the definitions of words, are sort of formed by consensus in certain audiences. This is why the definitions of words can change when you shift from one audience to another, which may be where the "elite" thing comes in. There isn't a group of know-it-alls who decide what classical music is, and isnt - this is done by general consensus and disagreement can come when the group deciding the meaning changes.
> 
> For a general listener, anything with an orchestra in it might be "classical music". For someone with a passing interest, it may be works in the classical or romantic style. For people who study music history, it may refer to the ongoing tradition of Western art music dating from pre-Renaissance liturgical music, and so on. On this forum, I'd say that there's going to be a lot more people in the last category than you'd find in a general audience which is why there's a lot of pushback to statements about what classical music is and isn't.
> 
> Think about the word "Bug". Very generally speaking, some people might use "bug" to describe anything that's tiny and crawls on the floor. A less general audience would insist that bugs have six legs, and spiders aren't bugs. If you start speaking in an entomologist forum, they might insist that bugs are specifically members of the order _Hemiptera_ and therefore ants aren't bugs. None of these groups are "wrong", but using the word correctly depends on context. Someone who says "Spiders are bugs" would be wrong if they started posting on an entomologist forum, even if it'd be fine to call a spider a bug in casual language where strict literal accuracy is less important than being easily understood.


Can I just add that, contrary to popular belief, definitions of such things as "classical" music are not settled, nor will they ever be. The people making the definitions, the thing they wish to define and the words they wish to use for the definition all shift and evolve over time.


----------



## DaveM

Chat Noir said:


> *This is surely because you think 'classical music' is a perfect synonym for 'common tonality',* with minimal to no dissonance, scored in a particular way, following a particular structure, melodies that can be whistled etc. Yet this doesn't describe the sum total of music written before, during or after the period I think you want to describe as being 'classical music'. Your final line "while music without harmony or melody..." is indicative of this view. *You need to understand that music you think has no melody or harmony actually does have melody and harmony, but it might not be the sort you recognise*.
> 
> In this scenario you either have to become familiar with that or not talk about it.


If you’re going to respond to posts with conclusions and directions/orders, you should familiarize with what the poster has actually said or not post in the first place. Nothing I have said in this thread includes the atonal music of composers such as Schoenberg and music of the 2nd Viennese school so the first sentence above is irrelevant.

And you need to understand that I am likely as experienced with classical music (both as a listener and playing it) as most members on this forum and, as such, I know what melody and harmony is. If music classed as classical music has melody and harmony that I don’t recognize then the terms have been redefined and minimized to the point that only a few who have concocted new definitions for themselves will agree with the premise. For instance, in a past thread, a poster said that the melody in a particular avant-garde work consisted of 2 notes.

I have listened to a fair amount of avant-garde works of Ferneyhough et al and I think I understand why some people like it. But I don’t understand why some of them stretch credulity by saying it has harmony and melody. *The music has some specific characteristics that are perfectly reasonable to attract a segment of listeners. *Why the need to try to sell the kool-aid of harmony and melody? But, if it was left up to me (which it isn’t) the avant-garde music would be a separate category altogether.


----------



## Chat Noir

DaveM said:


> If you’re going to respond to posts with conclusions and directions/orders, you should familiarize with what the poster has actually said or not post in the first place. Nothing I have said in this thread includes the atonal music of composers such as Schoenberg and music of the 2nd Viennese school so the first sentence above is irrelevant.


Isn't that actually false though, considering your response to Simon Moon?



DaveM said:


> And you need to understand that I am likely as experienced with classical music (both as a listener and playing it) as most members on this forum and, as such, I know what melody and harmony is. If music classed as classical music has melody and harmony that I don’t recognize then the terms have been redefined and minimized to the point that only a few who have concocted new definitions for themselves will agree with the premise. For instance, in a past thread, a poster said that the melody in a particular avant-garde work consisted of 2 notes.


Are you serious?  You know what melody and harmony is and anything outside your notion is a fake concoction? Doesn't that actually confirm what I said you are doing?



DaveM said:


> I have listened to a fair amount of avant-garde works of Ferneyhough et al and I think I understand why some people like it. But I don’t understand why some of them stretch credulity by saying it has harmony and melody. *The music has some specific characteristics that are perfectly reasonable to attract a segment of listeners. *Why the need to try sell the kool-aid of harmony and melody? But, if was left up to me (which it isn’t) the avant-garde music would be a separate category altogether.


I see, so you think if it isn't sonorous to your ears it means there is no harmony/melody? Interesting.


----------



## HansZimmer

fbjim said:


> The "elite" are the people who listen and study classical music/art music - in other words, if you have an interest in classical music you are part of this "elite" (note the scare quotes).
> 
> Genre distinctions are a social phenomenon and, like the definitions of words, are sort of formed by consensus in certain audiences. This is why the definitions of words can change when you shift from one audience to another, which may be where the "elite" thing comes in. There isn't a group of know-it-alls who decide what classical music is, and isnt - this is done by general consensus and disagreement can come when the group deciding the meaning changes.
> 
> For a general listener, anything with an orchestra in it might be "classical music". For someone with a passing interest, it may be works in the classical or romantic style. For people who study music history, it may refer to the ongoing tradition of Western art music dating from pre-Renaissance liturgical music, and so on. On this forum, I'd say that there's going to be a lot more people in the last category than you'd find in a general audience which is why there's a lot of pushback to statements about what classical music is and isn't.
> 
> Think about the word "Bug". Very generally speaking, some people might use "bug" to describe anything that's tiny and crawls on the floor. A less general audience would insist that bugs have six legs, and spiders aren't bugs. If you start speaking in an entomologist forum, they might insist that bugs are specifically members of the order _Hemiptera_ and therefore ants aren't bugs. None of these groups are "wrong", but using the word correctly depends on context. Someone who says "Spiders are bugs" would be wrong if they started posting on an entomologist forum, even if it'd be fine to call a spider a bug in casual language where strict literal accuracy is less important than being easily understood.


The experts however must give rational explanations about their decisions. The biologists give rational explanations for the fact that tomatoes are fruits and dalphins are mammals.

To say that a piece of music is not classical ONLY because it has been composed for a film doesn't look like a rational explanation, but a quite ridiculous explanation, at the point that you start to wonder if the so called "experts" are not in reality charlatans.

Infact, in reality, the experts have never said that film music can not be classical, so they are not charlatans. @mbhaub wrote that they played the theme of Schindler's List in a classical music concert.
Here we are discussing about the position of a musical journalist (who attacked Classic FM for promoting film scores) and not about the position of a relevant conductor.


----------



## HansZimmer

Chat Noir said:


> This is surely because you think 'classical music' is a perfect synonym for 'common tonality', with minimal to no dissonance, scored in a particular way, following a particular structure, melodies that can be whistled etc. Yet this doesn't describe the sum total of music written before, during or after the period I think you want to describe as being 'classical music'. Your final line "while music without harmony or melody..." is indicative of this view. You need to understand that music you think has no melody or harmony actually does have melody and harmony, but it might not be the sort you recognise.


What @DaveM wants to say is that film music is usually tonal, like the music of the classical period, while some contemporary classical music is atonal and therefore much different from the music of the fathers of classical music.


----------



## Chat Noir

HansZimmer said:


> What @DaveM wants to say is that film music is usually tonal, like the music of the classical period, while some contemporary classical music is atonal and therefore much different from the music of the fathers of classical music.


I know. And that by extension Dave sees great difficulty therefore with film music being denied the status of 'classical music' when that modern abomination is afforded it. It's a flawed approach though, because a lot of film music isn't 'tonal' and the film music being selected as such isn't really anything like the music of the classical period.


----------



## DaveM

Chat Noir said:


> Isn't that actually false though, considering your response to Simon Moon?


No


> Are you serious?


Yes


> Doesn't that actually confirm what I said you are doing?


No



> I see, so you think if it isn't sonorous to your ears it means there is no harmony/melody? Interesting.


You have a unique ability to make stuff up and then comment on it.


----------



## DaveM

Chat Noir said:


> I know. And that by extension Dave sees great difficulty therefore with film music being denied the status of 'classical music' when that modern abomination is afforded it. It's a flawed approach though, because a lot of film music isn't 'tonal' and the film music being selected as such isn't really anything like the music of the classical period.


Still making stuff up Mr. Muzak.


----------



## Luchesi

DaveM said:


> If you’re going to respond to posts with conclusions and directions/orders, you should familiarize with what the poster has actually said or not post in the first place. Nothing I have said in this thread includes the atonal music of composers such as Schoenberg and music of the 2nd Viennese school so the first sentence above is irrelevant.
> 
> And you need to understand that I am likely as experienced with classical music (both as a listener and playing it) as most members on this forum and, as such, I know what melody and harmony is. If music classed as classical music has melody and harmony that I don’t recognize then the terms have been redefined and minimized to the point that only a few who have concocted new definitions for themselves will agree with the premise. For instance, in a past thread, a poster said that the melody in a particular avant-garde work consisted of 2 notes.
> 
> I have listened to a fair amount of avant-garde works of Ferneyhough et al and I think I understand why some people like it. But I don’t understand why some of them stretch credulity by saying it has harmony and melody. *The music has some specific characteristics that are perfectly reasonable to attract a segment of listeners. *Why the need to try sell the kool-aid of harmony and melody? But, if was left up to me (which it isn’t) the avant-garde music would be a separate category altogether.


As you know our brains will try to find tonal relationships (we have an innate affinity for integer arithmetic). So I've thought about the unconscious 'search' for tonal patterns in Schoenberg, and I think it's somewhat satisfied, but obviously NOT in some later explorers. Maybe that's a goal for some composers, to be so ambiguous (and they might say open-ended) and they're better at it?

Schoenberg's goal I think was to (merely) come up with a strictly logical system, for the chromaticism run amok, AND so that composers couldn't get "too far out" if they used his system. 'Quite a visionary.


----------



## Chat Noir

DaveM said:


> Still making stuff up Mr. Muzak.


I'm not making up anything. It's based upon exactly what you've said in this thread.


----------



## Chat Noir

DaveM said:


> No
> 
> 
> Yes
> 
> No
> 
> 
> You have a unique ability to make stuff up and then comment on it.


I take no joy in saying it, but you are being dishonest. Your position here is that you get to define what constitutes melody/harmony, merely in line with your listening tastes, and then to formulate a fallacious argument about film music being 'more related' to 'classical' than all that horrid stuff with no melody/harmony (DaveM 2022). Then to reply with a flat denial that you ever said so. Atrocious stuff.


----------



## DaveM

HansZimmer said:


> What @DaveM wants to say is that film music is usually tonal, like the music of the classical period, while some contemporary classical music is atonal and therefore much different from the music of the fathers of classical music.


In response to those who have said there is no basis for classical-like film music being under the classical music, my response has had to do with what we call avant-garde music (that does not typically have harmony and melody) not atonal music in general.


----------



## DaveM

Chat Noir said:


> …*film music being 'more related' to 'classical' than all that horrid stuff with no melody/harmony *(DaveM 2022). Then to reply with a flat denial that you ever said so. Atrocious stuff.


Flatly deny that I ever said so? Except for the fact that I refer to ‘some’ film music, that actually paraphrases exactly what I’ve said. Are you having trouble reading posts?



> I take no joy in saying it


I think you take joy in judging other people at any opportunity.


----------



## Chat Noir

DaveM said:


> Flatly deny that I ever said so? Except for the fact that I refer to ‘some’ film music, that actually paraphrases exactly what I’ve said. Are you having trouble reading posts?
> 
> I think you take joy in judging other people at any opportunity.


What a quarrelsome fellow you are. Take those wheels off the bottom of your goalposts.

'Some' is a great word. I think we all agree that 'some' film music _sounds like _Dr Galant's Musical Funfair. And 'some' sounds like a chainsaw making it's way through a block of angry wood. And we know which you like best.

Nirvana has been reached. I'll open a bottle of wine with an even year. Cheers.


----------



## DaveM

HansZimmer said:


> What @DaveM wants to say is that film music is usually tonal, like the music of the classical period, while some contemporary classical music is atonal and therefore much different from the music of the fathers of classical music.


I meant to add this in my previous response. What I find is that I react to the kind of classical-like film music I have posted in a similar way that I do to classical music. Perhaps it is not as profound and long-lasting in my mind as CP era classical, but that kind of film music from around the mid 80s to around 2010 has provided a source of highly melodic/moving music that I haven’t found in classical music from that period. Something like that may be what you and I have in common.


----------



## Forster

DaveM said:


> it is a minor segment of film music that is classical-like


Is it? I'd say that it is a fairly substantial segment...but I've not done a survey. Let's see, how many films have been released in just the last 20 years in just the US and Canada? See the graph on this webpage:

U.S. & Canada: movie releases per year 2021 | Statista 

That's a lot of movies with, presumably, a lot of soundtracks. Anyone know how many are "classical-like"?


----------



## Chat Noir

Mainstream film music has been a comfortable and welcome oasis for those unhappy about the trajectory of classical music's development since about 1906.


----------



## EdwardBast

HansZimmer said:


> So, the OP says that since some film scores have a classical aesthetic should be considered classical music.
> 
> The counterarguments:
> - "No, because classical music is standalone and doesn't require images" ---> False, see my previous post.
> 
> - "No, because film music is not art music ---> With a serious definition of "art music", some concert works would excluded from the category, while some works for images (including film scores) would be inserted in the category, since a person can not seriously believe that concert music is automatically art and that there is not art in the music written for images. And, by the way, what does "art" mean? We should, first of all, agree about the definition of "art". I personally consider some film scores as "art".
> 
> - "No, because film music is not music of quality" ---> Totally opinion based and therefore an irrelevant argument. If we says that classical music is the music of quality, then everyone has his own "classical music". We have seen that in the "Classic FM Hall of Fame 2022" there are some film scores between the first 50/300 positions, which means that they have won against many concert works. Classic FM Hall of Fame 2022
> 
> - "No, because film music is more simple" ---> A part from the fact that there is also complex music in film scores (in this discussion we have seen an example of a fugue written for a film), classical music doesn't mean "romantic symphony". The symphonies, from Beethoven, start to become really complex (as well as the concertos) and surely the film scores are lighter. However, in classical music there also lighter kind of works (waltzes, minuets, romances, songs, incidental music, ballets,...). Furthermore, the symphonies tend to be quite light in the galant music and the early baroque music (see for example Vivaldi) is quite light in general.
> Given the so many different kind of works that you can find in classical music, it's impossible to not find a place for classical-style film music.
> I want also to say that, according to me, the so called "lighter works" of classical music are not inferior in respect of more complex works. "Complex" only means "complex": it doesn't mean "better". Some of the pieces that I consider masterpieces of classical music are quite light.
> 
> - "There is an elite who decides which works are classical music and which one are not. We simply have to take note of their decisions" ----> Who is this elite and who decided that we can't have independent opinions?


You missed the only (IMO) important counterargument: That classical music is and always has been defined institutionally, not by aesthetic criteria, style, or quality.

"There is an elite who decides which works are classical music and which one are not. We simply have to take note of their decisions."

For the tenth time, no. It's decided by whether or not publishers produce performing editions of a certain quality, trained musicians program and perform it on certain concert series, record it on certain labels, and teach students to play it in conservatories — that is, if it emerges from within a set of interrelated and historically evolving institutions.



Luchesi said:


> I assume dolphins are classified according to their evolutionary history. It avoids errors resulting from superficial considerations. I think CM should be too.


Well done! This genomic criterion is the closest biological analogy to the institutional definition of classical music.


----------



## DaveM

EdwardBast said:


> Well done! This genomic criterion is the closest biological analogy to the institutional definition of classical music.


Hmm. The dolphin is derived genetically over millions of years from a four-legged terrestrial animal. It hasn’t undergone much in the way of any major mutations relatively recently. Unfortunately, classical music has..


----------



## mmsbls

HansZimmer said:


> To say that a piece of music is not classical ONLY because it has been composed for a film ...


Do you honestly think that anyone in this thread has advocated that position?


----------



## mmsbls

HansZimmer said:


> The classifications about which you are speaking are based on the intrinsic properties of the objects and what I'm saying in this discussion is that music should be categorized in the same way.


Yes, we know you believe film music should be categorized based on how it sounds (i.e. the music's intrinsic properties). Apparently others with extensive experience in composing film music believe there are other aspects of the music (e.g. how it's created) that should be considered more important than how it sounds when categorizing it.

The intrinsic properties Monopoly money would suggest it be categorized with real money. People do not do so. Other aspects of Monopoly money such as how it's created and it's intended purpose outweigh the intrinsic properties.


----------



## Chat Noir

mmsbls said:


> The intrinsic properties Monopoly money would suggest it be categorized with real money. People do not do so. Other aspects of Monopoly money such as how it's created and it's intended purpose outweigh the intrinsic properties.


That said (and it's no doubt off-topic to pursue it) Monopoly money is almost an ideal analogue to the currency issue of a sovereign currency issuer. You are right though, Monopoly money is designed to get people to go around the Monopoly board and do things in the world of Monopoly, rather than e.g. pay real gas bills or give to children as pocket money. It has a specific function despite resembling 'real' money.


----------



## HansZimmer

mmsbls said:


> Do you honestly think that anyone in this thread has advocated that position?


Yes, it's your position. You say that film music can NEVER be classical music for the simple fact that it's written for a movie.


----------



## HansZimmer

DaveM said:


> I meant to add this in my previous response. What I find is that I react to the kind of classical-like film music I have posted in a similar way that I do to classical music. Perhaps it is not as profound and long-lasting in my mind as CP era classical, but that kind of film music from around the mid 80s to around 2010 has provided a source of highly melodic/moving music that I haven’t found in classical music from that period. Something like that may be what you and I have in common.


I have a music folder in which 95% of the pieces are of classical music and 5% are orchestral soundtracks that I rate as 10/10. Since there is nothing above 10/10, there are not classical music pieces in the folder which I consider better than the soundtracks, but only as good as them.
Classical music is probably better in average. The soundtracks are "cherry-picked", as many soundtracks are boring and poorly developed.

I don't know so much about modern/contemporary classical music, but if it's really mostly atonal as described here, then I would probably have to "cherry-pick" more than I do with orchestral soundtracks.


----------



## EdwardBast

DaveM said:


> Hmm. The dolphin is derived genetically over millions of years from a four-legged terrestrial animal. It hasn’t undergone much in the way of any major mutations relatively recently. Unfortunately, classical music has..


Obviously you've never heard of the Chernobyl dolphins.


----------



## mmsbls

HansZimmer said:


> Yes, it's your position. You say that film music can NEVER be classical music for the simple fact that it's written for a movie.


Several people have written many posts trying to explain why we feel that film music is not classical music. None of those people have said film music is not classical "for the simple fact that it's written for a movie." You seem to genuinely not understand our position. That helps me better understand the course of the thread. Thanks.


----------



## mikeh375

mmsbls said:


> Several people have written many posts trying to explain why we feel that film music is not classical music. None of those people have said film music is not classical "for the simple fact that it's written for a movie." *You seem to genuinely not understand our position. *That helps me better understand the course of the thread. Thanks.


I've felt that way for about 60 pages worth so far.


----------



## pianozach

mmsbls said:


> Several people have written many posts trying to explain why we feel that film music is not classical music. None of those people have said film music is not classical "for the simple fact that it's written for a movie." You seem to genuinely not understand our position. That helps me better understand the course of the thread. Thanks.


I've followed this thread with amusement since its inception, occasionally contributing my 2¢ worth here and there, and I've given my opinion, and was generally ignored while the more verbose of you blathered on.

Here's 2¢ more: The topic is specious, that is, it doesn't really matter much whether you or you or you or you think it is or isn't. It's a misleading topic. 

But I don't care much, especially since the whole phrase *"Classical Music" is poorly defined in the first place*, and If I asked 10 of you for an explanation I'd get ten of them.


----------



## Forster

pianozach said:


> I've followed this thread with amusement since its inception, occasionally contributing my 2¢ worth here and there, and I've given my opinion, and was generally ignored while the more verbose of you blathered on.
> 
> Here's 2¢ more: The topic is specious, that is, it doesn't really matter much whether you or you or you or you think it is or isn't. It's a misleading topic.
> 
> But I don't care much, especially since the whole phrase *"Classical Music" is poorly defined in the first place*, and If I asked 10 of you for an explanation I'd get ten of them.


All true...yet here we all are, still giving our 2¢ ... or more. Is it because the topic is intrinsically interesting? Or that we have nothing better to do? Or that the OP's idea (and the OP himself) must be put in its place, repeatedly?


----------



## mmsbls

pianozach said:


> But I don't care much, especially since the whole phrase *"Classical Music" is poorly defined in the first place*, and If I asked 10 of you for an explanation I'd get ten of them.


Actually, I wonder if you asked 10 of us twice, would you get closer to 20 different ones.


----------



## HansZimmer

mmsbls said:


> Several people have written many posts trying to explain why we feel that film music is not classical music. None of those people have said film music is not classical "for the simple fact that it's written for a movie." You seem to genuinely not understand our position. That helps me better understand the course of the thread. Thanks.


I understand the positions. I just don't agree.

You gave the example of the classification of dolphins and tomatoes, which are example of classification based on intrinsic properties of the objects, namely carachteristics that you find by simply analyzing the object.
The misunderstading of classifications are simply caused by the fact that the folks and the biologists look at different INTRINSIC PROPERTIES for classification.
So, this example has betrayed your arguments, because you are suggesting that in the case of classical music we should not simply analyze the INTRINSIC PROPRTIES of the product in order to establish if it's classical music or not. We should, instead, consider other external factors (who composed it, why it has been composed, how it has been composed, where it has been composed,..). The equivalent in biology would be that a cat is a cat only if it borns in a house, but it's a cow if it borns in a stable.

I simply think that in this discussion we have totally missed the point when different users started to speak about external factors, while the intrinsic properties have not been discussed.
Only a user in youtube gave argument based on intrinsic properties, namely that although some film scores sound superficially like classical music, they don't follow they typical forms of classical music: sonata, rondo, theme and variations, fugue,...
The film music is infact usually written in a free form.

I replied that also the programmatic pieces of classical music are written in the free form, because, just like in film music, the melody must follow a narrative and not a matematical scheme.
Although I rejected the argument of that guy, more arguments like this one would be more interesting in this discussion, but the arguments have been focused on external factors (who composed it, why it has been composed, how it has been composed, where it has been composed,..). Since you like to make comparisons with scientific taxonomies: do you have examples of scientific taxonomies in which external factors are more considered than intrinsic properties?


----------



## HansZimmer

Can we say things as they are? Some persons are obsessed with the idea there is a high culture on one side, and a popular culture on an other side, and they think that everything produced inside the popular culture is automatically inferior.
Many of the films with good orchestral soundtracks belong to the popular culture, and therefore the soundtracks composers work for the popular audience.

For some persons to say "I like classical music" is a form of virtue signalling ("I belong to the high culture"), but if the soundtrack of Star Wars would be accepted in classical music the stereotype would be lost.

Ok, fine. Meanwhile the "disgusting film composers" are attracting persons inside classical music (as well as the musicians who do concerts in which classical music and soundtracks are played together), and therefore they contribute in mantaining the classical music alive, while the snob attitude of some persons in the classical music world leads people to reject it. I wonder if the second ones receive money from the music industry to promote pop music.


----------



## janxharris

HansZimmer said:


> Can we say things as they are? Some persons are obsessed with the idea there is a high culture on one side, and a popular culture on an other side, and they think that everything produced inside the popular culture is automatically inferior.
> Many of the films with good orchestral soundtracks belong to the popular culture, and therefore the soundtracks composers work for the popular audience.
> 
> For some persons to say "I like classical music" is a form of virtue signalling ("I belong to the high culture"), but if the soundtrack of Star Wars would be accepted in classical music the stereotype would be lost.
> 
> Ok, fine. Meanwhile the "disgusting film composers" are attracting persons inside classical music (as well as the musicians who do concerts in which classical music and soundtracks are played together), and therefore they contribute in mantaining the classical music alive, while the snob attitude of some persons in the classical music world leads people to reject it. I wonder if the second ones receive money from the music industry to promote pop music.


Someone made an objective case for the superiority of CM?


----------



## HansZimmer

janxharris said:


> Someone made an objective case for the superiority of CM?


Yes, especially in the last pages of this discussion.

Now, if you look at the CV of John Williams, Elmer Bernstein, James Horner and Alan Menken, you can not seriously think that they are not serious composers. To put down their music is only snobbery.
Yes, the technical train of some other composers is doubtful (in respect to what classical music requires), but they are helped by other qualified professionals who posses the required skills, and so they are still able to provide products of quality.

My opinion is quite simple: liking or not liking the music of the above composers is only a matter of tastes, while if I tried to compose music would be correct to say that I don't know what I'm doing, and this is why I would never be able to provide the results of John Williams, Elmer Bernstein, James Horner and Alan Menken.


----------



## janxharris

HansZimmer said:


> Yes, especially in the last pages of this discussion.


Could you be more specific?


----------



## HansZimmer

janxharris said:


> Could you be more specific?


One of the arguments that has been provided in this discussion is that classical music is good, while film music is not. So, film music that sounds like classical music is not classical music because it's inferior.

Now, it's obvious that film music is lighter than a long romantic symphony with large movements, but in classical music there also lighter works. Classical music compositions like waltzes are not meant to be dumb, but to be a more direct form of entertainment.


----------



## Forster

janxharris said:


> Could you be more specific?


That would be a "No" I think. 🤷‍♂️


----------



## Forster

HansZimmer said:


> One of the arguments that has been provided in this discussion is that classical music is good, while film music is not. So, film music that sounds like classical music is not classical music because it's inferior.


You're supposed to point to the post where someone set out that _*objective case*_.


----------



## Luchesi

Forster said:


> All true...yet here we all are, still giving our 2¢ ... or more. Is it because the topic is intrinsically interesting? Or that we have nothing better to do? Or that the OP's idea (and the OP himself) must be put in its place, repeatedly?


For me, it's about the future of CM. I know that seems over-the-top, but I've had a bad feeling about valuations and relativism before people could spread the current attitudes online. 

It's not intentional. It's predictable. It's natural. But how can a generation which hasn't relished CM, guide the next generation?


----------



## janxharris

HansZimmer said:


> One of the arguments that has been provided in this discussion is that classical music is good, while film music is not. So, film music is not classical music.


Without a specific citation it's impossible to judge - but, from what I have read, I'm only seeing opinions. If, as EwardBast mentioned, it's whether classical publishers and musicians are interested enough in a piece for it to 'emerge', then that is just a natural process...a consensus.


----------



## HansZimmer

Luchesi said:


> For me, it's about the future of CM.


The film music composers attract people inside classical music and so they contribute in keeping classical music alive.


----------



## pianozach

janxharris said:


> Without a specific citation it's impossible to judge - but, from what I have read, I'm only seeing opinions. If, as EwardBast mentioned, it's whether classical publishers and musicians are interested enough in a piece for it to 'emerge', then that is just a natural process...a consensus.


Aye, and there's the rub you see. Using one specific example is cherry-picking. 

But I agree; it's _"just a natural process...a consensus."_

I leave you with a track from one of my favorite film composers, *Trevor Rabin*, from *Remember the Titans*.

After 60 seconds of generic fight music, he suddenly veers into five minutes of anticipatory development weaved around new themes and textures.


----------



## HansZimmer

Forster said:


> Well surely you know if you read the post and decided not to respond to it?
> 
> The "kiddie" movies I was referring to were your two Disney animations. I suppose unsurprisingly, you prefer to discuss your favourite movies, repeatedly, rather than give some thought to others you might not be familiar with.


Please, use the term "your favourite soundtracks" instead of "your favourite movies": in the post you quoted I explained that the two categories don't coincide. I have basically no interest for the Disney movies and I'm not speaking only of the cartoons, but also about the films like Pirates of Caribbeans.

I know that to confuse the two categories reinforces your argument that film music is totally subservient to the movies and that we like it only because we like the movies, but it's absolutely false to say that the Lion King is my favourite movie. There isn't any animated film between my favourite movies.

There is only ONE case where I love the soundtrack as much as I love the film: Schindler's List. In most cases, I like the soundtrack more than the films, and my favourite movies not necessarily have the best soundtracks.

The best example I can offer is "Pirates of Caribbeans". I strongly despise the movie, but I love this live perfomance of "He's a Pirate".







I have never seen the film "Avalon", but the soundtrack is in my music folder. I'd like to watch the film, but I can't find it. I give a 10/10 to the music in this video, even if I have never watched the film.









> Of course film soundtracks can prompt an emotional response without the images that accompany them. One reason for this is, as Chat Noir has elaborated, the fact that the music often draws on the kind of familiar tropes that tend to easily elicit that response. Another reason is that having watched the movie and enjoyed it, listening to the music afterwards can recall that emotion. However, that can only happen if the connection has been made between the characters and their situation. When Jane Eyre returns to be reunited with Rochester, the emotional response generated in the audience is a culmination of the travails of the characters through ups and downs. The music at that climax heightens or refines the emotions the story has generated. It doesn't provide them.


I don't understand your point. Although I agree that the combination of visual images and stories with music enhances the emotional impact in respect to music alone or images/stories alone, this is true for classical music too.

The melody of the "Adagio in G minor" is touching, but if you put it inside a drammatic film it makes you cry.


----------



## Forster

^^^ Whatever. 🤷‍♂️


----------



## HansZimmer

pianozach said:


> Aye, and there's the rub you see. Using one specific example is cherry-picking.
> 
> But I agree; it's _"just a natural process...a consensus."_
> 
> I leave you with a track from one of my favorite film composers, *Trevor Rabin*, from *Remember the Titans*.
> 
> After 60 seconds of generic fight music, he suddenly veers into five minutes of anticipatory development weaved around new themes and textures.


Thanks. With this music you have sold me the film: I have to watch it. Do you work for the Walt Disney?


----------



## HansZimmer

pianozach said:


> [Clears throat]
> 
> One COULD say that music created for film, ballet, or opera is MORE creative than non-programmatic music, as it has an extra layer of parameters to meet. Music that accompanies visual media has to be MORE clever, therefore requires MORE creativity on the part of the composer.
> 
> [Ducks]


There are also concert works which have the goal to evoke images.

Vivaldi has published "The Four Seasons" with some texts that explain the meaning of each movement. 
The casual listeners who watch and appreciate videos like this one might not be aware of the fact that the music tries to evoke a storm.






If you listen to this movement without to know the meaning, it's nice. If you know the meaning, it's brilliant.

It's a shame that giving a meaning to the concert works has not become a common practice in classical music, because to write a nice melody with a meaning is a more artistic work than writing a nice but meaningless melody.


----------



## DaveM

pianozach said:


> Aye, and there's the rub you see. Using one specific example is cherry-picking.
> 
> But I agree; it's _"just a natural process...a consensus."_
> 
> I leave you with a track from one of my favorite film composers, *Trevor Rabin*, from *Remember the Titans*.
> 
> After 60 seconds of generic fight music, he suddenly veers into five minutes of anticipatory development weaved around new themes and textures.


I remember when I first saw this movie (year 2000). The movie opens with the music that starts at 3:15. Immediately, similar to the effect of the music that opened Pearl Harbor, I felt like I was in for a good movie. I admire the skill it takes to come up with a theme/melody that is so appropriate to the movie subject and without which the movie would be less than. Long ago I made a suite out of this music.


----------



## HansZimmer

fluteman said:


> Enjoy The Lion King soundtrack, it's one of my favorites, too. I saw the show with my children twice, on Broadway, and then in a traveling production. I too have the recording, except I believe it was made by the Broadway show cast, and not from the movie soundtrack. Prime examples of great movie soundtracks that are not Broadway musical albums of shows later made into movies include many of the Disney movies, both old and new. Mary Poppins, with music by the Sherman brothers, is a favorite of mine (they also composed the music for The Jungle Book), as is the more recent Moana, with music by the great Lin-Manuel Miranda. But these Disney movies owe a great deal to the Broadway musical tradition.
> Henry Mancini is a favorite of mine and composed great music both for The Pink Panther and the television series Peter Gunn. The James Bond movies have wonderful soundtracks. The original James Bond theme is by Monty Norman, but the great title song of Live and Let Die is by former Beatle Paul McCartney. Argentine jazz man Lalo Schifrin wrote the famous Mission: Impossible theme that influenced TV soundtracks for many years afterwards. Schifrin's jazz albums are well worth checking out. John Williams, now 90 years old, has a fabulous resume, and I consider his music for the Harry Potter movies some of his finest.
> The tradition of fine creative original music for movies and TV continues. I think Michael Giacchino's music for the TV series Lost was of special merit. And of course, hit Broadway musicals with great music continue to be made into movies. I very much liked Mark Shaiman's music for the Broadway show and movie Hairspray. And though I didn't see the Broadway show, Cyndi Lauper's music for Kinky Boots received much acclaim, including the Tony Award. A current BBC TV show called Shetland has an excellent soundtrack by John Lunn that soon will be released as an album.
> All that only scratches the surface of movie and TV music that I happen to know well and love, and there is a huge amount more that I don't know at all. Movies and TV shows have long been central sources of popular culture, only recently undermined and supplanted by the internet. I also think it is movies and TV shows that have kept the Broadway musical tradition alive and well. West Side Story became a much bigger hit after the movie was released, even though imo the movie had its flaws and problems. The same was even more true of Grease, a hit as a Broadway musical but a vastly bigger hit as a movie with John Travolta and Olivia Newton-John.
> If it makes you feel better to call Henry Mancini, Paul McCartney and Cyndi Lauper classical composers, go ahead. But to do so diminishes their achievements, in my opinion, by implying that their status as popular culture icons is of no account. I suppose I should let this discussion go at this point, but thanks all for some interesting points.


Thanks for your reply... but no, wait! I'm not saying that all film music composers are classical music composers. I'm saying that film music is not a genre of music and basically simply uses existing genres of music.
You have given examples of "Broadway composers" who brought their musical culture (the one of musicals) inside the film music and I certainly don't want to call them "classical music composers".
Dave Grusin, who is a jazz composer, brings jazz and instrumental pop in film music.
In the same way, John Williams brings his musical culture (classical music) in film music, but we have to pretend that classical music and film music are like water and oil.

Finally, there are composer who exclusively write film music and borrow elements from different musical genres, including classical music.

This post of @MatthewWeflen says exactly what I think. Film music is not a musical form. It USES existing musical forms.


----------



## pianozach

HansZimmer said:


> There are also concert works which have the goal to evoke images.
> 
> Vivaldi has published "The Four Seasons" with some texts that explain the meaning of each movement.
> The casual listeners who watch and appreciate videos like this one might not be aware of the fact that the music tries to evoke a storm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you listen to this movement without to know the meaning, it's nice. If you know the meaning, it's brilliant.
> 
> It's a shame that giving a meaning to the concert works has not become a common practice in classical music, because to write a nice melody with a meaning is a more artistic work than writing a nice but meaningless melody.


Yer preachin' to the choir here.

*Vivaldi's Four Seasons* is brilliant, and the fact that these works are blatantly programmatic makes them even more so. 

I covered "*Summer*" as #6 on my *Beginner's Guide* thread. I think I might have considered the whole four works, but I was attempting to keep the examples "bite sized".

A Beginner's Guide to Classical Music 

However, remorse stalked me, and I included the entire suite of the *Four Seasons* at *#29*, complete with Vivaldi's descriptions of each Season.









A Beginner's Guide to Classical Music


I'm just looking at the list and thinking my daughter would have given up convinced that classical music isn't for her almost immediately. She followed a very different path in which chamber by Debussy and Ravel played a role along with some 20th century piano concertos (Ravel, Bartok and...




www.talkclassical.com


----------



## pianozach

HansZimmer said:


> Thanks. With this music you have sold me the film: I have to watch it. Do you work for the Walt Disney?


Work for *disney*? No.

*Remember the Titans*; Well, I've never actually seen the film. I'm just a fan of *Trevor Rabin*.


----------



## fluteman

HansZimmer said:


> Thanks for your reply... but no, wait! I'm not saying that all film music composers are classical music composers. I'm saying that film music is not a genre of music and basically simply uses existing genres of music.
> You have given examples of "Broadway composers" who brought their musical culture (the one of musicals) inside the film music and I certainly don't want to call them "classical music composers".
> Dave Grusin, who is a jazz composer, brings jazz and instrumental pop in film music.
> In the same way, John Williams brings his musical culture (classical music) in film music, but we have to pretend that classical music and film music are like water and oil.
> 
> Finally, there are composer who exclusively write film music and borrow elements from different musical genres, including classical music.
> 
> This post of @MatthewWeflen says exactly what I think. Film music is not a musical form. It USES existing musical forms.


Yes, film music is not a single, monolithic genre. It borrows freely from many popular genres, and classical music. The soundtracks for the old Tom and Jerry cartoons contain some of the most clever references to classical music standards that I have ever heard. But film music is not, except in very rare cases, classical music. That is because, with very rare exceptions, it stays in our culture's collective consciousness for only as long as the movies for which it was written does, which is consistent with its purpose. And those movies, again with very rare exceptions, are popular art or entertainment that is largely forgotten by later generations. Classical art lives for many generations, even centuries or millennia and therefore helps define a civilization.
As David Hume famously said, using classical poetry, drama and oratory as examples, but it applies to classical art generally:
Theories of abstract philosophy, systems of profound theology, have prevailed during one age: In a successive period, these have been universally exploded: Their absurdity has been detected: Other theories and systems have supplied their place, which again gave place to their successors: And nothing has been experienced more liable to the revolutions of chance and fashion than these pretended decisions of science. The case is not the same with the beauties of eloquence and poetry. Just expressions of passion and nature are sure, after a little time, to gain public applause, which they maintain for ever. ARISTOTLE, and PLATO, and EPICURUS, and DESCARTES, may successively yield to each other: But TERENCE and VIRGIL maintain an universal, undisputed empire over the minds of men. The abstract philosophy of CICERO has lost its credit: The vehemence of his oratory is still the object of our admiration.


----------



## pianozach

DaveM said:


> I remember when I first saw this movie (year 2000). The movie opens with the music that starts at 3:15. Immediately, similar to the effect of the music that opened Pearl Harbor, I felt like I was in for a good movie. I admire the skill it takes to come up with a theme/melody that is so appropriate to the movie subject and without which the movie would be less than. Long ago I made a suite out of this music.


Excellent.


----------



## Chat Noir

Pearl Harbor was for me the key moment that I realised mainstream film music had become almost worthless. That film itself was the most worthless, brain-dead film I'd seen up to that point and I still remember wanting to leave the cinema, but I didn't want to upset my (then) wife who was more enthusiastic.


----------



## pianozach

Chat Noir said:


> Pearl Harbor was for me the key moment that I realised mainstream film music had become almost worthless. That film itself was the most worthless, brain-dead film I'd seen up to that point and I still remember wanting to leave the cinema, but I didn't want to upset my (then) wife who was more enthusiastic.


Again, citing _ONE_ film (and its music). Even _you_ point out that your wife was enjoying the film. 

Perhaps your sense that film music had become "_almost worthless_" while WATCHING what you understood to be a "_worthless, brain-dead film_" rubbed off on your perception of the soundtrack.

Naturally, the film was a box office success, earning $59 million in its opening weekend and nearly $450 million worldwide, but I do recognize a that a film's popularity is not necessarily a good measure of its artistic merit. In fact, the film critics pretty much agree with you, giving it largely negative reviews. 

The film was nominated for only four minor Academy Awards, winning only one, for *Best Sound Editing*. Conversely, it was also nominated for *nine Golden Raspberry Awards*. 

Still, the film composer *Hans Zimmer* is well regarded for his artistic merit (and *Pearl Harbor* earned him a *Golden Globe* _nomination_ for *Best Original Score*). 

*ClassicFM* lists *Pearl Harbor* as one of *Zimmer*'s Top Ten Scores (considering he's written scores for over 150 films, I'd say that is a pretty high rating), as do several other lesser known websites.


----------



## Luchesi

fluteman said:


> Yes, film music is not a single, monolithic genre. It borrows freely from many popular genres, and classical music. The soundtracks for the old Tom and Jerry cartoons contain some of the most clever references to classical music standards that I have ever heard. But film music is not, except in very rare cases, classical music. That is because, with very rare exceptions, it stays in our culture's collective consciousness for only as long as the movies for which it was written does, which is consistent with its purpose. And those movies, again with very rare exceptions, are popular art or entertainment that is largely forgotten by later generations. Classical art lives for many generations, even centuries or millennia and therefore helps define a civilization.
> As David Hume famously said, using classical poetry, drama and oratory as examples, but it applies to classical art generally:
> Theories of abstract philosophy, systems of profound theology, have prevailed during one age: In a successive period, these have been universally exploded: Their absurdity has been detected: Other theories and systems have supplied their place, which again gave place to their successors: And nothing has been experienced more liable to the revolutions of chance and fashion than these pretended decisions of science. The case is not the same with the beauties of eloquence and poetry. Just expressions of passion and nature are sure, after a little time, to gain public applause, which they maintain for ever. ARISTOTLE, and PLATO, and EPICURUS, and DESCARTES, may successively yield to each other: But TERENCE and VIRGIL maintain an universal, undisputed empire over the minds of men. The abstract philosophy of CICERO has lost its credit: The vehemence of his oratory is still the object of our admiration.


I don't think Hume could have foreseen how much the arts would achieve.


----------



## DaveM

pianozach said:


> Again, citing _ONE_ film (and its music). Even _you_ point out that your wife was enjoying the film.
> 
> Perhaps your sense that film music had become "_almost worthless_" while WATCHING what you understood to be a "_worthless, brain-dead film_" rubbed off on your perception of the soundtrack.
> 
> Naturally, the film was a box office success, earning $59 million in its opening weekend and nearly $450 million worldwide, but I do recognize a that a film's popularity is not necessarily a good measure of its artistic merit. In fact, the film critics pretty much agree with you, giving it largely negative reviews.
> 
> The film was nominated for only four minor Academy Awards, winning only one, for *Best Sound Editing*. Conversely, it was also nominated for *nine Golden Raspberry Awards*.
> 
> Still, the film composer *Hans Zimmer* is well regarded for his artistic merit (and *Pearl Harbor* earned him a *Golden Globe* _nomination_ for *Best Original Score*).
> 
> *ClassicFM* lists *Pearl Harbor* as one of *Zimmer*'s Top Ten Scores (considering he's written scores for over 150 films, I'd say that is a pretty high rating), as do several other lesser known websites.


Balanced Review of Pearl Harbor movie and soundtrack (according to me): 

The movie was not among Ben Affleck’s better acting moments. And a major weakness of the movie was the silliness of some of the plot contrivances with his best friend and his ’love interest’ juxtaposed against the seriousness of the Pearl Harbor attack and the tragedy that besets the Arizona.

But, the soundtrack is one of the best works I’ve ever come across and regardless of some of the harsh words said about it in this thread, it was very well received (as you mention). The opening music and scenes draw you into the movie right away although the weaknesses mentioned above unfortunately are a bit of a letdown after the great opening. The actual attack is well done and that and the camera scanning over the damage done in the harbor along with the beautiful though sombre Hans Zimmer music playing as the overturned Arizona comes into view are, alone, worth watching the movie.


----------



## fluteman

Luchesi said:


> I don't think Hume could have foreseen how much the arts would achieve.


Well, none of us can predict the future. But I agree that the great 18th century thinkers were limited in that they could not have known the profound changes in human civilization that would result from the industrial and technological revolutions. That is why I recommend John Dewey's short but extraordinary 1934 book Art as Experience for an examination of art in the modern age. Dewey has profound insight on the role of art in society, and post-industrial modern society in particular. Equally worthwhile is Ludwig Wittgenstein's Lectures on Aesthetics, Psychology and Religious Belief, like Dewey's book based on lectures by the author (in 1938). None of these fancy books and essays are needed to enjoy music, but they are needed to address such questions as what is and isn't classical music, and why longstanding civilizations have classical art (including music) traditions in the first place.


----------



## Forster

fluteman said:


> [...] None of these fancy books and essays are needed to enjoy music, but they are needed to address such questions as what is and isn't classical music,[...]


I don't doubt the value of "fancy" books and essays, but I don't think they are _needed _for this particular exercise. Besides, books written in the 30s would fail to take account of the radical direction that "classical music" has since taken. And you underestimate the collective knowledge and understanding of the members of TC. I have been coming here long enough to know that most sensible contributors make use of some serviceable explanations and recognise that none is an absolute definition.

@HansZimmer: Not on the subject of classical-film music, but the issue of the effect of film music on the listener, I wonder if you've seen _Whiplash _and what you make of the soundtrack.


----------



## mikeh375

Off topic but this will be of interest I'm sure...
https://www.musicradar.com/news/hans-zimmer-bbc-documentary


----------



## HansZimmer

Forster said:


> @HansZimmer: Not on the subject of classical-film music, but the issue of the effect of film music on the listener, I wonder if you've seen _Whiplash _and what you make of the soundtrack.


No, I didn't and I probably won't, because I watch musical films only if they are about classical music. The next film of the genre that I'm going to watch is "Mozart, more than a prince".

I listened to the first three pieces of the suite of the OST. I don't despise jazz, but it's not the best jazz I've heard. When it comes to evaluate the underscore and not the music in itself, however, it is the kind of music that you expect in a film like that, just like in a film about Mozart you expect to hear music of Mozart.
For the film "Havana", writing a score based on cuban music has been a good choice, but the music suited for the underscore is not necessarily the music you like to listen to in concerts. If you go to concerts of film music, you want to listen to the kind of music you like, which in my case is the music which is closer to classical music.


----------



## Chat Noir

pianozach said:


> Again, citing _ONE_ film (and its music). Even _you_ point out that your wife was enjoying the film.


The film directly mentioned and under discussion you mean? What was I supposed to do, add more to my reply? Why? Other films have already been mentioned, indeed others by Zimmer umpteen times, I don't need to keep reinserting them for 'balance' just to make people feel better! My wife was enjoying the film because she likes blockbusters and military aircraft. Even she said the film spiralled downwards after the exciting opening. Neither of us recalled any of the music upon leaving.



pianozach said:


> Perhaps your sense that film music had become "_almost worthless_" while WATCHING what you understood to be a "_worthless, brain-dead film_" rubbed off on your perception of the soundtrack.


I have a keen ear. I am a musician. I am, as I already stated, from _inside_ the music-creating industry - which I understand opponents will want to characterise as biasing my view in one direction or another. It does colour how you watch a film unfortunately. The music in films reaches my ear in a particular way. I imagine that e.g. lighting technicians also feel the same when watching a film and are aware of it on a subconscious, if not conscious, level. In a way other viewers are not.

The music to Pearl Harbor is trite output. I have to say now that I don't really care if someone says 'Oh but it moved me so much!' Big deal. That's not a critical appreciation. And with a carefully-crafted get-out clause of claimng to love the music for its own sake completely disassociated from the film. I don't even believe the get-out clause, I think it's just a made-up lie for the sake of argument.



pianozach said:


> Still, the film composer *Hans Zimmer* is well regarded for his artistic merit (and *Pearl Harbor* earned him a *Golden Globe* _nomination_ for *Best Original Score*).
> 
> *ClassicFM* lists *Pearl Harbor* as one of *Zimmer*'s Top Ten Scores (considering he's written scores for over 150 films, I'd say that is a pretty high rating), as do several other lesser known websites.


Even though the thrust in this thread has been that the critics and awards are actually biased against Hans Zimmer. I really don't care what awards are mentioned or what ratings of Classic FM say. Classic FM is not a serious classical music radio station, it is a 'classic pops' station. One that also has broadened out to include popular film scores for the sake of its middling listenership. It is largely concerned with revenue, not 'art'. 

Hans Zimmer is a rock musician-turned-hack film composer. I know some people think his music is godly. I don't.


----------



## fluteman

Forster said:


> I don't doubt the value of "fancy" books and essays, but I don't think they are _needed _for this particular exercise. Besides, books written in the 30s would fail to take account of the radical direction that "classical music" has since taken. And you underestimate the collective knowledge and understanding of the members of TC.


I didn't start out here underestimating anyone. I'm fully aware that anyone else's tastes are as legitimate as mine, as even a cursory glance at my posts will make plain. And as for my music education, (1) there are composers, teachers, performers and others here with more education, training and experience than I in numerous ways; (2) education does not make one's tastes in music any more valid.
But when you confront questions such as, What is or is not classical music? I see thread after thread here sink into confusion, inanity, and sometimes something that looks uncomfortably like white European cultural supremacy.
Understanding western culture, its history, its development, its traditions, its values, its exemplars, how it differs from and has interacted with other cultures, is in large part a matter of education. A lot of that is simply absorbed by anyone who grows up within the culture, but far from all of it. Without that education, one is vulnerable to overestimating, underestimating, and misunderstanding the western classical music tradition. Worse, one can become narrowminded and elitist, assuming that a host of cultural norms are inevitable or fundamentally "correct" when in reality they are largely the result of historical developments that are accidental or random.
While I don't 'know it all', I have a healthy respect for cultural history and anthropology and the related philosophy of aesthetics. There have been many brilliant scholars in those fields, whom I am far from qualified to discuss or evaluate. The particular writers I cite here, in addition to being among the most famous in the history of scholarship on these issues, have been able to write reasonably short, clear and understandable works summarizing some important principles of culture and aesthetics. That's why their works are still in print, still cited, and still discussed, since 1934 in the case of Dewey, 1946 for Bate, and 1966 for Wittgenstein.
Charles Rosen only recently passed away, and appreciation for his immense contribution to musicology continues to increase. He was an opinionated cuss, unafraid to come out with controversial, nose-tweaking pronouncements, and I think that distracted many from his true achievements. But he too shed a lot of light on the question of exactly what western classical music is.
There are some here who understand all this and more. I miss Strange Magic, who was able to read and understand longer and more complicated books on these topics than I am inclined to tackle. He didn't tolerate baloney, no matter how endlessly he was attacked and ridiculed. But he is gone now.


----------



## HansZimmer

pianozach said:


> Again, citing _ONE_ film (and its music). Even _you_ point out that your wife was enjoying the film.
> 
> Perhaps your sense that film music had become "_almost worthless_" while WATCHING what you understood to be a "_worthless, brain-dead film_" rubbed off on your perception of the soundtrack.
> 
> Naturally, the film was a box office success, earning $59 million in its opening weekend and nearly $450 million worldwide, but I do recognize a that a film's popularity is not necessarily a good measure of its artistic merit. In fact, the film critics pretty much agree with you, giving it largely negative reviews.
> 
> The film was nominated for only four minor Academy Awards, winning only one, for *Best Sound Editing*. Conversely, it was also nominated for *nine Golden Raspberry Awards*.
> 
> Still, the film composer *Hans Zimmer* is well regarded for his artistic merit (and *Pearl Harbor* earned him a *Golden Globe* _nomination_ for *Best Original Score*).
> 
> *ClassicFM* lists *Pearl Harbor* as one of *Zimmer*'s Top Ten Scores (considering he's written scores for over 150 films, I'd say that is a pretty high rating), as do several other lesser known websites.


The appreciation of a product from the public should be measured on the ratings, not on the popularity (sells, views, and so on...).

The ratings of Pearl Harbor in IMDB (6.2/10) are quite low for a blockbuster: Pearl Harbor (2001) - IMDb 

The OST of Hans Zimmer is well received (3.5/5), but there are scores of Hans Zimmer with better ratings: Hans Zimmer Albums and Discography | AllMusic


----------



## Chat Noir

This thread should be renamed: 'Why I think Hans Zimmer is great'.


----------



## mmsbls

HansZimmer said:


> I understand the positions. I just don't agree.


Just to be clear then. You do understand that no one is arguing "a piece of music is not classical ONLY because it has been composed for a film .."



> You gave the example of the classification of dolphins and tomatoes, which are example of classification based on intrinsic properties of the objects, namely carachteristics that you find by simply analyzing the object.


That's true. My analogies tried to show that the basis for classification could be quite different (e.g. external appearance versus internal morphology). In those cases the bases were intrinsic properties, but the point of the analogies was to suggest that people can use different bases. Analogies are defined as "a comparison of two otherwise unlike things based on _resemblance of a particular aspect_.*" *The particular aspect was not intrinsic properties but differing bases.



> The misunderstading of classifications are simply caused by the fact that the folks and the biologists look at different INTRINSIC PROPERTIES for classification.
> So, this example has betrayed your arguments, because you are suggesting that in the case of classical music we should not simply analyze the INTRINSIC PROPRTIES of the product in order to establish if it's classical music or not. We should, instead, consider other external factors (who composed it, why it has been composed, how it has been composed, where it has been composed,..). The equivalent in biology would be that a cat is a cat only if it borns in a house, but it's a cow if it borns in a stable.


My analogies above were suggesting that it is fine to use bases that might not be obvious to many people (appearance vs morphology or sound vs process).



> I simply think that in this discussion we have totally missed the point when different users started to speak about external factors, while the intrinsic properties have not been discussed.


I'm not sure who you mean by "we". Do you mean those who disagree with you? I would guess that no person reading this thread would conclude that intrinsic properties have not been discussed. You have done so repeatedly, and many have agreed that some film music sounds much like classical music.



> Although I rejected the argument of that guy, more arguments like this one would be more interesting in this discussion, but the arguments have been focused on external factors (who composed it, why it has been composed, how it has been composed, where it has been composed,..).


Arguments like that would be more interesting to you. Arguments based on external factors may be more interesting to others.



> Since you like to make comparisons with scientific taxonomies: do you have examples of scientific taxonomies in which external factors are more considered than intrinsic properties?


I'm actually not sure if you mean this as a joke.

So here are two more analogies comparing things with identical intrinsic properties but characterized differently due to external factors.

Furniture or art: Here is an example of a chair that is considered art. If I had a chair made to look exactly like that but used it in my house to sit on, it would not be art. The external intent is the only difference.

Crime or movie: A person breaking into a house and taking jewels in real life would be guilty of a crime. A person breaking into a house and taking jewels in a movie scene is not.

Also, there's the Monopoly money versus real money analogy you missed.

I'm sure you can find differences between the analogies above and film versus classical music because they are not identical as no analogies are.

I think film music can sound very similar to classical music. I think many experts consider some film music well written and moving. Some film music is very difficult to perform. If someone wishes to characterize some film music as classical music based on the forms, instrumentation, performance in orchestral concerts, and sound, that's understandable. I think it's reasonable to consider the process of creating film music to be different enough from the process of creating classical music such that film music is characterized separately.


----------



## HansZimmer

Chat Noir said:


> The music to Pearl Harbor is trite output. I have to say now that I don't really care if someone says 'Oh but it moved me so much!' Big deal. That's not a critical appreciation. And with a carefully-crafted get-out clause of claimng to love the music for its own sake completely disassociated from the film. I don't even believe the get-out clause, I think it's just a made-up lie for the sake of argument.


Pizza maker: "Isn't this the best pizza you have eaten?"
Consumer: "No, I've eaten better pizzas!"
Pizza maker: "No, you are an idiot. This pizza is the best one. I'm a pizza maker, so I'm right!"
Consumer: "WTF do you want? I prefer pizzas of other resturant!"
Pizza maker: "Yours is not a critical appreciation!"


To write a critical appreciation doesn't mean to write something with which Chat Noir agrees. It means to explain why you like something instead of simply saying that you like it.
I've already written my critical appreciation, it's just that you don't agree with it.

The score of Pearl Harbor is not my favourite work of Hans Zimmer, but other of his works IMO belong to the category of "the best film scores".
I watch a new film daily, so I've heard a lot of film music, and IMO the music of the Lion King is memorable.

I've already explained the reason. The melody of "This Land" IMO is brilliant for two reasons:

The theme is wonderful and it works very well (it captures very well the emotions of the film)
The well built drammatic arc brings the theme through different stages with strong and contrasting emotions. IMO an example of a good usage and development of a theme that it's in itself already excellent.
These are the reasons... and this is a critical appreciation. To give a critical appreciation doesn't mean to agree with your idea that the pizza with ham it's the best one and the right salting is the one you like. It means to explain the reason of your personal tastes (like for example "I prefer this pizza because is less salty), and I've done that.

The idea that we should judge music in an emotionless way is ridiculous. It's like to say that you don't have to judge a pizza by it's taste. How exactly can I judge the theme and the drammatic arc with my emotions turned off? More in general, how can you judge music with your emotions turned off, if music is basically a "poem made with sounds" and a poem is an emotional thing?
Finally, why should I appreciate music that doesn't give me emotions instead of music that gives me emotions?

My view about this subject is very simple: a good composer is someone who writes good poems. Since a poem induces subjective emotions, there are not objective criterias to say which are the best poems, but some composers are able to reach the hearth of more persons and so they are elevated by the society.



> Classic FM is not a serious classical music radio station, it is a 'classic pops' station. One that also has broadened out to include popular film scores for the sake of its middling listenership.


I think that we can all agree about the fact that your personal tastes are perfectly legitimate and no one wants to force you in appreciating film music, but to call the audience of Classic FM "mediocre listeners" is arrogant, snob and obnoxious.
You are producing a lot of similar statements in this discussion.


----------



## DaveM

mmsbls said:


> ..I think film music can sound very similar to classical music. I think many experts consider some film music well written and moving. Some film music is very difficult to perform. If someone wishes to characterize some film music as classical music based on the forms, instrumentation, performance in orchestral concerts, and sound, that's understandable. I think it's reasonable to consider the process of creating film music to be different enough from the process of creating classical music such that film music is characterized separately.


That’s perhaps the most reasonable summary/perspective of the subject in this entire thread.


----------



## Luchesi

deleted deleted sorry


----------



## Luchesi

mmsbls said:


> Just to be clear then. You do understand that no one is arguing "a piece of music is not classical ONLY because it has been composed for a film .."
> 
> 
> 
> That's true. My analogies tried to show that the basis for classification could be quite different (e.g. external appearance versus internal morphology). In those cases the bases were intrinsic properties, but the point of the analogies was to suggest that people can use different bases. Analogies are defined as "a comparison of two otherwise unlike things based on _resemblance of a particular aspect_.*" *The particular aspect was not intrinsic properties but differing bases.
> 
> 
> 
> My analogies above were suggesting that it is fine to use bases that might not be obvious to many people (appearance vs morphology or sound vs process).
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure who you mean by "we". Do you mean those who disagree with you? I would guess that no person reading this thread would conclude that intrinsic properties have not been discussed. You have done so repeatedly, and many have agreed that some film music sounds much like classical music.
> 
> 
> 
> Arguments like that would be more interesting to you. Arguments based on external factors may be more interesting to others.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm actually not sure if you mean this as a joke.
> 
> So here are two more analogies comparing things with identical intrinsic properties but characterized differently due to external factors.
> 
> Furniture or art: Here is an example of a chair that is considered art. If I had a chair made to look exactly like that but used it in my house to sit on, it would not be art. The external intent is the only difference.
> 
> Crime or movie: A person breaking into a house and taking jewels in real life would be guilty of a crime. A person breaking into a house and taking jewels in a movie scene is not.
> 
> Also, there's the Monopoly money versus real money analogy you missed.
> 
> I'm sure you can find differences between the analogies above and film versus classical music because they are not identical as no analogies are.
> 
> I think film music can sound very similar to classical music. I think many experts consider some film music well written and moving. Some film music is very difficult to perform. If someone wishes to characterize some film music as classical music based on the forms, instrumentation, performance in orchestral concerts, and sound, that's understandable. I think it's reasonable to consider the process of creating film music to be different enough from the process of creating classical music such that film music is characterized separately.


The Chair example - today we can see it as scientifically described (in addition to those 3 ways) according to the progress that's been made with the Standard Theory and the mysterious questions about gravity, and all the way back to trying to answer the question of why there's something instead of nothing. That's why I feel a sense of disappointment when I read from the great minds like Dewey and Wittgenstein. They could've imagined what physicists are aware of, BUT they didn't have evidence to be confident that they were on the right track.


----------



## Chat Noir

HansZimmer said:


> Pizza maker: "Isn't this the best pizza you have eaten?"
> Consumer: "No, I've eaten better pizzas!"
> Pizza maker: "No, you are an idiot. This pizza is the best one. I'm a pizza maker, so I'm right!"
> Consumer: "WTF do you want? I prefer pizzas of other resturant!"
> Pizza maker: "Yours is not a critical appreciation!"


In that little dialogue your position is closer to that of 'pizza maker'. Pull your gun out of the holster _before_ firing!



HansZimmer said:


> To write a critical appreciation doesn't mean to write something with which Chat Noir agrees. It means to explain why you like something instead of simply saying that you like it.
> I've already written my critical appreciation, it's just that you don't agree with it.


No it's actually not that. It's that I (and some others) have explained over and over again how having chord progressions and what is essentially pop music and cinematic cues performed by an orchestra, is not the same thing as musical artworks. You simply refuse to be told.



HansZimmer said:


> The idea that we should judge music in an emotionless way is ridiculous. It's like to say that you have you don't to judge a pizza by it's taste. How exactly can I judge the theme and the drammatic arc with my emotions turned off? More in general, how can judge music with your emotions turned off, if music is basically a "poem made with sounds" and a poem is an emotional thing?
> Finally, why should I appreciate music that doesn't give me emotions instead of music that gives me emotions?


Nothing wrong with having an emotional reaction to music or factoring this into the appreciation. The problem is when this becomes the main focus of judgement and evaluation (i.e. in this thread deciding it is indistinguishable from 'classical music') and is thought to be unassailable because it's 'my view'. On those grounds a great lover of _50 Shades Of Gray _can inaugurate that into the annals of 'great literature'.



HansZimmer said:


> I think that we can all agree about the fact that your personal tastes are perfectly legitimate and no one wants to force you in appreciating film music, but to call the audience of Classic FM "mediocre listeners" is arrogant, snob and obnoxious.
> You are producing a lot of similar statements in this discussion.


No, there isn't just a middle ground where all 'tastes' and 'opinions' and 'views' carry an equal relevant weight as some mark of respect. This doesn't mean that listeners of Classic FM are bad or stupid people, it means Classic FM is not a music station geared towards the deeper appreciation of art music. People who want that listen to e.g. BBC Radio 3 or France Musique or a few other stations. It doesn't even mean I dislike popular classical radio stations, I listen to them on and off, but they are entertainment and increasingly have turned to airing mostly modern film scores, which are like the popular entry-level into classical-like music. And again I don't really want to critique that because the more people drawn towards this music the better, but let's not pretend that the stuff put out by Zimmer and co is anything like on a par with professional classical music composers. Others may be more lenient with you on this, but I no longer will be. In comparison he's no better than David Bowie (and not even _that _good).


----------



## Luchesi

DaveM said:


> That’s perhaps the most reasonable summary/perspective of the subject in this entire thread.


"If someone wishes to characterize some film music as classical music based on the forms, instrumentation, performance in orchestral concerts, and sound, that's understandable."

I can't help but think of the ramifications for the education of new music students. What are we to teach them? and why?


----------



## hammeredklavier

mmsbls said:


> I think film music can sound very similar to classical music. I think many experts consider some film music *well written and moving.* Some film music is *very difficult to perform.* If someone wishes to characterize some film music as classical music based on the forms, instrumentation, performance in orchestral concerts, and sound, that's understandable.


Consider "Indian classical music". What differentiates "classical music" from "old music" by definition?
If these aren't "classical music", then what are they?-


----------



## Chat Noir

Luchesi said:


> "If someone wishes to characterize some film music as classical music based on the forms, instrumentation, performance in orchestral concerts, and sound, that's understandable."
> 
> I can't help but think of the ramifications for the education of new music students. What are we to teach them? and why?


I don't know that it's a major worry, though I'm willing to be pointed to any great changes in recent music education that have passed me by. When I was studying lots of students were interested in film music and had favourites, but soon learned to see how little of it stood up to scrutiny.


----------



## hammeredklavier

mmsbls said:


> I think it's reasonable to consider the process of creating film music to be different enough from the process of creating classical music such that film music is characterized separately.


*Incidental music* https://www.dictionary.com/browse/incidental-music
noun
background music for a film, television programme, etc
music intended primarily to point up or accompany parts of the action of a play or to serve as transitional material between scenes.
in·ci·den·tal mu·sic
/ˈˌinsəˈˌden(t)l ˈmyo͞ozik/
_noun_
music used in a film or play as a background to create or enhance a particular atmosphere.


----------



## Luchesi

Chat Noir said:


> I don't know that it's a major worry, though I'm willing to be pointed to any great changes in recent music education that have passed me by. When I was studying lots of students were interested in film music and had favourites, but soon learned to see how little of it stood up to scrutiny.


I might get an argument with this and turn my perception of music into tatters, but I take that risk. Fun stuff.

The way I see CM is that it is music from the earliest of our species - up until today. All the smaller genres came from CM. (But early CM probably came from folk and popular music, and then left it behind, as a consequence of its increasingly serious intent.)

So here goes. In addition to all the things that CM is, I will claim that it's always on the cutting edge. Mozart and Beethoven, Liszt, Brahms and Wagner were on the cutting edge, Schoenberg etc. Film music can be on the cutting edge of that small genre, but it's not on the cutting edge of music..

This might be just another way of saying what's been asserted in here over and over. Or it might seem wrong to some posters.


cutting edge
2 [ in sing. ] the latest or most advanced stage in the development of something: researchers at the cutting edge of molecular biology.
3 [ in sing. ] a dynamic or invigorating quality: the campaign began to lose its cutting edge.
• incisiveness and directness of expression: his wit retains its cutting edge.


----------



## DaveM

Luchesi said:


> I might get an argument with this and turn my perception of music into tatters, but I take that risk. Fun stuff.
> 
> The way I see CM is that it is music from the earliest of our species - up until today. All the smaller genres came from CM. (But early CM probably came from folk and popular music, and then left it behind, as a consequence of its increasingly serious intent.)
> 
> So here goes. In addition to all the things that CM is, I will claim that it's always on the cutting edge. Mozart and Beethoven, Liszt, Brahms and Wagner were on the cutting edge, Schoenberg etc. Film music can be on the cutting edge of that small genre, but it's not on the cutting edge of music..


IMO, unfortunately, classical music has not been on the cutting edge for some time. Some of the highly melodic classical-like film music reminds me of a time when it was (even though film music can never replace ’traditional’ classical music).


----------



## fluteman

HansZimmer said:


> Pizza maker: "Isn't this the best pizza you have eaten?"
> Consumer: "No, I've eaten better pizzas!"
> Pizza maker: "No, you are an idiot. This pizza is the best one. I'm a pizza maker, so I'm right!"
> Consumer: "WTF do you want? I prefer pizzas of other resturant!"
> Pizza maker: "Yours is not a critical appreciation!"
> 
> 
> To write a critical appreciation doesn't mean to write something with which Chat Noir agrees. It means to explain why you like something instead of simply saying that you like it.
> I've already written my critical appreciation, it's just that you don't agree with it.
> 
> The score of Pearl Harbor is not my favourite work of Hans Zimmer, but other of his works IMO belong to the category of "the best film scores".
> I watch a new film daily, so I've heard a lot of film music, and IMO the music of the Lion King is memorable.
> 
> I've already explained the reason. The melody of "This Land" IMO is brilliant for two reasons:
> 
> The theme is wonderful and it works very well (it captures very well the emotions of the film)
> The well built drammatic arc brings the theme through different stages with strong and contrasting emotions. IMO an example of a good usage and development of a theme that it's in itself already excellent.
> These are the reasons... and this is a critical appreciation. To give a critical appreciation doesn't mean to agree with your idea that the pizza with ham it's the best one and the right salting is the one you like. It means to explain the reason of your personal tastes (like for example "I prefer this pizza because is less salty), and I've done that.
> 
> The idea that we should judge music in an emotionless way is ridiculous. It's like to say that you don't have to judge a pizza by it's taste. How exactly can I judge the theme and the drammatic arc with my emotions turned off? More in general, how can you judge music with your emotions turned off, if music is basically a "poem made with sounds" and a poem is an emotional thing?
> Finally, why should I appreciate music that doesn't give me emotions instead of music that gives me emotions?
> 
> My view about this subject is very simple: a good composer is someone who writes good poems. Since a poem induces subjective emotions, there are not objective criterias to say which are the best poems, but some composers are able to reach the hearth of more persons and so they are elevated by the society.
> 
> 
> 
> I think that we can all agree about the fact that your personal tastes are perfectly legitimate and no one wants to force you in appreciating film music, but to call the audience of Classic FM "mediocre listeners" is arrogant, snob and obnoxious.
> You are producing a lot of similar statements in this discussion.


All reasonable enough. The trouble is, the question of what is or isn't classical music isn't a matter of anyone's personal opinions or tastes. It has to do with fundamental cultural traditions and values that persist over centuries, and that by common consensus are successfully evoked by art that therefore remains part of the cultural landscape for centuries. It isn't a matter of my pretentiously dictating to you what is or isn't great art. It's that Shakespeare's plays and Beethoven's symphonies are still performed. But if you look at a list of the top ten songs in America of 1920, you will probably recognize none of them, unless you are over 60 and did a lot of singing with your grandfather at the piano as a kid. That's all.


----------



## DaveM

Chat Noir said:


> ..No it's actually not that. It's that I (and some others) have explained over and over again how having chord progressions and what is essentially pop music and cinematic cues performed by an orchestra, is not the same thing as musical artworks. You simply refuse to be told.


You may think you are speaking for authorities on the subject, but you’re not. Anyone who goes out of their way to diminish the type of film music some of us are moved by and describes one of the most successful film music composers as a rock musician turned hack sounds like someone who works in the back room and mistakes it for the front office.


----------



## Chat Noir

DaveM said:


> You may think you are speaking for authorities on the subject, but you’re not. Anyone who goes out of their way to diminish the type of film music some of us are moved by and describes one of the most successful film music composers as a rock musician turned hack sounds like someone who works in the back room and mistakes it for the front office.


Right, okay. I just sweep the floors, stack the shelves, shine the shoes etc. You know best because Hans Zimmer brought a tear to your eye. Yes.


----------



## HansZimmer

Chat Noir said:


> In that little dialogue your position is closer to that of 'pizza maker'.


Not at all. I'm not the one who says that his favourite composers are objectively better than the composers who are liked by other persons. My view about this subject is clear for anyone who is able to read: more composers, more choice. We can't speak about politics here, but I'm a liberal.



> No it's actually not that. It's that I (and some others) have explained over and over again how having chord progressions


I don't understand why you continously speak about chord progressions, like if they were incompatible with classical music. They are used in classical music too.

_"In a musical composition, a *chord progression* or *harmonic progression* (informally *chord changes*, used as a plural) is a succession of chords. Chord progressions are the foundation of harmony in Western musical tradition from the common practice era of Classical music to the 21st century"

Chord progression - Wikipedia _



> and what is essentially pop music


You evidently don't know what is pop music. It's a musical genre, namely a way to arrange melodic material.

For example, in the film Titanic, the main theme of the score has been used to arrange the pop song for Celine Dion.
The arrangement for Celine Dion is pop, while the arrangements for the score are orchestral film music. They are two distinct genres.

Someone arranged the first movement of the Beethoven symphony as rock music.






You could use the melody to arrange a pop song, although pop usually uses the song form. This is an other difference: film music is written in free form.

You say that you are a musical expert but apparently you are not able to distinguish music genres.



> is not the same thing as musical artworks


Can you explain why is this piece (composed for a film score) not a waltz?






Now will you say that a waltz is pop music?




> The problem is when this becomes the main focus of judgement and evaluation (i.e. in this thread deciding it is indistinguishable from 'classical music') and is thought to be unassailable because it's 'my view'. On those grounds a great lover of _50 Shades Of Gray _can inaugurate that into the annals of 'great literature'.


It's not that I think that there is not objective quality at all in music. There is a line under which the music can be considered trivial and/or ignorant. Perhaps we simply think that what we consider to be the best orchestral film music is above the line.



> No, there isn't just a middle ground where all 'tastes' and 'opinions' and 'views' carry an equal relevant weight as some mark of respect.


In science surely not, while in the field of arts the different views basically carry an equal weight, at least for the products above the line of minimum objective quality. As film music and classical music are both above the line, a person can subjectively consider a piece of orchestral film music as superior in respect to a piece of classical music.



> but let's not pretend that the stuff put out by Zimmer and co is anything like on a par with professional classical music composers


There are persons who think that film music and classical music are two distinct things and that the first one is better, and they are entitled to think so. I know a guy who thinks that the orchestral film music is basically an enhanced version of classical music (similar aesthetic, but more exciting).



> In comparison he's no better than David Bowie (and not even _that _good)


Someone might also prefer David Bowie more than Beethoven, so what? The problem is that is difficult to compare composers of different genres of music, since you might put down David Bowie only because you don't like his genre of music. It's better to compare film music composers with other film music composers and David Bowie with other singers of his genre.

IMO orchestral film music is first of all better as a genre of music and it's quite clear that you prefer classical music as a genre of music in respect to the genre of David Bowie.
In this forum many persons will agree with us, but if you go out from this forum the opinions change.


----------



## Forster

fluteman said:


> when you confront questions such as, What is or is not classical music? I see thread after thread here sink into confusion, inanity, and sometimes something that looks uncomfortably like white European cultural supremacy.


There's no accounting for the level of understanding here at TC. There are differing levels of experience and ability re music and re discussion forums. Over time, members can formulate quite well-informed opinions, and also rely on a number of members to post intelligently (like yourself and, yes, the much-missed Strange Magic). The fact that some threads contain confusion and inanity is not a reason to declare that we must turn to books (no matter how estimable) for our online discussion. Worthwhile as that is, it's not really a practical solution where the internet is concerned.


----------



## fluteman

Forster said:


> There's no accounting for the level of understanding here at TC. There are differing levels of experience and ability re music and re discussion forums. Over time, members can formulate quite well-informed opinions, and also rely on a number of members to post intelligently (like yourself and, yes, the much-missed Strange Magic). The fact that some threads contain confusion and inanity is not a reason to declare that we must turn to books (no matter how estimable) for our online discussion. Worthwhile as that is, it's not really a practical solution where the internet is concerned.


No need for books to learn about music, imho. Just listen. But learning about history is another matter. And what is or is not classical music is very much a question of history.


----------



## Chat Noir

HansZimmer said:


> I don't understand why you continously speak about chord progressions, like if they were incompatible with classical music. They are used in classical music too.


Perhaps I should be clearer. I mean simplistic rock-style chord progressions arranged for an orchestra. Perhaps with a few 'added tones' to the chords to make them appear vaguely 'classical'. If you knew what you were listening for, you'd know how hackneyed these things are.



HansZimmer said:


> You could use the melody to arrange a pop song, although pop usually uses the song form. This is an other difference: film music is written in free form.
> 
> You say that you are a musical expert but apparently you are not able to distinguish music genres.


Film music is hardly written in a 'free form' it has a pretty definedstructure. In general, if they go for the orchestra route, it imitates historical classical forms. Sometimes it uses a song form. It is its nevertheless its own genre, not classical music. I know the differences.



HansZimmer said:


> Now will you say that a waltz is pop music?


Of course a waltz can be pop music. Mull of Kintyre is a waltz. Blue Moon of Kentucky was a country song waltz. Waltzes are popular folk dances. We already know they were elevated to the concert hall, not least by Johann Strauss. I don't know what point you are making.



HansZimmer said:


> while in the field of arts the different views basically carry an equal weight, at least for the products above the line of minimum objective quality. As film music and classical music are both above the line, a person can subjectively consider a piece of orchestral film music as superior in respect to a piece of classical music.


Still no. It's not really about whether you simply 'like' something. The point is that film music is a self-contained genre that borrows from classical models, but often produces approachable versions of 'classical' styles. Hence it's wide acceptance, it doesn't need a great deal of thought to consume it; the blueprint and soundscape has been drummed into the cultural tapestry for several hundred years. And fixed as 'film style' for the last hundred or so. It is designed to accompany images with a running time. They're not concert works. You'll learn this or you won't learn this, I don't really care by this point. It's not that I think you ought not to be listening to this entry-level pseudo-classical music, that's up to you.


----------



## HansZimmer

Chat Noir said:


> Perhaps I should be clearer. I mean simplistic rock-style chord progressions arranged for an orchestra. Perhaps with a few 'added tones' to the chords to make them appear vaguely 'classical'. If you knew what you were listening for, you'd know how hackneyed these things are.


Perhaps you should be even clearer by analyzing an actual example.


----------



## Chat Noir

HansZimmer said:


> Perhaps you should be even clearer by analyzing an actual example.


I have no truck with John Williams, good orchestrator and writer, though since he's taken so much from existing classical material, it's going to be like that classical music isn't it?

Your persistence in this quest is bordering on the weird.


----------



## HansZimmer

Chat Noir said:


> I have no truck with John Williams, good orchestrator and writer, though since he's taken so much from existing classical material, it's going to be like that classical music isn't it?
> 
> Your persistence in this quest is bordering on the weird.


Ok. So, John Williams doesn't use what you call "simplistic rock-style chord progressions", which means that you were generalizing. Who are the film music composers who use what you call "simplistic rock-style chord progressions", what does it mean and why should the quality of music be judged exclusively with chord progressions?


----------



## Chat Noir

I'm unfollowing this thread. It's completely idiotic. Please don't quote me so I don't get re-connected to it.


----------



## pianozach

HansZimmer said:


> Ok. So, John Williams doesn't use what you call "simplistic rock-style chord progressions", which means that you were generalizing. Who are the film music composers who use what you call "simplistic rock-style chord progressions", what does it mean and why should the quality of music be judged exclusively with chord progressions?


Yep. There is a combination of often antithetical elements that comprise Classical-type music. Not a single piece has all of them, whether it's canonical passages, polyrhythms, development of thematic material, or a dozen other things. There is also Classical Music that has simplistic chord progressions, yet is considered to be Classical.



Chat Noir said:


> Film music is hardly written in a 'free form' it has a pretty definedstructure. In general, if they go for the orchestra route, it imitates historical classical forms. Sometimes it uses a song form. It is its nevertheless its own genre, not classical music. I know the differences.


Here's the hysterical thing: Both of you are making excellent points, but you both are failing to see the commonality of your Points of View.

The problem is not with the people discussing the subject, but that the subject itself ("Classical Music" vs. "Film Music") compares two musical genres that both are not only ill-defined, but adamantly refuse to be boxed into any sort of defined categorical space.


----------



## fluteman

pianozach said:


> Yep. There is a combination of often antithetical elements that comprise Classical-type music. Not a single piece has all of them, whether it's canonical passages, polyrhythms, development of thematic material, or a dozen other things. There is also Classical Music that has simplistic chord progressions, yet is considered to be Classical.
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the hysterical thing: Both of you are making excellent points, but you both are failing to see the commonality of your Points of View.
> 
> The problem is not with the people discussing the subject, but that the subject itself ("Classical Music" vs. "Film Music") compares two musical genres that both are not only ill-defined, but adamantly refuse to be boxed into any sort of defined categorical space.


Yes, and that's because it's a question of cultural traditions, not music theory. The neat and convenient genre categorizations are a tool of the modern music industry, in order to help generate sales and profits. Talk Classical itself, which is a money-generating business (I'm not privy to how profitable it is), understandably makes use of them.


----------



## Simon Moon

DaveM said:


> IMO, unfortunately, classical music has not been on the cutting edge for some time. Some of the highly melodic classical-like film music reminds me of a time when it was (even though film music can never replace ’traditional’ classical music).


Please define your use of the term "cutting edge", because you seem to be using it in way that is not how it usually defined with regards to art.

I am not quite sure how music that reminds you of music from centuries ago, can be cutting edge? That seems like an oxymoron to me.


----------



## HansZimmer

pianozach said:


> Yep. There is a combination of often antithetical elements that comprise Classical-type music. Not a single piece has all of them, whether it's canonical passages, polyrhythms, development of thematic material, or a dozen other things. There is also Classical Music that has simplistic chord progressions, yet is considered to be Classical.
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the hysterical thing: Both of you are making excellent points, but you both are failing to see the commonality of your Points of View.
> 
> The problem is not with the people discussing the subject, but that the subject itself ("Classical Music" vs. "Film Music") compares two musical genres that both are not only ill-defined, but adamantly refuse to be boxed into any sort of defined categorical space.


Keep in mind that his argument is not that orchestral film music has nothing to do with classical music, but that the composers of the industry are bad composers. Apparently he saves John Williams and he considers Hans Zimmer to be the boss of the bad composers.
Alghough it's a known fact that there is a gap in technical knowledge between Hans Zimmer and John Williams, I think that the first is great in capturing the mood of the films and using his limited technique for providing expressive and beatiful music that works very well. The view of art of Chat Noir is very limited.


----------



## DaveM

Simon Moon said:


> Please define your use of the term "cutting edge", because you seem to be using it in way that is not how it usually defined with regards to art.
> 
> I am not quite sure how music that reminds you of music from centuries ago, can be cutting edge? That seems like an oxymoron to me.


I take your point. The term ‘cutting-edge’ was used in the post I responded to and so I used it rather loosely in my response. I probably wouldn’t have originated a post using the term the way I used it here so I won’t defend it.


----------



## Luchesi

DaveM said:


> I take your point. The term ‘cutting-edge’ was used in the post I responded to and so I used it rather loosely in my response. I probably wouldn’t have originated a post using the term the way I used it here so I won’t defend it.


From what I've read, Mozart and LvB suspected that they were cutting-edge. Liszt and Wagner too. We remember that they were serious about innovation and newness, in addition to other aspects of quality from the history of CM. Is it a helpful personality trait for making progress? What were the various personalities?


----------



## DaveM

A favorite Hans Zimmer soundtrack of mine from IMO a period when he did some of his best work is The Peacemaker (1997) particularly ’Sarajevo’ which is an over 8 minute suite. Whether anyone wants to contest whether it is classical-like or not, I went into a local medical center and had a PET scan done while I listened to it and the music triggered some the classical music parts of my brain.


----------



## Forster

pianozach said:


> two musical genres that both are not only ill-defined, but adamantly refuse to be boxed into any sort of defined categorical space.


At least one of the two combatants is not trying to force them both into the same box.


----------



## mikeh375

I wonder how many here think this is 'classical' and deserving of a seat next to Mozart and Beethoven, especially from 1'20" on....be honest now...


----------



## Forster

^^ A trifle unfair. It might be better to consider how well it compares alongside CM composers of a similar style - from the 20thC at least.


----------



## mikeh375

^^^ I know.... Just felt like being naughty. Here's the thing, I think this almost qualifies as concert music. I say almost because I know the film so well, so much so I can't divorce film images from my head as I hear it - that is my problem. As a result of this familiarity I can also hear the cuts so to speak in the music which also taints the linear flow for my ears. Another moden music fan who doesn't know the film, might well think this sits perfectly fine in the genre. I could certainly hear this as potential movement from a larger work if it was expanded somewhat and/or musically taken further away from the filmic context in terms of narrative.


----------



## janxharris

I thought it might be worth mentioning that John Williams has zero entries in the Talk Classical Classical Music: Recommended Works list (type Ctrl F for a search box).

Do people find that surprising?

*Edit: He does have one entry on the 133rd tier: Williams, J.: Escapades [2002]. Apparently, it's from 'Catch me if you can'. So, it's an example of a piece of film music that talkclassical members do consider to be classical (at least those that voted for it do).*


----------



## HansZimmer

mikeh375 said:


> I wonder how many here think this is 'classical' and deserving of a seat next to Mozart and Beethoven, especially from 1'20" on....be honest now...


Every composer is the best one in his own style.

To be honest, it would be difficult even, for example, to compare Dvorak with Mozart, because you might simply think that one of the two is better for the simple fact that you prefer his style.

I think that I'm lucky for the fact that I can appreciate many different styles inside orchestral music (from baroque to film music) and I like that there is a lot of choice. Without film music and it's particular sound there would be less choice.

So, I don't think that we necessarily have to to establish who is better. The right question is: have Mozart or Beethoven ever composed music that sounds like the one of James Horner? If they have not, it means that James Horner can't be replaced by Mozart or Beethoven. Viceversa is also true: James Horner can not replace Mozart or Beethoven. It's as simple as that in my point of view.
If James Horner would have composed pastiches of Mozart, then his music would be redundant and not necessary.

That said, speaking of James Horner, I like very much this concert arrangement based on the suite of "Field of Dreams".

P.S. philosophical concepts aside, Mozart for me is the number 1, a musical genius! An interesting question would be: what would he compose for Hollywood films, if he was still alive? Would he win the award "Best original score" each year? If he was so good in the galant style, maybe he would also be great in the "film music" style.


----------



## Chat Noir

Quelque chose d’intéressant pour l'initiateur de cette discussion (t'es Suisse, non?):









Du cinéma au concert


Rendus célèbres par leurs musiques de film, ils sont aujourd'hui des compositeurs prisés des salles de concert classiques.




www.rts.ch


----------



## HansZimmer

Chat Noir said:


> Quelque chose d’intéressant pour l'initiateur de cette discussion (t'es Suisse, non?):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Du cinéma au concert
> 
> 
> Rendus célèbres par leurs musiques de film, ils sont aujourd'hui des compositeurs prisés des salles de concert classiques.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.rts.ch


Merci, mais je ne parle pas français. 

Parlo italiano.


----------



## HansZimmer

I've opened a new poll for the competition in the Movie Corner: Best Dramatic Film Score - 1996

The score of the film "Sense and Sensibility" sounds very much like the music of the classical period.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Almost all film music today, especially written by the likes of someone like Hans Zimmer (or as I like to call him, Hans Dimmer) is commercialized pap catered to the masses. Being a film composer used to be some kind of prestige, especially back in the day of early Hollywood, but that time as long since come to past. Rarely does film music stand on its own, but there are some that have stood the test of time like Herrmann's _Psycho_ or Korngold's _The Sea Hawk_ for example. There used to be an art to film music and a lot of thought was given to each scene sequence. Again, this has gone out the window, especially over the past 30 years or so.


----------



## HansZimmer

Neo Romanza said:


> Almost all film music today, especially written by the likes of someone like Hans Zimmer (or as I like to call him, Hans Dimmer) is commercialized pap catered to the masses. Being a film composer used to be some kind of prestige, especially back in the day of early Hollywood, but that time as long since come to past. Rarely does film music stand on its own, but there are some that have stood the test of time like Herrmann's _Psycho_ or Korngold's _The Sea Hawk_ for example. There used to be an art to film music and a lot of thought was given to each scene sequence. Again, this has gone out the window, especially over the past 30 years or so.


Your intervention about Hans Zimmer is strongly opinionated. Ok, you don't like his music, it's clear, but this doesn't mean that there are not artistic merits in his works.

However if you don't like Hans Zimmer there are still many other composers, starting from John Williams.

Your idea that film music can't stand on its own is also strongly opinionated. The fact that Hans Zimmer sells tickets for concerts (see the video here below) shows that many people (including myself) think that it's possible to listen to film music outside of the films, despite your personal opinions.
Finally, there is nothing bad in creating music that people like. Remember that in the classical period the function of classical music was essentially the entertainment. Mozart and Beethoven were entertainers!


----------



## Neo Romanza

HansZimmer said:


> Your intervention about Hans Zimmer is strongly opinionated. Ok, you don't like his music, it's clear, but this doesn't mean that there are not artistic merits in his works.
> 
> However if you don't like Hans Zimmer there are still many other composers, starting from John Williams.
> 
> Your idea that film music can't stand on its own is also strongly opinionated. The fact that Hans Zimmer sells tickets for concerts (see the video here below) shows that many people (including myself) think that it's possible to listen to film music outside of the films, despite your personal opinions.
> Finally, there is nothing bad in creating music that people like. Remember that in the classical period the function of classical music was essentially the entertainment. Mozart and Beethoven were entertainers!


Strongly opinionated? Well duh, that's the idea. I already cited two examples of film scores that stand on their own and none of my other examples would have Hans Dimmer's name attached to them, because he's a first-rate hack. Also, your point about Hans Dimmer selling tickets is irrelevant to me. I don't care if his music brings in a packed concert hall! There's a lot of people out there that attend Kenny G or André Rieu concerts, too. It doesn't mean the music is compelling or worth a serious listener's time. Don't conflate popularity with artistic merit. They're not the same.


----------



## PeterKC

Didn't Barbara Streisand do an opera album?


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

Neo Romanza said:


> Almost all film music today, especially written by the likes of someone like Hans Zimmer (or as I like to call him, Hans Dimmer) is commercialized pap catered to the masses. Being a film composer used to be some kind of prestige,


"Commercialized" "catered to the masses" is by itself a pretty meaningless statement - the masses will eat up anything that's marketed to them and/or picks up steam in some way, and repeat any opinion given to them by respected idols / authority figures or peers, so "commercialized pap" could literally be anything.

"Prestige" and "serious" are also just buzzwords and don't mean anything; plus didn't Zimmer score The Prestige lol


----------



## Forster

Neo Romanza said:


> Don't conflate popularity with artistic merit.


On the other hand, don't assume that because something is popular, it doesn't have artistic merit.


----------



## HansZimmer

Neo Romanza said:


> Strongly opinionated? Well duh, that's the idea. I already cited two examples of film scores that stand on their own and none of my other examples would have Hans Dimmer's name attached to them, because he's a first-rate hack. Also, your point about Hans Dimmer selling tickets is irrelevant to me. I don't care if his music brings in a packed concert hall! There's a lot of people out there that attend Kenny G or André Rieu concerts, too. It doesn't mean the music is compelling or worth a serious listener's time. Don't conflate popularity with artistic merit. They're not the same.


I don't know what does "serious listener" mean. You are simply saying that if someone likes melodies that you don't like is not a serious listener. I don't understand why several people here don't understand that the melodies are subjective and always want to argue about personal preferences. It's a kiddy behaviour.

I didn't say that Hans Zimmer is a good composer because he sells tickets. I said that if the people go to concerts of film music it means that it can stand alone.

In regard to Hans Zimmer, I simply think that some of his scores are good and at least one is excellent (The Lion King). This is my personal opinion, doesn't matter how many persons agree with me. It's not relevant. I don't have to justify my personal melodic tastes.
If you can prove scientifically that the melodies of Hans Zimmer are not good, then do it!


----------



## Neo Romanza

HansZimmer said:


> I don't know what does "serious listener" mean. You are simply saying that if someone likes melodies that you don't like is not a serious listener. I don't understand why several people here don't understand that the melodies are subjective and always want to argue about personal preferences. It's a kiddy behaviour.
> 
> I didn't say that Hans Zimmer is a good composer because he sells tickets. I said that if the people go to concerts of film music it means that it can stand alone.
> 
> In regard to Hans Zimmer, I simply think that some of his scores are good and at least one is excellent (The Lion King). This is my personal opinion, doesn't matter how many persons agree with me. It's not relevant. I don't have to justify my personal melodic tastes.


No, _you_ said if someone likes melodies that you don't like they are not a serious listener. I didn't say that at all. Melodies unto themselves are found in all kinds of music. Anyway, I'm not attacking your taste, I'm attacking your silly assertion that film music can stand with the best of what classical music has to offer. It can't and never will.


----------



## Ethereality

The problem is with the thread title. It reads "film music," so it's not specific. You can argue 'this piece or filmtrack is really good and should be part of the classics' since the term classical isn't a genre but nothing more than an associative word for popular music of old. The modern composer Saariaho isn't really "classical" since she's not classic, but you can argue that her pieces should be. Just specify what type of tracks you're referring to when you make an argumentation.

I don't think there's a lot of great film or tv show music out there. However the stuff I do love from these outlets, are almost as good as classical music. The Vgm genre is a goldmine of fine art. I just don't see the point in arguing they should be classic if no one here listens to them. I posted tracks in some "greatest music" threads and received a few_ likes_ from smart people.


----------



## HansZimmer

Neo Romanza said:


> No, _you_ said if someone likes melodies that you don't like they are not a serious listener. I didn't say that at all. Melodies unto themselves are found in all kinds of music. Anyway, I'm not attacking your taste, I'm attacking your silly assertion that film music can stand with the best of what classical music has to offer. It can't and never will.


It's only your personal opinion. Nothing more, nothing less.

There isn't any machine to measure the quality of a melody. If you subjectively think that the best melodies of film music are as good as the best melodies of classical music, then you will think that film music is as good as classical music. Otherwise, you will think that classical music is better. It's as simple as that.
There is no need to argue about personal tastes

In my opinion, in film music there are some excellent melodies.


----------



## Neo Romanza

HansZimmer said:


> It's only your personal opinion. Nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> There isn't any machine to measure the quality of a melody. If you subjectively think that the best melodies of film music are as good as the best melodies of classical music, then you will think that film music is as good as classical music. Otherwise, you will think that classical music is better. It's as simple as that.
> There is no need to argue about personal tastes
> 
> In my opinion, in film music there are some excellent melodies.


Again, you keep talking about melodies. What cares! Melodies exist in all kinds of music. Did you not read that part of my reply to you? Classical music being a more fulfilling genre isn't my own opinion, it's a fact. It's the reason why people are still talking about Beethoven or Bach and not aren't talking about the latest Hans Dimmer film score or one of John Williams' scores. There's no question in my mind (and the majority of this forum) that classical music will continue to find an audience for any listener who wants to delve deeper into an emotional/intellectual world that no other music can provide.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

Regarding the whole "standing on its own" thing - music generally exists on a wide spectrum of abstraction, so while, say, a typical "sonata movement" or "song" (played on instruments) only creates the most abstract and opaque extra-musical impressions in the brain - mostly just pure emotions, moods and aesthetics - others (Romantic "climax structures" or program music etc.) put much more concrete images and narratives in your head;
especially if they include the subject matter in their title, but not necessarily.

If you listen to a through-composed or otherwise organically structured opera, with no images, and without understanding any of the words, your brain is also being filled with relatively concrete images of what might be going on there, and what concrete scenarios the music is there to represent;
and if you already know the plot and the words, and have seen it before, it'll probably be the specifics that you already know about.

Same with a lot of film music - the film fans who listen to those CDs or go to the concerts, are inadvertedly reliving the movies (in a more abstract form perhaps), and those unfamiliar with the movie are gonna understand that this music is built around some kinda specific scenarios involving humans and images, that they only can try to imagine or speculate about.


Sometimes, this effect is perceived positively - at other times the ones who're out of the loop get thrown off, and even the ones who're familiar with scenes find that the score doesn't work as well in isolation (for various types of reasons).


So the points to keep in mind here are:
1) Both film and music theater ("number operas" sometimes barely at all - however the organic and through-composed ones a great deal) contain music that ranges from autonomous and standing on its own, to the polar opposite;
anyone arguing that "film isn't on the level of classical" for this reason, probably ought to exclude non-number-operas from the "classical" category, which I doubt many would go ahead with doing.

2) How good or bad that "lack of musical self-reliance" is (which, to reiterate, doesn't apply to the totality of film music to begin with) isn't a given, and is highly subjective / case-by-case.

3) Insisting that musical autonomy is the most superior ideal of them all, and everything else is beneath it, goes against at least 2 Romanticist notions - the notion that program music is good and should get written a lot, and the "Gesamtkunstwerk" ideal primarily associated with Wagner, which is about combining various artforms into an organic blend (instead of keeping them all separate and self-reliant), and really applies to all music theater to various degrees.



Comparably, certain popular film critics nowadays like to insist on how the script and "writing" (meaning just plot consistency really - dialogue isn't part of writing apparently, so any movie with great dialogue and plot problems is "badly written") is the most important aspect of everything, and all else is just support and secondary.

And all the comparable debates about whether the most important part of opera is the music, the words or the plot etc.


I'm among those who find all these attempts to establish universal rules and priorities a bit hacky, but anyway the main point here is not to forget that some babies are attached to the bathwater.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

Neo Romanza said:


> Again, you keep talking about melodies. What cares! Melodies exist in all kinds of music. Did you not read that part of my reply to you? Classical music being a more fulfilling genre isn't my own opinion, it's a fact. It's the reason why people are still talking about Beethoven or Bach and not aren't talking about the latest Hans Dimmer film score or one of John Williams' scores. There's no question in my mind (and the majority of this forum) that classical music will continue to find an audience for any listener who wants to delve deeper into an emotional/intellectual world that no other music can provide.


Huh? There's lots of people who only talk about Hans Dimmer and Bohn Railiams.


And "Beethoven or Bach" aren't alike - one of them got quickly put aside into the "outdated obsolete" category (after already having received somewhat limited recognition as a composer) and was only elevated to his current status by two consecutive rediscoveries centuries later;
while the other one has been enjoying uninterrupted success from his lifetime till now.

The "test of time" is a phoney baloney, and the primary reason why most "people still talk about Shakespeare 500 years later" is because they see other people in their surroundings talk about Shakespeare - not because they themselves went through the literature of his contemporaries and have agreed that he's the one who still holds up while the others don't.
However if you still insist on believing in it, you should probably remain agnostic for another 300 years at least idk


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

Ethereality said:


> The problem is with the thread title. It reads "film music," so it's not specific. You can argue 'this piece or filmtrack is really good and should be part of the classics' since *the term classical isn't a genre but nothing more than an associative word for popular music of old*. The modern composer Saariaho isn't really "classical" since she's not classic, but you can argue that her pieces should be. Just specify what type of tracks you're referring to when you make an argumentation.
> 
> I don't think there's a lot of great film or tv show music out there. However the stuff I do love from these outlets, are just as good as classical music. The Vgm genre on the other hand is a goldmine of fine art. I just don't see the point in arguing they should be classic if no one here listens to them. I posted tracks in some "greatest music" threads and received a few_ likes_ from smart people.


Well obscure and unsuccessful music from those times also gets categorized as CM;

however more generally speaking, my current impression is that both "classical" and "pop" are primarily defined around various (often stereotypical and/or mutually contradicting) notions and ideals that people have about social class divisions and artistic hierarchy, and indeed aren't particularly well defined or useful genre descriptors - anytime a debate starts somewhere about what "grey zone" thing does or doesn't belong inside the circle, everyone starts bringing their own criteria (of which there's at least like dozens) to the table.


These terms have a certain use as orientation guides, but once you step outside certain concentric circles (where everyone already agrees on the terminology and categorizations) and into the grey zones, it becomes pretty meaningless imo.


----------



## DaveM

And so after a ‘rest period’ this thread is resurrected with posting that only proves once again how limited the knowledge of film soundtracks and it’s composers is and yet, that doesn‘t give one pause before giving opinions that give it away.


----------



## Luchesi

I don't think we should teach that film music is classical music. I think that that would be a backward step in education. 

And I think music students have enough to learn in classical music - origins, history, development, music theory.


----------



## Aries

The thought that film music isn't classical music probably stemms from an decline of film music, because it makes old classical music look so different. But it seems to me that concert music has undergone the same stylistic development.

Can someone show me recently written film music (that wasn't written by John Williams) as great as these two:

Bernard Herrmann: Vertigo: Link

Georgy Sviridov: Snowstorm: Link

This music was written in the 1950s and 1960s. Vertigo reminds me of Isoldes Liebestod. Snowstorm contains the best valtz I have ever heard. *It doen't make sense at all to deny that this is classical music.* But maybe someone can show me a better valtz?

But I struggle to find really good new film music. The style is different today.

For example this: Hans Zimmers Inception: Link

This music focuses just on an effective expression of an athmosphere. There is sentimetality and sound surface, but not much artistic structure and deepth.

But new concert music tends to be composed in a similar way.

For example John Luther Adams Become Ocean: Link

And the same thing seems to have happened in popular music too. There is less melody today, more just primitive catchy sounds.

For me new film music and similar concert music often gets boring after 3 minutes. Epic music and trailor music is better in this regard imo. It focuses on an effective athmospheric expression too, but is much more on point. 2-3 minutes and the piece is over. If you don't have much to say, better make it short.


----------



## Chat Noir

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> anyone arguing that "film isn't on the level of classical" for this reason, probably ought to exclude non-number-operas from the "classical" category, which I doubt many would go ahead with doing.


I'm not so sure about this. .It's not about mere 'form' or genre, but the quality of the material. The bald fact is, rejected or not it's still a fact, the great majority of film music, and it's been so for a long time, is made up of tropes and cliches and diluted versions of more serious music.


----------



## HansZimmer

Neo Romanza said:


> Again, you keep talking about melodies. What cares! Melodies exist in all kinds of music. Did you not read that part of my reply to you? Classical music being a more fulfilling genre isn't my own opinion, it's a fact. It's the reason why people are still talking about Beethoven or Bach and not aren't talking about the latest Hans Dimmer film score or one of John Williams' scores. There's no question in my mind (and the majority of this forum) that classical music will continue to find an audience for any listener who wants to delve deeper into an emotional/intellectual world that no other music can provide.


In few words, if the western society promotes Beethoven and Bach, it's relevant.
If the same western society promotes John Williams and Hans Zimmer, it's irrelevant.

Double standards.

You have a crystal sphere that I don't have, because you have already decided that the names of Zimmer and Williams will be forgotten soon. You are not considering that there is a chance that Star Wars will become a classic of sci-fi films and The Lion King a classic of animated films... and who composed the music, which is considered a relevant part of the overall artistic product?

Regarding me, my opinion is really simple.

The Adagio at 9:12 of this Mozart's violin concerto, uploaded in my proud youtube channel, is excellent.






However, Mozart is not the only man who is able to compose such wonderful melodies. I've also found excellent melodies in film music.

On the other hand, there also movements of Mozart that I personally find boring and unmemorable, and some film scores have better melodies.

Just because Mozart is a legendary composer doesn't mean that every melody he has written is gold, and just because we still don't know if John Williams and Hans Zimmer will become legendary doesn't mean that can not write gold melodies.

My point of view is pragmatic, not dogmatic. You are free to believe in gods and religions, if you want, but my approach to music well be always pragmatic.


----------



## Chat Noir

Melodies schmelodies.


----------



## Neo Romanza

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> HansZimmer said:
> 
> 
> 
> In few words, if the western society promotes Beethoven and Bach, it's relevant.
> If the same western society promotes John Williams and Hans Zimmer, it's irrelevant.
> 
> Double standards.
> 
> You have a crystal sphere that I don't have, because you have already decided that the names of Zimmer and Williams will be forgotten soon. You are not considering that there is a chance that Star Wars will become a classic of sci-fi films and The Lion King a classic of animated films... and who composed the music, which is considered a relevant part of the overall artistic product?
> 
> Regarding me, my opinion is really simple.
> 
> The Adagio at 9:12 of this Mozart's violin concerto, uploaded in my proud youtube channel, is excellent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, Mozart is not the only man who is able to compose such wonderful melodies. I've also found excellent melodies in film music.
> 
> On the other hand, there also movements of Mozart that I personally find boring and unmemorable, and some film scores have better melodies.
> 
> Just because Mozart is a legendary composer doesn't mean that every melody he has written is gold, and just because we still don't know if John Williams and Hans Zimmer will become legendary doesn't mean that can not write gold melodies.
> 
> My point of view is pragmatic, not dogmatic. You are free to believe in gods and religions, if you want, but my approach to music well be always pragmatic.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure _why_ your primary focus seems to be on melodies when the reality is not all classical music relies upon melody nor should it.
Click to expand...


----------



## HansZimmer

Chat Noir said:


> I'm not so sure about this. .It's not about mere 'form' or genre, but the quality of the material. The bald fact is, rejected or not it's still a fact, the great majority of film music, and it's been so for a long time, is made up of tropes and cliches and diluted versions of more serious music.


I seriously doubt that the analytical attacks have ever persuaded anyone. Some analysts have also used this kind of arguments against Mozart and Beethoven, but they are still there.
The problem is that the artists move people, while the anaylists are boring.


----------



## HansZimmer

HansZimmer said:


> I seriously doubt that the analytical attacks have ever persuaded anyone. Some analysts have also used this kind of arguments against Mozart and Beethoven, but they are still there.
> The problem is that the artists move people, while the anaylists are boring.


Therefore the people believe in the artists, and not in the analysts.


----------



## Ethereality

Chat Noir said:


> Melodies schmelodies.


Smellodies. The new kind of ringtone for your phone that no longer makes a noise! Silent, but deadly. Comes in Tchaikovsky Frosty, Messiaen Mystery, Mozart's Pull-my-finger Lingerer, Beethoven's _Simple Smells, _and a free Wagner Euthanization Warrantee. Order while supplies gas.


----------



## pianozach

Ethereality said:


> *I don't think there's a lot of great film or tv show music out there*. However the stuff I do love from these outlets, are almost as good as classical music. The Vgm genre is a goldmine of fine art. I just don't see the point in arguing they should be classic if no one here listens to them. I posted tracks in some "greatest music" threads and received a few_ likes_ from smart people.


"Great" film or TV show music? That would be a matter of opinion. There is, of course, Williams, Zimmer, Jarre, Morricone, Horner, etc.

I have four CDs of *Christopher Franke*'s music from the television show *Babylon 5*. Interesting stuff. I like it. 

Is it "*great*"? Um, well, probably not. But it _*is*_ good, in spite of some of it being performed on virtual instruments. That's due, of course, to TV show budget constraints. To save money some of the music was performed by some German orchestra, which Franke would conduct virtually.


----------



## Ethereality

When I say great, it is entirely subjective yes. Interesting space music there. Wholly valid is it to consider these types of atmospheric orchestrated suites great. Another example of music appreciation might be the first half of _Leia's News_ by Williams. This is where peoples' ability for music appreciation really gets put to the test over a firm insistence for quantitative complexity. Can one understand real musical _ideas_ like a composer, or is one just the consumer of finished products.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Without reading all 90 pages in this thread, my first thought from the title alone is that the OP confused classical music with music composed for films. Just because film music often uses symphonic orchestras, it doesn't automatically make it classical music.


----------



## Forster

Aries said:


> Can someone show me recently written film music (that wasn't written by John Williams) as great as these two:


Can you first show us that the music you reference is great?

If you've read any of my posts in this thread, you'll know I've already pointed to modern film composers who, IMO, have composed interesting scores for decent movies. Too many members who post here don't actually watch movies now or pay attention to the composers currently at work unless they're called Zimmer or Williams. Nor do they recognise that modern movies are often plotted, scripted and filmed using different techniques and technologies, so it's hardly surprising that the scores are different than those of Hollywood's so-called golden years.

Two memorable scores that spring to mind - because they fit the movie, not because they resemble "great classical" - are for _Fargo_ and _The Assassination of Jesse James_. You've seen them, of course? And most recently, I enjoyed _Living _(only just released in the USA) scored by a new composer I've not heard of.


----------



## verandai

I tried to illustrate the difference between film-music patterns and "normal" musical development in this post (see comparison table at the bottom of the article):









Aletsch glacier - composition between film music and...


Hi, I know that the title seems a bit provocative ;) But this goal stated in the title is what I tried to achieve with my new composition: using film-music-patterns to support the images of the video But also to break free of these patterns and develop the inspirations I received from the...




www.talkclassical.com





At this kind of supportive music, I had more freedom than in "real" film-music, as I also could adapt the video by switching the pictures and changing their timings.

But still I had to consider some external restrictions as I wanted to support the atmosphere of the pictures and follow the story of the alpine tour. I think it's a nice compromise and that's why I personally enjoy this kind of composing.


----------



## Aries

Forster said:


> Can you first show us that the music you reference is great?


No, I don't have the possibility to do that, the music has to do it for itself.



Forster said:


> If you've read any of my posts in this thread, you'll know I've already pointed to modern film composers who, IMO, have composed interesting scores for decent movies.


The thread has 90 sites of posts and you contributed 11 sites of them, but many of your post don't point to film composers. I did not read the entire thread.



Forster said:


> Too many members who post here don't actually watch movies now or pay attention to the composers currently at work unless they're called Zimmer or Williams.


I also don't watch much movies, and also no Zimmer or Williams movies. I am interested in good film music without the context of the film, because it can be a good source of music. But because of this I will probably prefer music which can stand alone more.


----------



## Forster

Aries said:


> No, I don't have the possibility to do that, the music has to do it for itself.
> 
> The thread has 90 sites of posts and you contributed 11 sites of them, but many of your post don't point to film composers. I did not read the entire thread.
> 
> I also don't watch much movies, and also no Zimmer or Williams movies. I am interested in good film music without the context of the film, because it can be a good source of music. But because of this I will probably prefer music which can stand alone more.


Here's one of my relevant posts:



Forster said:


> Just checking the list of nominees for the past 5 years at the Oscars shows that there's more to score than Williams and Zimmer, Morricone and Goldsmith, Steiner and Herrmann.
> 
> Nicholas Britell
> Germaine Franco
> Jon Batiste
> Trent Reznor
> Atticus Ross
> Terence Blanchard
> Hildur Guðnadóttir
> Thomas Newman
> Ludwig Goransson
> Marc Shaiman
> Alexandre Desplat
> Jonny Greenwood
> Alberto Iglesias
> Emile Mosseri
> James Newton Howard
> Randy Newman
> Carter Burwell
> ...and, yes, John Williams and Hans Zimmer. (Out of these two titans, only Zimmer won in the last 5 years.)


Now, if you can show me that none of the scores by these composers is as great as that for _Vertigo_...

Plainly, your claim is beyond anyone's capacity to demonstrate.


----------



## Aries

Forster said:


> Now, if you can show me that none of the scores by these composers is as great as that for _Vertigo_...
> 
> Plainly, your claim is beyond anyone's capacity to demonstrate.


Which claim? I asked the question if there is as great new film music. I made a claim, that there is overall a decline of film music, but that does not mean that there can't be outsanding film music compared to the overall trend.

Neo Romanza revived the thread and it was are reply to his post. I removed the quote for some reason, maybe I should not have done it:


Neo Romanza said:


> Almost all film music today, especially written by the likes of someone like Hans Zimmer (or as I like to call him, Hans Dimmer) is commercialized pap catered to the masses. Being a film composer used to be some kind of prestige, especially back in the day of early Hollywood, but that time as long since come to past. Rarely does film music stand on its own, but there are some that have stood the test of time like Herrmann's _Psycho_ or Korngold's _The Sea Hawk_ for example. There used to be an art to film music and a lot of thought was given to each scene sequence. Again, this has gone out the window, especially over the past 30 years or so.


I think he has a point, but maybe it is a bit overstated.

There is a change in style imo, and I personally don't know film music in the new style that is as great, and that is why I asked. It is not just a rhetorical question. It was a real question with maybe some rhetorical value just in the case of no answer.


----------



## Forster

Aries said:


> Which claim?


This one:



Aries said:


> Can someone show me recently written film music (that wasn't written by John Williams) as great as these two: [etc]


I took your question to be rhetorical. My bad if it wasn't meant rhetorically, but that is why I challenged you to establish first that Vertigo has a "great" score.



Aries said:


> I made a claim, that there is overall a decline of film music,


And you've not offered any evidence to support this claim either. You've said yourself that you can't evidence the greatness of the score to _Vertigo_, only that it is self-evident, so how will you evidence that modern scores are of lesser quality?

BTW, remember that we tend to remember the outstanding or popular movies of the past, but there were many hundreds of run-of-the-mill films now forgotten. In other words, every era has its dross, and every era its shining examples.


----------



## HansZimmer

Neo Romanza said:


> I'm not sure _why_ your primary focus seems to be on melodies when the reality is not all classical music relies upon melody nor should it.


I can not speak for unmelodic classical music. Some persons like it, but in classical music I want to hear melodies, so I listen to romantique, classical and baroque music and to modern music only if it's melodic.


----------



## HansZimmer

Aries said:


> Which claim? I asked the question if there is as great new film music.


What do you mean with "new"? If you are speaking about the last three years, I don't know. I know that in some films of the nineties there are great scores.

The only piece I know of the last years is this one of John Williams: The March of the Resistance. I'd say that it's at least good.


----------



## Aries

Forster said:


> I took your question to be rhetorical. My bad if it wasn't meant rhetorically, but that is why I challenged you to establish first that Vertigo has a "great" score.
> 
> And you've not offered any evidence to support this claim either. You've said yourself that you can't evidence the greatness of the score to _Vertigo_, only that it is self-evident, so how will you evidence that modern scores are of lesser quality?


The greatness of music is no exact science. Music, especially classical music also so comlicated that a rational approach could easily fail to get on track with the greatness in it. It is possible to detect greatness by listening and repeated listening, but it is not really possible to explain it exactly rationally, because music and our brain work too complicated.

However an approximation to an explanation might be possible. I suggest that the following is a reason, that raises many older film music over many younger film music. Starting points of old film music are often motives and themes like in older classical music. These elements are alternated and developed. It is an interessting process during which great expressions are created. Staring point of newer film music seems to be the expression in the end and the smaller components are just used for this in a rather plain way. The expression can be effective like film directors wants it, but then music is less interessting in detail. This approach results in less depth.

When creating an theme it is nearby to write motivs that fit the idea or mood. However I think it is good old style to think about what else could be done with the created material. You can create an entire movement out of the first notes of Beethovens 5th symphony.


----------



## Forster

Aries said:


> Starting points of old film music are often motives and themes like in older classical music


I'd say that the use of theme and motivic development are as present now as they were "in the olden days". I guess you just don't watch enough current movies to be able to pick this out.



HansZimmer said:


> The only piece I know of the last years is this one of John Williams


Well that speaks volumes about your credibility when commenting on current film music.


----------



## HansZimmer

Forster said:


> Well that speaks volumes about your credibility when commenting on current film music.


I have never written that I'm an expert of film music. I have written that I closely listened to all film scores nominated for "Best original score" between the 1990 and the 1996 because of my game in the Movie Corner: Best Dramatic Film Score - 1996

I can only speak for that time span, for now. In 10 years I will be able to speak about the film scores of the 2022.


----------



## Aries

HansZimmer said:


> What do you mean with "new"? If you are speaking about the last three years, I don't know. I know that in some films of the nineties there are great scores.
> 
> The only piece I know of the last years is this one of John Williams: The March of the Resistance. I'd say that it's at least good.


Lets say last 30 years. John Williams is great, but I want to know what more there is.



Forster said:


> I'd say that the use of theme and motivic development are as present now as they were "in the olden days". I guess you just don't watch enough current movies to be able to pick this out.


I have definitively not much knowledge ragarding current movies, so its possible. But given what I am picking up I am not really convinced yet. Let me ask you: What is the overall direction of the film music history? Is there a stylistic change overall compared to 60 years ago, and if yes what is the change?


----------



## Forster

Aries said:


> Let me ask you: What is the overall direction of the film music history? Is there a stylistic change overall compared to 60 years ago, and if yes what is the change?


I'm not expert in film scores, so others will be better qualified to describe musical evolution. I am just an experienced film goer who pays attention to the soundtrack and the composers who created them. I've been going to the cinema since I was 5 (that's back in 1964) and watched hundreds of movies on TV, VCR, DVD and streamed. I have favourite films from all decades and most genres, and am familiar with some of the key movies from Germany, Japan, Russia, Italy and France, not just from the UK and USA.

What I would say is that there are still composers who can score in the same style as Steiner, Korngold and Herrmann; there are still composers who use jazz as it was used in the 50s; and there were always composers who focused more on rhythm than melody, it's just that we tend to find it easier to recall a tune than a rhythm, so those scores are more fondly remembered.

Three things spring to mind that have altered film score composition: sound design, editing styles and plotting. (Of course there are others, I've just picked three as they occur to me.)

The increased practice of telling stories out of chronological sequence, and holding back critical information so as to disrupt our sense of continuity (often for the purpose of the revealing twist) means scores can be designed to help the listener get their bearings, or confuse them more. So, for example, the composer might deliberately avoid using motifs to identify characters and avoid using familiar genres to signal emotional colours. Try the score for _Arrival_.

Mainstream action movies are generally edited more rapidly (that is, the cuts are more rapid), forcing composers to change the shape of the score. Try _Baby Driver_.

There seems to me to be a much closer relationship between sounds, dialogue and music, which is why "sound design" is now more of a thing than it used to be. Try _Dunkirk_.

Oh, and obviously, the development of synthesised sounds as well as the emergence of "atonality", minimalism, ambient genres (et al) has impacted on scores too. There are examples of some of these in _Living_.


----------



## Chat Noir

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Without reading all 90 pages in this thread, my first thought from the title alone is that the OP confused classical music with music composed for films. Just because film music often uses symphonic orchestras, it doesn't automatically make it classical music.


Yes, in short. Then 90 pages of long winded-denial and justification and a side-discussion about the collapse of 'western civilisation'.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Allow me to reiterate my rather abrasive past position about film music:

Aside from Korngold and Herrmann, I'd say my other favorite film composers are Jerry Goldsmith and Ennio Morricone. Of the more recent film scores that I have enjoyed were Howard Shore's _The Lord of the Rings_. These were incredibly well-done, IMHO. There's also a film score that featured Hilary Hahn prominently by James Newton Howard for M. Night Shyamalan's _The Village_ that I enjoyed. There are even some John Williams scores that I enjoy. There are, however, only a handful of film scores that I can enjoy on their own, but, unlike ballet where I don't need to see any of the choreography and can enjoy as a "concert suite", there are a lot of film scores that I feel can't stand on their own and this is because of the jumbled, uneven effect it has when listening to them without the visual accompaniment.

So I'm not a complete noob or some kind of elitist snob about film music, it's just that I feel a lot of film music is best when watching the actual film.


----------



## Chat Noir

HansZimmer said:


> The problem is that the artists move people, while the anaylists are boring.


I agree. Stop analysing.


----------



## eljr

Neo Romanza said:


> So I'm not a complete noob or some kind of elitist snob about film music, it's just that I fell a lot of film music is best when watching the actual film.


That is certainly fair enough but I tend to think that film music is at it's grandest when you don't notice it. It strikes your subconscious as your conscience mind processes the story in the film.


----------



## Forster

Chat Noir said:


> the great majority of film music, and it's been so for a long time, is made up of tropes and cliches


There is a pretty obvious reason for that: if film music is, among other things, intended to play on the audience's moods and emotions, there's a limit to the forms and shapes that can quickly establish what the director is aiming at. Crude example: if what is wanted is something stirring and militaristic, what better than a march? Why reinvent the wheel when you've got to write a cue for 10 seconds or a scene for a few minutes? I'm thinking _Star Wars_, for example.

Some composers can produce more novel work, but even so, they are still confined within certain parameters.

I don't know why some people are inclined to be so rude about film music: it's not supposed to soar to the heights of a Wagnerian opera or a Beethoven or Mahler symphony. It only has to be serviceable. If it strikes some people as more valuable than that, that's a bonus, not a prerequisite.


----------



## Forster

HansZimmer said:


> Therefore the people believe in the artists, and not in the analysts.


Who are the analysts, and what are they saying?


----------



## HansZimmer

Aries said:


> Lets say last 30 years. John Williams is great, but I want to know what more there is.


I've posted some examples of film scores of the nineties which according to me are excellent. Of course the melodic tastes are subjectives, but it's undeniable that there is a lot of melodic creativity there and that the music can stand alone: What's your controversial classical music opinion?

I forgot "The Age of Innocence", so I add the suite here.


----------



## Chat Noir

Forster said:


> There is a pretty obvious reason for that: if film music is, among other things, intended to play on the audience's moods and emotions, there's a limit to the forms and shapes that can quickly establish what the director is aiming at. Crude example: if what is wanted is something stirring and militaristic, what better than a march? Why reinvent the wheel when you've got to write a cue for 10 seconds or a scene for a few minutes? I'm thinking _Star Wars_, for example.
> 
> Some composers can produce more novel work, but even so, they are still confined within certain parameters.
> 
> I don't know why some people are inclined to be so rude about film music: it's not supposed to soar to the heights of a Wagnerian opera or a Beethoven or Mahler symphony. It only has to be serviceable. If it strikes some people as more valuable than that, that's a bonus, not a prerequisite.


I don't even disagree with the reasons. I know why they happen, I've spent enough time knocking out this kind of thing for people asking: "can you do a march? Can you do it for brass band?" or "can you do something like this?" (plays something like Barber's adagio..,or worse: something on a ukulele with a tin whistle).

The very point I'm making is that it is music to a purpose and that purpose is often not a very original or complicated one. However I also said way back somewhere in this thread that some people making film/TV/advertising have a better ear and want something more original. Some film music is very good with as much attention paid to it as any other part of the entire work.
Sometimes it is written by someone (or orchestrated by someone) working in the classical idiom and as such shares a space. And yet it is not the same thing. By this point the thread is just going in circles.


----------



## Red Terror

John Williams fans are so needy. "Please validate my taste in music ... PLEASE!"


----------



## pianozach

Neo Romanza said:


> Allow me to reiterate my rather abrasive past position about film music:
> 
> Aside from Korngold and Herrmann, I'd say my other favorite film composers are Jerry Goldsmith and Ennio Morricone. Of the more recent film scores that I have enjoyed were Howard Shore's _The Lord of the Rings_. These were incredibly well-done, IMHO. There's also a film score that featured Hilary Hahn prominently by James Newton Howard for M. Night Shyamalan's _The Village_ that I enjoyed. There are even some John Williams scores that I enjoy. There are, however, only a handful of film scores that I can enjoy on their own, but, unlike ballet where I don't need to see any of the choreography and can enjoy as a "concert suite", there are a lot of film scores that I feel can't stand on their own and this is because of the jumbled, uneven effect it has when listening to them without the visual accompaniment.
> 
> So I'm not a complete noob or some kind of elitist snob about film music, it's just that I feel a lot of film music is best when watching the actual film.


Well stated.

Aside from the discussion of whether Film Music = Classical Music, I think that it's *safe* to state that there *is* "good" film music, _and_ "good" film music composers.

John Williams
Horner
Zimmer
Korngold 
Herrmann, 
Jerry Goldsmith 
Ennio Morricone
Howard Shore
James Newton Howard
Elmer Bernstein . . .

One only has to browse the Academy Awards' nominations for Best Score, and find exemplary music written for film. Off the top of my head:

Gone With the Wind
Star Wars
The Good the Bad and the Ugly
Casablanca
King Kong
Lord of the Rings
Lawrence of Arabia
The Big Country
The Magnificent Seven
Doctor Zhivago . . .

The phrase "Classical Music" is broad enough (maybe _too_ broad these days?) that there's even some "Classical Music" that is only considered as such because the composer is considered to be a Classical Composer, and the music is symphonic. 

Truly, I happen to love Ravel's Bolero, but is it really Classical, when you analyze it? It's more like orchestrated Dance music. Is Xenakis really Classical, or is it bullspit? 

Question of the Day: Is *Leonard Bernstein*'s *West Side Story* _"Classical Music"?_


----------



## HansZimmer

Chat Noir said:


> I agree. Stop analysing.


Not exactly. Analysing in a descriptive way, and not in a in a prescriptive way.

Someone here has written that it's an error to use the percussions in the climax. This is absurd! A descriptive way of analysing is to describe the way that the climax is built up and noticing that the percussions play a role.
Then, of course, you can express your personal opinion, like "I don't like the percussions in the climax", but to say that the music is OBJECTIVELY bad because there are the percussions in the climax is absurd.

Furthermore there are different ways to analize an artwork in a critical way and there some users in this forum who speak about musical pieces like if they were math homeworks. They don't consider the expressivity, the poetic aspect of music, which is the most important part for most persons.

Consider what the Antonio Salieri says in this clip of the film Amadeus: _"On the page it looked nothing. The beginning simple, almost comic. Just a pulse – bassoons and basset horns – like a rusty squeezebox. Then suddenly – high above it – an oboe, a single note, hanging there unwavering, till a clarinet took over and sweetened it into a phrase of such delight! This was no composition by a performing monkey! This was a music I’d never heard. Filled with such longing, such unfulfillable longing, it had me trembling. It seemed to me that I was hearing a voice of God. "_

This the point. I sometimes wonder if some persons are serious with their technique-obsessive arguments. They basically judge poetry like if it was math. It's so difficult to understand that the greatest film music composers are simply considered "poets" because they are excellent in writing music that captures the right mood? No single analytical argument was focused on expressivity.


----------



## Forster

pianozach said:


> Aside from the discussion of whether Film Music = Classical Music, I think that it's *safe* to state that there *is* "good" film music, _and_ "good" film music composers.


Absolutely, but you might come a little more up to date.


----------



## Chat Noir

HansZimmer said:


> This the point. I sometimes wonder if some persons are serious with their technique-obsessive arguments. They basically judge poetry like if it was math. It's so difficult to understand that the greatest film music composers are simply considered "poets" because they are excellent in writing music that captures the right mood? No single analytical argument was focused on expressivity.


I don't think you should confuse discussion of technique with anyone's ability to feel music emotionally. The scripted lines in Amadeus are lovely, yet they're merely the poetic version describing the results of skill/technique. 

You seem to me obsessed with film music and somewhat inexperienced as a classical listener in the sense of not having had enough time and exposure. Extrapolating this personal appreciation into some grand theory or a claim that certain film composers are 'poets' (even if some may be) is far-fetched.

At the end of the day (free cliché) all this wrangling over tastes is a waste of valuable life. Folk could do better to just listen to what they like listening to, keep an open mind, not fall into pseudo-philosophical sideshow conspiracies about the future of 'culture' being under threat.


----------



## Luchesi

Chat Noir said:


> I agree. Stop analysing.


This isn't a good analogy.

Pluto is not a planet.

Film music is not CM.


----------



## eljr

Luchesi said:


> Film music is not CM.


But without question it can be and often is.


----------



## Ethereality

Red Terror said:


> John Williams fans are so needy. "Please validate my taste in music ... PLEASE!"


All in your imagination.


----------



## Chat Noir

eljr said:


> But without question it can be and often is.


As a temp track.


----------



## EvaBaron

Luchesi said:


> This isn't a good analogy.
> 
> Pluto is not a planet.
> 
> Film music is not CM.


This isn’t a valid argument

Pluto is not a planet

Pizza is not a word

You just used a fallacy. I’ve learned all sorts in school that are in my textbook and just for you I translated it from Dutch so here you go:

Evading the burden of proof

With this fallacy someone does not provide a source or clear explanation as to why something is so, but presents it as a simple fact. This makes it very difficult for the opponent to respond substantively to his opponent.


----------



## Chat Noir

I have a box of dessert truffles in the fridge.


----------



## eljr

Chat Noir said:


> As a temp track.


You say this as if it somehow negates it's genre which it does not.


----------



## Ethereality

Some sentences are short.


----------



## eljr

Red Terror said:


> John Williams fans are so needy. "Please validate my taste in music ... PLEASE!"


otherwise put,

people facing extinction, "I'll validate my own taste in music, I WILL!"


----------



## Chat Noir

eljr said:


> You say this as if it somehow negates it's genre which it does not.


No, temp tracks usually are actual classical music, specifically meant as a 'model' for the film composer to imitate. Sort of like when you were a child and you saw a Porsche and then made your own version out of a cardboard box and crayons.


----------



## eljr

Chat Noir said:


> No, temp tracks usually are actual classical music, specifically meant as a 'model' for the film composer to imitate. Sort of like when you were a child and you saw a Porsche and then made your own version out of a cardboard box and crayons.


LOL, what can I do but laugh at such a ridiculous post?  

Peace


----------



## Chat Noir

eljr said:


> LOL, what can I do but laugh at such a ridiculous post?
> 
> Peace


It was meant as gentle mockery . I can't really take the thread seriously now.


----------



## mikeh375

eljr said:


> LOL, what can I do but laugh at such a ridiculous post?
> 
> Peace


....lot of truth in it though.


----------



## Logos

In the early days of the talkies, many scores consisted of snippets of classical music stitched together and reorchestrated. Of course, in the very early talkies, there was little if any underscoring at all, and the only music in a movie was diagetic. The Black Cat (1934) comes to mind as a good example of a classical pastiche score, but there are many others. It uses Liszt's sonata most prominently, but many other works are drawn from--Brahms, Schubert, Bach, all the usual suspects.


----------



## verandai

I give up on this thread. I think the kind of information I try to provide could be useful to understand the differences, but obviously new information isn't appreciated or wanted here...

Have fun discussing mostly the same arguments over and over! 

I'll keep looking for more productive threads...



verandai said:


> I tried to illustrate the difference between film-music patterns and "normal" musical development in this post (see comparison table at the bottom of the article):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aletsch glacier - composition between film music and...
> 
> 
> Hi, I know that the title seems a bit provocative ;) But this goal stated in the title is what I tried to achieve with my new composition: using film-music-patterns to support the images of the video But also to break free of these patterns and develop the inspirations I received from the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.talkclassical.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At this kind of supportive music, I had more freedom than in "real" film-music, as I also could adapt the video by switching the pictures and changing their timings.
> 
> But still I had to consider some external restrictions as I wanted to support the atmosphere of the pictures and follow the story of the alpine tour. I think it's a nice compromise and that's why I personally enjoy this kind of composing.


----------



## eljr

mikeh375 said:


> ....lot of truth in it though.


Truth is, this whole damned thread is ridiculous and only demeans the site.


----------



## Forster

Truth is, it's an old subject that gets revisited when someone new comes along with something to say. It's no more tedious than the hundred threads discussing the relative merits of the Big Three or whether modern music heralds the end of civilis-....wait...you know the rest.

I got ticked off a while back when I said there didn't seem to be much more to say...another member pointed out that there was still new information and views being posted and I didn't have to be here if I thought it was a waste of time.

Well, ....


----------



## DaveM

eljr said:


> Truth is, this whole damned thread is ridiculous and only demeans the site.


So what are you doing in it other than making a comment to further a self-fulfilling prophecy.


----------



## Red Terror

Ethereality said:


> All in your imagination.


Likewise. 😅


----------



## Luchesi

EvaBaron said:


> This isn’t a valid argument
> 
> Pluto is not a planet
> 
> Pizza is not a word
> 
> You just used a fallacy. I’ve learned all sorts in school that are in my textbook and just for you I translated it from Dutch so here you go:
> 
> Evading the burden of proof
> 
> With this fallacy someone does not provide a source or clear explanation as to why something is so, but presents it as a simple fact. This makes it very difficult for the opponent to respond substantively to his opponent.


What's that song, For Sentimental Reasons,

Pluto is actually a planet.

Film music is actually CM.

Why not? Just don't let your children hear you..


----------



## Aries

Forster said:


> I'm not expert in film scores, so others will ve better qualified to describe musical evolution. I am just an experienced film goer who pays attention to the soundtrack and the composers who created them. I've been going to the cinema since I was 5 (that's back in 1964) and watched hundreds of movies on TV, VCR, DVD and streamed. I have favourite films from all decades and most genres, and am familiar with some of the key movies from Germany, Japan, Russia, Italy and France, not just from the UK and USA.
> 
> What I would say is that there are still composers who can score in the same style as Steiner, Korngold and Herrmann; there are still composers who use jazz as it was used in the 50s; and there were always composers who focused more on rhythm than melody, it's just that we tend to find it easier to recall a tune than a rhythm, so those scores are more fondly remembered.
> 
> Three things spring to mind that have altered film score composition: sound design, editing styles and plotting. (Of course there are others, I've just picked three as they occur to me.)
> 
> The increased practice of telling stories out of chronological sequence, and holding back critical information so as to disrupt our sense of continuity (often for the purpose of the revealing twist) means scores can be designed to help the listener get their bearings, or confuse them more. So, for example, the composer might deliberately avoid using motifs to identify characters and avoid using familiar genres to signal emotional colours. Try the score for _Arrival_.
> 
> Mainstream action movies are generally edited more rapidly (that is, the cuts are more rapid), forcing composers to change the shape of the score. Try _Baby Driver_.
> 
> There seems to me to be a much closer relationship between sounds, dialogue and music, which is why "sound design" is now more of a thing than it used to be. Try _Dunkirk_.
> 
> Oh, and obviously, the development of synthesised sounds as well as the emergence of "atonality", minimalism, ambient genres (et al) has impacted on scores too. There are examples of some of these in _Living_.


Thanks for these examples.

For now I listened to your suggestion _The Assassination of Jesse James_ Link and user Hans Zimmers suggestion The age of innocence. Both scores are nice to hear, listenable, but they appear to me to have a accompanying character tough to a lesser extend than some other young film musics. Then I compared it to two random old films scores:

Dimitri Shostakovich: The gadfly: Link

Sergei Prokofiev: Ivan the terrible: Link

Aren't these old scores more captivating without watching the film, or is it me?

There is a quote of the russian composer Alexey Rybnikov:

_"It is very important in the cinema that the music gives a completely extraneous look. What modern directors do not tolerate. They only need accompanying music that does not interfere and support the plot: illustrative, tapera music, completely uninteresting for the composer." interview link_

For me as a non-expert for film music this seems plausible.


----------



## Chat Noir

One of my favourite film scores is Elmer Bernstein's score for _The Liberation of L.B. Jones. _It has strong Lalo Schifrin vibes. It's also a more funk-inspired score of the type like his classic _The Man With The Golden Arm_...which I put underneath for your listening pleasure (though that is probably more down to Shorty Rogers).


----------



## Luchesi

eljr said:


> But without question it can be and often is.


Some film music sounds like CM, to some people.

Pluto looks like a planet, to some people.


----------



## DaveM

^^ Some film music sounds more like CM to some people than some music that is actually called CM.


----------



## Torkelburger

HansZimmer said:


> Not exactly. Analysing in a descriptive way, and not in a in a prescriptive way.
> 
> Someone here has written that it's an error to use the percussions in the climax. This is absurd! A descriptive way of analysing is to describe the way that the climax is built up and noticing that the percussions play a role.
> Then, of course, you can express your personal opinion, like "I don't like the percussions in the climax", but to say that the music is OBJECTIVELY bad because there are the percussions in the climax is absurd.
> 
> Furthermore there are different ways to analize an artwork in a critical way and there some users in this forum who speak about musical pieces like if they were math homeworks. They don't consider the expressivity, the poetic aspect of music, which is the most important part for most persons.
> 
> Consider what the Antonio Salieri says in this clip of the film Amadeus: _"On the page it looked nothing. The beginning simple, almost comic. Just a pulse – bassoons and basset horns – like a rusty squeezebox. Then suddenly – high above it – an oboe, a single note, hanging there unwavering, till a clarinet took over and sweetened it into a phrase of such delight! This was no composition by a performing monkey! This was a music I’d never heard. Filled with such longing, such unfulfillable longing, it had me trembling. It seemed to me that I was hearing a voice of God. "_
> 
> This the point. I sometimes wonder if some persons are serious with their technique-obsessive arguments. They basically judge poetry like if it was math. It's so difficult to understand that the greatest film music composers are simply considered "poets" because they are excellent in writing music that captures the right mood? No single analytical argument was focused on expressivity.


What’s absurd is lying to everyone here by suggesting using the same exact crescendoing suspended cymbal roll every several bars over and over and over again unchanged the same musical context is equivalent to saying they don’t like the use of percussion at climaxes. That is just another one of your outright lies.


----------



## Aries

Luchesi said:


> This isn't a good analogy.
> 
> Pluto is not a planet.
> 
> Film music is not CM.


But Pluto is a dwarf planet, so film music is dwarf classical music?

Pluto isn't really related to classical music.

Nietzsche said something interessting: "The will to system is a lack of probity."

If we want to do justice to the matter, I think we can't say that film music is or isn't classical music in general.

For example film music that is jazz is obviously not classical music.
Quoting extendedly other works is not a classical practise.
Incorporating electronic instruments isn't a classical practise.

On the other hand classical music is basically music writen for classical orchestras and smaller classical ensembles, and this is also true for many film musics.

But edge cases seem to be very common, and often it won't be righteous to answer the question if a film music is classical with a straight Yes or No. The term classical music wasn't created with a clear inclusion or exclusion of film music intended. Redefining classical music for a clear exclusion or inclusion of film music is unjustified.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

eljr said:


> But without question it can be and often is.


It can be when the film uses actual classical music, as in A Clockwork Orange. Otherwise, it is not and it is almost always music not worth listening to on its own without the film.


----------



## Forster

Chat Noir said:


> [...]
> 
> The very point I'm making is that it is music to a purpose and that purpose is often not a very original or complicated one. However I also said way back somewhere in this thread that some people making film/TV/advertising have a better ear and want something more original. Some film music is very good with as much attention paid to it as any other part of the entire work.
> Sometimes it is written by someone (or orchestrated by someone) working in the classical idiom and as such shares a space. And yet it is not the same thing. By this point the thread is just going in circles.


Quite. 'Nuff said.



eljr said:


> That is certainly fair enough but I tend to think that film music is at it's grandest when you don't notice it. It strikes your subconscious as your conscience mind processes the story in the film.


Well, yes and no. It's difficult to ignore some film music whose role is sometimes to proclaim, like a herald (eg _Star Wars _March, themes from _The Big Country_ and _The Magnificent Seven_). On the other hand, if you're concentrating on the music rather than the action during an intense period of suspense, then it's true, and the composer may have erred.



Aries said:


> but *they appear to me to have a accompanying character tough to a lesser extend than some other young film musics*. Then I compared it to two random old films scores:
> 
> Dimitri Shostakovich: The gadfly: Link
> 
> Sergei Prokofiev: Ivan the terrible: Link
> 
> Aren't these old scores more captivating without watching the film, or is it me?


It's you. Picking two Russian CM symphonists hardly seems random. But we don't disagree: some film music can stand on its own, if it's repurposed into a suite for presentation outside the cinema. Most can't, no matter how memorable the the theme (_The Godfather_) or how compelling the rhythms (_Psycho_). And just because they sometimes are (_The Godfather__, __Psycho_) doesn't mean they suddenly become something other than what they started life as: music to accompany a movie.

I don't understand your words I've put in bold. Please elaborate.


----------



## Aries

Forster said:


> It's you. Picking two Russian CM symphonists hardly seems random.


The composers aren't random, but the works are random. I just search for film music on youtube for these composers. That these composers composed primarily other classical music than film music, doesn't necessarily make them untypical film composers for their time. Back in the time there was less separation between film composers and other composers. That would also explain why the film music of composers back then has more characteristics of concert music.

But you mentioned previously that there are still film composers who write "in the same style as Steiner, Korngold and Herrmann". Who are they? I think this is what I am looking for.



Forster said:


> But we don't disagree: some film music can stand on its own, if it's repurposed into a suite for presentation outside the cinema. Most can't, no matter how memorable the the theme (_The Godfather_) or how compelling the rhythms (_Psycho_). And just because they sometimes are (_The Godfather__, __Psycho_) doesn't mean they suddenly become something other than what they started life as: music to accompany a movie.


Is opera music also just music to accompany the theater/plot? The music in Wagners operas is maybe 50% or more just accompaniment (In the Ring more than in earlier works) but it is not true for the refined main orchestral sections like Preludes. There isn't really much difference to the Psycho suite for example.



Forster said:


> I don't understand your words I've put in bold. Please elaborate.


The character of the music is rather accompanying. But there are other examples of film music where this character is much more pronounced.


----------



## Forster

Aries said:


> But you mentioned previously that there are still film composers who write "in the same style as Steiner, Korngold and Herrmann". Who are they? I think this is what I am looking for


I'd say that Alexandre Desplat (_Little Women_), Dario Marianelli (_Atonement_) and Howard Shore (_Lord of the Rings_ is the most obvious) sometimes write in those styles - but they are versatile and can compose with a less "classic" approach.


----------



## HansZimmer

eljr said:


> Truth is, this whole damned thread is ridiculous and only demeans the site.


Ridiculous because of how the users have discussed the subject, or because it's not a legitimate topic?


----------



## HansZimmer

Chat Noir said:


> I don't think you should confuse discussion of technique with anyone's ability to feel music emotionally. The scripted lines in Amadeus are lovely, yet they're merely the poetic version describing the results of skill/technique.


Maybe I should be more explicit.

We are a group of 2'000 persons.

We listen to the film score A and to the film score B, then we vote about what is the best one between the two from a pure emotional perspective.

The score which wins, is the one with the best technique. Why? Because the the technique is subservient to the emotional results. The purpose of the technique is in fact to produce good "poethic" results. Best poetry = best technique.
The day where the emotionality will be subservient to technique, music will be no more art. It will be math.

So, in few words, it's ridiculous to attack a piece/suite with arguments based on raw technique. We should discuss about expressivity and once we have determined what is the piece/suite with the more effective expressivity, we can say that the technique which has produced better results is the best one.


Of course poetry/expressivity is subjective, so we have to resign ourselves to the fact that art and music are subjective things, not science. The problem is that some people try to objectivize their subjective emotions and this is why the grotesque arguments about raw technique come out.

The reality is that if a group of people think that the music of Hans Zimmer is poetry, there is nothing you can do to dismiss their perception. This is why the analysts of the raw technique don't convince anyone: the artists say the truth, while the words of the analysts sound like the annoying lament of a newborn.
When I listen to the best film scores, I feel positive emotions. When I read the analysts of the raw technique, I get hives. The artists are exciting, the analysts are boring.


All that said, there is not so much to debate about the major composers of the film industry. They just have what they deserve. There isn't any conspiracy theory: they are where they are because they are the bests of the square. In regard to what? In regard to their understanding of antropology, namely in writing music which speaks to the human brain.
Although, as stated above, music is subjective and it's not a science, antropology is a soft science: it's possible to conduct a scientifical study about what a determined sound cause to the average human brain (happyness, sadness, melancholy, fear,...).

I think it's safe to say that there is a soft informal science in music. For example, a chord progression that has been succesfully used for centuries to invoke determined emotions, has an antropological validity.

This is an example. Some notes used in a piece of music in the 13th centuries and then reused for centuries. By Mozart in the Requeim, by Hans Zimmer in "To Die For" of The Lion King.






The major film composers know very well the antropological tricks and know when it's the time to use them and in which way. This may seem unartistic, but in reality the composers they also put their own ideas. Every artist who has used the "creepy notes" of the video above he also put his own art and interpretation.
The best film music composers are objectively great in mixing their own artistic ideas with tricks of modern film music and with tricks that have been used for centuries by many composers and producing antropological music that touches the darkest areas of our brain.

If someone is better than them in doing this, then he can steal their job. If there were many people who were able to master the tricks as much as them, one of their score wouldn't have a market value of million dollars. It's a simple law of the market: the prices grow with the decrease of the supply and in this case the supply is the number of persons who are able to produce the same antropological results.

Every attack towards the major film music composers dissolves with the next Oscar or nomination for "Best original score", which shows that they are able to do their job: transmit the right emotions to the average human brain at the right moment.



> You seem to me obsessed with film music and somewhat inexperienced as a classical listener in the sense of not having had enough time and exposure.


I'm obsessed with music, not specifically film music. All the users of this forums who write daily are obsessed with music, so what's the point?

I've listened to more to thousands of pieces by different classical music composers of different eras, so to say I don't know classical music looks a bit like an empty argument ad personam.

And not, I'm not so much obsessed with film music, I only listen to a new suite every weak for my competition and in the same week I've spent more hours in listening to classical music. In my folder there are probably 100 hours of classical music Vs 5 hours of film music.

I'm not obsessed with film music. I simply think that some film scores are great. To use personal attacks is not a good way to validate your personal, negative point of views about film music.


----------



## Torkelburger

HansZimmer said:


> The reality is that if a group of people think that the music of Hans Zimmer is poetry, there is nothing you can do to dismiss their perception. This is why the analysts of tha raw technique don't convince anyone: the artists say the truth, while to words of the analysts sound like the annoying lament of a newborn.
> When I listen to the best film scores, I feel positive emotions. When I read the analysts of the raw technique, I get hives. The artists are exciting, the analysts are boring.


I'm sure you posted this exact same sentiment on all of those Eminem analytical videos. Surely. Er, um. On the contrary, you didn't seem to be too concerned with this when you posted a barrage of them in that other thread. Strange, that.


----------



## eljr

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> It can be when the film uses actual classical music, as in A Clockwork Orange.


Or when classical music is written for a film. 

Do we not consider music in opera classical? 
Isn't film what knocked opera to the ground? 

Peace


----------



## eljr

Chat Noir said:


> It was meant as gentle mockery . I can't really take the thread seriously now.


I was well aware.


----------



## Chat Noir

HansZimmer said:


> Maybe I should be more explicit.
> 
> We are a group of 2'000 persons.
> 
> We listen to the film score A and to the film score B, then we vote about what is the best one between the two from a pure emotional perspective.
> 
> The score which wins, is the one with the best technique. Why? Because the the technique is subservient to the emotional results. The purpose of the technique is in fact to produce good "poethic" results. Best poetry = best technique.
> The day where the emotionality will be subservient to technique, music will be no more art. It will be math.
> 
> So, in few words, it's ridiculous to attack a piece/suite with arguments based on raw technique. We should discuss about expressivity and once we have determined what is the piece/suite with the more effective expressivity, we can say that the technique which has produced better results is the best one.
> 
> 
> Of course poetry/expressivity is subjective, so we have to resign ourselves to the fact that art and music are subjective things, not science. The problem is that some people try to objectivize their subjective emotions and this is why the grotesque arguments about raw technique come out.
> 
> The reality is that if a group of people think that the music of Hans Zimmer is poetry, there is nothing you can do to dismiss their perception. This is why the analysts of the raw technique don't convince anyone: the artists say the truth, while the words of the analysts sound like the annoying lament of a newborn.
> When I listen to the best film scores, I feel positive emotions. When I read the analysts of the raw technique, I get hives. The artists are exciting, the analysts are boring.
> 
> 
> All that said, there is not so much to debate about the major composers of the film industry. They just have what they deserve. There isn't any conspiracy theory: they are where they are because they are the bests of the square. In regard to what? In regard to their understanding of antropology, namely in writing music which speaks to the human brain.
> Although, as stated above, music is subjective and it's not a science, antropology is a soft science: it's possible to conduct a scientifical study about what a determined sound cause to the average human brain (happyness, sadness, melancholy, fear,...).
> 
> I think it's safe to say that there is a soft informal science in music. For example, a chord progression that has been succesfully used for centuries to invoke determined emotions, has an antropological validity.
> 
> This is an example. Some notes used in a piece of music in the 13th centuries and then reused for centuries. By Mozart in the Requeim, by Hans Zimmer in "To Die For" of The Lion King.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The major film composers know very well the antropological tricks and know when it's the time to use them and in which way. This may seem unartistic, but in reality the composers they also put their own ideas. Every artist who has used the "creepy notes" of the video above he also put his own art and interpretation.
> The best film music composers are objectively great in mixing their own artistic ideas with tricks of modern film music and with tricks that have been used for centuries by many composers and producing antropological music that touches the darkest areas of our brain.
> 
> If someone is better than them in doing this, then he can steal their job. If there were many people who were able to master the tricks as much as them, one of their score wouldn't have a market value of million dollars. It's a simple law of the market: the prices grow with the decrease of the supply and in this case the supply is the number of persons who are able to produce the same antropological results.
> 
> Every attack towards the major film music composers dissolves with the next Oscar or nomination for "Best original score", which shows that they are able to do their job: transmit the right emotions to the average human brain at the right moment.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm obsessed with music, not specifically film music. All the users of this forums who write daily are obsessed with music, so what's the point?
> 
> I've listened to more to thousands of pieces by different classical music composers of different eras, so to say I don't know classical music looks a bit like an empty argument ad personam.
> 
> And not, I'm not so much obsessed with film music, I only listen to a new suite every weak for my competition and in the same week I've spent more hours in listening to classical music. In my folder there are probably 100 hours of classical music Vs 5 hours of film music.
> 
> I'm not obsessed with film music. I simply think that some film scores are great. To use personal attacks is not a good way to validate your personal, negative point of views about film music.


tl;dr


----------



## eljr

HansZimmer said:


> Ridiculous because of how the users have discussed the subject, or because it's not a legitimate topic?


It's not a legit topic. Go to Presto Music. Type in Film in the search bar. over 3,2000 results pop up under classical. 
More are listed only under soundtrack or movie.
Go on teh net, look under sub-genres of classical music, film or film scores always appears.

What we have here are people wanting to limit the definition of classical to fit their "above the crowd" wanted self image.

FACT, when classical music is used in film it does not stop being classical music. Fact, when a classical music is composed for film it does not make it a different genre of music. 

When classical music was written for mass was it not classical? I mean, it was only written to heighted the experience of the mass. 
How about opera? Isn't the music used to work aside the story? Oratorio? Same. 

Please, no one reply so I am not drawn back into this nonsense. 

Thanks

all the best.


----------



## Forster

eljr said:


> Please, no one reply so I am not drawn back into this nonsense.


If you don't want to be drawn in, don't post.

In fact, "what we have here" is a range of opinions. Whether there are underpinning motives (eg to elevate film music or to put it down) is as open to debate as the opinions themselves.


----------



## HansZimmer

Forster said:


> I don't know why some people are inclined to be so rude about film music


I see two groups of people:
- One group formed by people who simply don't like the music of John Williams, James Horner and Hans Zimmer and therefore don't like many of the american film scores of the last decades. There is nothing to say about this group, except that they should understand that just because they don't like something doesn't mean that it's bad.

- The second group is formed by people with the philosophical ideas of modernism, that can be summarized with the concept that an artist is not a real artist if he relies on "common practices and tricks" instead of inventing his personal language. About this group we can say that it's a legitimate point of view, but the people inside of it should understand that not all people share their point of view, so they can not come here and tell us that we are wrong because we like modern music which relies on common practices and tricks.

As explained in my post 1842 is essentialy true that the film music composers rely on common practices and tricks.
This video offers an example.






The judgement you give to this objective observation however is subjective.

First of all, what we have to understand is that the common practices and tricks work well, they have an antropological value, and this is why they are used. So, if I say that a determined film score works well, and triggers my emotions, I'm right: it is meant to work, infact.

A modernist might say that an artist is like a scientist: he has to invent new things, not always reusing old things. However a scientist doesn't throw away old things that works: they invent new things and at the same time reuse old things.

It's not true that the film music composers don't put their own art in the music. They also put their own interpretation and fingerprint while using a trick, or some old chord progressions that have been used for centuries.
Modernism, on the other hand, looks more like a cancel culture.


For me it's fascinating too see the historical connection between a film score of the 1994 ("To Die For", of The Lion King) and a piece of the 13th century. It's basically antropology. The modernists have to understand that for some people, including me, a composer who knows the antropological tricks and use them in an effective way at the right moment is a good composer, someone who is able to do his work.
And I can add that you can use objective parameters to measure how much skilled is a composer in writing antropological music: you just have to look, for example, at how many Oscar nominations John Williams has get in his career. There is not so much to debate about the fact that his music does what it's meant to do: creating sounds that communicate very well with the average human brain.

I have nothing against a modernist composer who wants to reinvent the wheel, but I believe that it's a very hard work to produce antropological results in this way. Even Mozart and Beethoven have not reinvented the wheel, infact they were composers of the so called "common pratice period, where not only was not considered a shame to copy, but the philosophy was basically that you MUST COPY because the wheel works well.


Finally, there is also a third group: the haters of Hans Zimmer. In this group, the persons say that John Williams is good and Hans Zimmer sucks.
In this case, I think that there sometimes snob/elitist reasons: the fact that Hans Zimmer has not a formal education in music. These persons are technique-obsessive, because although I think that the formal education has a value, I also don't think that Zimmer has not artistic merits only because he has not a formal education.

Some persons have their feet in all the three groups.



> it's not supposed to soar to the heights of a Wagnerian opera or a Beethoven or Mahler symphony. It only has to be serviceable. If it strikes some people as more valuable than that, that's a bonus, not a prerequisite.


I don't agree. The film music composers must aspire to produce immortal works. Are you ready to bet that the major film music composers have not produced immortal works yet?


----------



## eljr

Forster said:


> "what we have here" is a range of opinions.


Opinions are acceptable in the absence of fact, not in conflict with it. 

You may quote me.


----------



## Chat Noir

eljr said:


> You may quote me.


There, I did it.


----------



## eljr

Chat Noir said:


> There, I did it.


Not exactly what I meant. LOL

Peace


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

eljr said:


> Opinions are acceptable in the absence of fact, not in conflict with it.
> 
> You may quote me.


No opinions should be held without facts. It's OK to not have an opinion. In fact, it is much better to have no opinion than an opinion based on wishes and no facts.


----------



## Luchesi

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> No opinions should be held without facts. It's OK to not have an opinion. In fact, it is much better to have no opinion than an opinion based on wishes and no facts.


That's right. We have facts about CM and film music. Members in here who work closely with or create film music have the facts. 
Listeners hear what reminds them of CM in film music or in pop orchestrations or etc. and that's fine for their life, but not having separate, strict categories, in any field of study, is inimical/damaging to a well-rounded education. 

(Johnnie, you like CM? Hear, listen to this Star Wars extravaganza.)

Is music different because it's art?


----------



## eljr

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> No opinions should be held without facts. It's OK to not have an opinion. In fact, it is much better to have no opinion than an opinion based on wishes and no facts.


I think that is what I just said.


----------



## DaveM

Luchesi said:


> That's right. We have facts about CM and film music. Members in here who work closely with or create film music have the facts.


There are several facts when it comes to CM and film music that reminds of CM. What are _the facts _you are referring to?


----------



## Luchesi

DaveM said:


> There are several facts when it comes to CM and film music that reminds of CM. What are _the facts _you are referring to?


I'm thinking about the facts about CM and film music. ...i.e. fundamentals which make music possible, and that history and development down through centuries, the intention of the composer, the purpose or function of the music, what experts have written to inform us. The differences in the scores stand out to me.

I don't think about the preferences of disparate groups of listeners, so I don't think about what people might think it sounds like. How can anybody else know these things?

I repeat, that I care about the future of music education. But adults can put any music into any of their own categories. Is that what casual listeners balk about?


----------



## Aries

HansZimmer said:


> All that said, there is not so much to debate about the major composers of the film industry. They just have what they deserve. There isn't any conspiracy theory: they are where they are because they are the bests of the square. In regard to what? In regard to their understanding of antropology, namely in writing music which speaks to the human brain.


I don't think the correlation between the money these composers earn and their quality is that big. There is some correlation but there are also other factors: Preferences of directors (and there is indication that they don't like independent music, which could be even better for the human brain), personal relationships, randomness. I would not trust modern institutions to really bring out the best. That being said, these "major composers of the film industry" have at least a better understanding of writing music which speaks to the common human brain than avantgarde composers.



Luchesi said:


> I repeat, that I care about the future of music education. But adults can put any music into any of their own categories. Is that what casual listeners balk about?


Why do you think Bernard Herrmann scores for example would be bad in classical music education? I agree that much more recent film music wouldn't be ideal for education, but the bigger problem is avantgarde influence in education. But maybe it would be an idea to don't use any post-1900 music for classical music education for a solid technical-aesthetical base, on which the students can build on their own advancements.


----------



## PeterKC

It is not classical music. It is employed music.


----------



## Luchesi

Aries said:


> Why do you think Bernard Herrmann scores for example would be bad in classical music education? I agree that much more recent film music wouldn't be ideal for education, but the bigger problem is avantgarde influence in education. But maybe it would be an idea to don't use any post-1900 music for classical music education for a solid technical-aesthetical base, on which the students can build on their own advancements.


You think Bernard Herrmann scores would be good for young teens to study? Imagine yourself teaching such a course to pre-adolescents. To me, they seem too young and too inexperienced with CM.
My hope is to instill a love for the whole phenomenon of CM, from pre-Bach to Brahms. To give them the logic of and the reasons for the increasing effectiveness of CM as art, and as a historical human achievement.


----------



## Aries

Luchesi said:


> You think Bernard Herrmann scores would be good for young teens to study? Imagine yourself teaching such a course to pre-adolescents. To me, they seem too young and too inexperienced with CM.


Not for young teens, but for 18,19 year old maybe. A somewhat chronological order of the eras for teaching makes probably sense, since the styles build up on each other with the exception of the Baroque-classical fraction.


----------



## DaveM

Luchesi said:


> The differences in the scores stand out to me.


There are some works that are so classical-like that I’m willing to bet you couldn’t pick out the difference if you reviewed just few pages. Of course, viewing the score of the whole work might be a giveaway, not because of the score itself, but due to the length since classical-like film music segments tend to be shorter.



> I don't think about the preferences of disparate groups of listeners, so I don't think about what people might think it sounds like. How can anybody else know these things?


In general, film composers are not any more able to discern what film music sounds classical-music-like than an experienced CM listener. They may be aware of other parameters having to do with differences in the composing process for a soundtrack which is obviously their expertise, but that’s a different subject.


> I repeat, that I care about the future of music education.


So do I:


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Luchesi said:


> That's right. We have facts about CM and film music. Members in here who work closely with or create film music have the facts.
> Listeners hear what reminds them of CM in film music or in pop orchestrations or etc. and that's fine for their life, but not having separate, strict categories, in any field of study, is inimical/damaging to a well-rounded education.
> 
> (Johnnie, you like CM? Hear, listen to this Star Wars extravaganza.)
> 
> Is music different because it's art?


What facts do those who create or work closely with film music have that the rest of us don't?


----------



## Forster

HansZimmer said:


> I don't agree. The film music composers must aspire to produce immortal works.


Says who? The film music composers must complete their work to time and to the satisfaction of the director. That's all. Instead of making assertions about a business I suspect you know nothing about (no more do I) why not read a little?

Here's Dario Marianelli of the anxieties of writing film music:



> Worries come to us from many different sides. Going for interviews about possible assignments can be nerve-wracking; getting a job comes with the sudden realisation one has to sit down and produce something that will convince the director, and on bigger projects not just the director, but producers have to be convinced too, and test audiences, and not infrequently even financiers. Submitting every single cue can start feeling like an exam one has to pass.
> 
> At all stages there is an invisible sword hanging on the composer’s head, that if anything goes wrong, the only thing that can be replaced at late stages in the post-production is the music. A test screening going badly can seriously jeopardise the job, even if the score might not be the immediate culprit. Stressed directors make for stressed composers, and it is very common to end up having to shoulder not just one’s own insecurities, but those of the director as well.


Dario Marianelli - Tips from the Stars - Film Scoring Tips

Or how about this, from Alexandre Desplat:



> "The first thing is, you can't write movie music if you don't know how to write quickly," he says.
> "It's not unusual to have only three weeks to score a picture. And that's three weeks from signing on to finishing the last recording session. That's how I did The Queen and, more recently, it's how I did The Imitation Game.
> "Sometimes it's because another composer has left the project. Sometimes the producers decide very late that they need an orchestral score. In any case, you need to deliver the goods. There's no point writing a great score three months after the film is released."


How Alexandre Desplat creates a film score in three weeks - BBC News

Or this, from Thomas Newman:



> Writing the Philharmonic-Kronos piece was freeing compared with composing for film, and involved much experimentation, Newman says.
> “You’re not bound to a certain amount of seconds of action or drama,” he says. “You let your mind wander in a much different way.”


A member of a musical dynasty writes a postcard about the past - Los Angeles Times (latimes.com)

And, finally, this from the 'great' Hans Zimmer, on his cue "Journey To The Line", illustrating how the business of film music is a business first and foremost:



> "One of the things I really really try to do is, I try to never tell you what to feel," Zimmer says of the piece. "I just try to use the music in a funny way to open a door for you to come and have the possibility of having an emotional experience. But I think it would be horrible to go and, you know, manipulate people in the way of what they should feel, so I leave the pieces actually quite open to interpretation."
> 
> The unintended effect is that, because "Journey to the Line" fits everywhere, it's been used everywhere, including TV, film, video games and, especially, trailers, where it has become the Gold Standard.


How Hans Zimmer's the Thin Red Line score redefined Hollywood, for better or worse | CBC Radio 



HansZimmer said:


> Finally, there is also a third group


Are your "groups" representing the full range of opinions here? Or just among those whom I suggested are "rude" about film music? Either way, I'd say there are more groups than just three. You missed those who have no complicated agenda and are just not interested in films and film music, only in the classical music they prefer. And you missed those who just like films and film music and aren't interested in arguing either way (about film music being CM) because they don't think it matters.

Me, I just like "arguing"


----------



## mikeh375

Forster said:


> I don't know why some people are inclined to be so rude about film music: it's not supposed to soar to the heights of a Wagnerian opera or a Beethoven or Mahler symphony. It only has to be serviceable. If it strikes some people as more valuable than that, that's a bonus, not a prerequisite.


versus....



Aries said:


> I don't agree. *The film music composers must aspire to produce immortal works*. Are you ready to bet that the major film music composers have not produced immortal works yet?


= The Simple Truth v The Wishful Thinking Fantasy.
What a film composer creates is dictated by external, non-musical influences and I doubt that any composer has ever been briefed to create "immortal works". The only thing on a composer's mind as work on a score progresses, is to please the powers who are dictating the musical narrative and that involves enormous creative and aesthetic compromise at times - hardly conditions for aspiring to absolute musical and canonical immortality.

That said, a small percentage of film score probably has achieved a timeless life outside of its utility. However there's only a handful of film composers who are even qualified, or in a position to give the kind of musical immortality we associate with great masters a shot.


----------



## Aries

Can we agree that the new forum software is bad? Why did they want to fix something that wasn't broken? Editing multiple quotes leads to errors, links are awkward to make, videos are oversized, a forum overview isn't even on the main page.


----------



## mikeh375

Aries said:


> Can we agree that the new forum software is bad? Why did they want to fix something that wasn't broken? Editing multiple quotes leads to errors, links are awkward to make, videos are oversized, a forum overview isn't even on the main page.


...as if to emphasise your trouble with the new site, it looks as though you are in the wrong thread...


----------



## Aries

mikeh375 said:


> ...as if to emphasise your trouble with the new site, it looks as though you are in the wrong thread...


No, you quoted the wrong person.


----------



## mikeh375

....


Aries said:


> No, you quoted the wrong person.


is that a joke?....


----------



## Aries

mikeh375 said:


> is that a joke?....


The wording you quoted is from user Hans Zimmer, but it says it is a quote of me and the link is to one of my posts in post No. 1865. Maybe you wanted to give an reply to my post too?


----------



## mikeh375

DaveM said:


> *In general, film composers are not any more able to discern what film music sounds classical-music-like than an experienced CM listener. T*hey may be aware of other parameters having to do with differences in the composing process for a soundtrack which is obviously their expertise, but that’s a different subject.


Dave, the bolded above is actually sort of contradicted by your next sentence. Those parameters you mention are understood as critically defining for the composer and they include compositional methods that may or may not be CP classical. The bolded is not entirely accurate imo and one has to give some credit and acknowledgement for the expertise required to create film music shown by some, in that it knows what it's doing. The best expertise is able to accurately determine - technically and aesthetically - a style and then creatively achieve a desired and well defined outcome.
That said, there are film composers who have no formal training, so perhaps you are referring to them. If so then you may have a point. In fact I'd rather trust an experienced listener's judgement if I didn't have my own wits, over some of the DAW composers (and listeners) echo chambers today that define and reinforce their conceptions of 'classical' music (as opposed to and exemplified by the Canon).


----------



## mikeh375

Aries said:


> The wording you quoted is from user Hans Zimmer, but it says it is a quote of me and the link is to one of my posts in post No. 1865. Maybe you wanted to give an reply to my post too?


oh well I had no way of knowing. I simply quoted what was to all appearances your post. Never mind.


----------



## mikeh375

Thanks to @Forster 's post above, not only is my general position in this thread backed up by J Williams and others about the differences between classical and film music composition (thus accurately defining the genres from a technical standpoint), I now have Thomas Newman in my camp...

_Writing the Philharmonic-Kronos piece was freeing compared with composing for film, and involved much experimentation, Newman says.

“You’re not bound to a certain amount of seconds of action or drama,” he says. _*“You let your mind wander in a much different way.”*

....and the resulting music is vastly different to what it might have been within the confines of a film.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

PeterKC said:


> It is not classical music. It is employed music.


At least it's not patronaged tbf


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

Luchesi said:


> (Johnnie, you like CM? Hear, listen to this Star Wars extravaganza.)


I adopted him (from a grocery store parking lot)


----------



## HansZimmer

Torkelburger said:


> I'm sure you posted this exact same sentiment on all of those Eminem analytical videos. Surely. Er, um. On the contrary, you didn't seem to be too concerned with this when you posted a barrage of them in that other thread. Strange, that.


I don't know what does Eminem have to do with I'm saying here. They are different forms of art.

Let's assume that the situation is: "Mufasa dies and Simba is sad".

A rapper must find effective words to describe the situation, while the art of scores composers is to find the right notes to describe the situation. Therefore a good rapper is a poet in the more traditional sense of the word, while a good score composer is a poet of sounds.

In my last post I wrote that the technique-obsessive folks forget that the best technique is the one which achieve the goal of transmitting the right emotion (therefore a discussion about raw technique, which doesn't consider the effectiveness of the result, is delusional), while in the rap music the technique-obsessiveness can produce meaningless lyrics.

Both rappers and scores composers should focus primarily on the content/meaning, not on the raw technique. The major scores composers are the most skilled of the square because they are able to bring meaningful and effective content. Who says this? The simple fact that they are where they are because they have received recognition for their works indicates that their music speak to the folks, so their music works. It's antropological music.

So, the attack to Hans Zimmer dissolve at the moment in which most people recognize that the score of the Lion King throw the right arrows to the heart.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

Forster said:


> Says who? The film music composers must complete their work to time and to the satisfaction of the director. That's all. Instead of making assertions about a business I suspect you know nothing about (no more do I) why not read a little?
> 
> Here's Dario Marianelli of the anxieties of writing film music:
> 
> 
> 
> Dario Marianelli - Tips from the Stars - Film Scoring Tips
> 
> Or how about this, from Alexandre Desplat:
> 
> 
> 
> How Alexandre Desplat creates a film score in three weeks - BBC News
> 
> Or this, from Thomas Newman:
> 
> 
> 
> A member of a musical dynasty writes a postcard about the past - Los Angeles Times (latimes.com)
> 
> And, finally, this from the 'great' Hans Zimmer, on his cue "Journey To The Line", illustrating how the business of film music is a business first and foremost:
> 
> 
> 
> How Hans Zimmer's the Thin Red Line score redefined Hollywood, for better or worse | CBC Radio







mikeh375 said:


> Thanks to @Forster 's post above, not only is my general position in this thread backed up by J Williams and others about the differences between classical and film music composition (thus accurately defining the genres from a technical standpoint), I now have Thomas Newman in my camp...
> 
> _Writing the Philharmonic-Kronos piece was freeing compared with composing for film, and involved much experimentation, Newman says.
> 
> “You’re not bound to a certain amount of seconds of action or drama,” he says. _*“You let your mind wander in a much different way.”*
> 
> ....and the resulting music is vastly different to what it might have been within the confines of a film.


Since "classical" lacks a clear definition, everyone can just use their own - such as "it's music that's composed without pressure of deadlines, employers/patrons, or fickle audience tastes - just with a free-flowing artist mind" (which would exclude prb almost everything before Beethoven/Romanticism, as well as tons of "canon" after), or

"it's music that's free of structural restraints or rules" (which would exclude prb most of Classicism as well as Baroque), or

"free of the restraints of extra-musical words, narrative, and stage going-ons - just pre absolute music" well there goes all opera, favolas/ae(?) in musica etc.;
sure, some potentially sketchy individual once went "prima la musica, poi le parole", but obviously others disagreed and they've been debating over this for centuries.


So whoever's willing to use all these inadvertently-canon-excluding definitions of CM to argue that "film is not CM because it's bound to narrative, visuals and timing (or employers and deadlines)", can do that while staying internally consistent, I suppose.



I myself don't have any dog in this fight over names&definitions btw, I just keep getting confused by all these contradictions? However this all has already been pointed out before, so yeah.


----------



## HansZimmer

Chat Noir said:


> tl;dr


My posts can not be shortened. They are art.


----------



## mikeh375

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> So whoever's willing to use all these inadvertently-canon-excluding definitions of CM to argue that "film is not CM because it's bound to narrative, visuals and timing (or employers and deadlines)", can do that while staying internally consistent, I suppose..


The differences in approach to creating FM, Opera and CM and the resulting musics really are very self-evident to a composer. The classifications are more the listener's concern and whatever they decide or wish for does not impact nor influence the day to day filling in of manuscripts with the appropriate scrawls.


----------



## HansZimmer

eljr said:


> It's not a legit topic. Go to Presto Music. Type in Film in the search bar. over 3,2000 results pop up under classical.
> More are listed only under soundtrack or movie.
> Go on teh net, look under sub-genres of classical music, film or film scores always appears.
> 
> What we have here are people wanting to limit the definition of classical to fit their "above the crowd" wanted self image.
> 
> FACT, when classical music is used in film it does not stop being classical music. Fact, when a classical music is composed for film it does not make it a different genre of music.
> 
> When classical music was written for mass was it not classical? I mean, it was only written to heighted the experience of the mass.
> How about opera? Isn't the music used to work aside the story? Oratorio? Same.
> 
> Please, no one reply so I am not drawn back into this nonsense.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> all the best.


Furthemore it seems that there is a black cloud over Hollywood which prevents the composers from writing nice melodies, while in Wien there was the ray of divine light which imbued all composers with melodic wisdom.

When someone has a so black and white vision of the reality, the suspect that there is some kind of cognitive bias involved become strong.
According to the Occam's razor, a Hollywood composer can write an excellent melody and a Wien composer a failed melody.
Infact if someone doesn't listen only to the masterpieces, but also to minor works, should find many failed pieces in classical music, but also failed composers.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

mikeh375 said:


> The differences in approach to creating FM, Opera and CM and the resulting musics really are very self-evident to a composer. The classifications are more the listener's concern and whatever they decide or wish for does not impact nor influence the day to day filling in of manuscripts with the appropriate scrawls.


Well this particular classification certainly is blurry enough to not be particularly useful - and some others have dissed this thread on the recent pages and have called it pointless etc., so yeah;

the differences between absolute music, theatralic and cinematic and all their various subforms all amount to a much more interesting subject than just wrestling over words, so there's ultimately lots of good posts in this thread "despite" its hacky central premise.
The premise itself though, meh idk


----------



## HansZimmer

Chat Noir said:


> No, temp tracks usually are actual classical music, specifically meant as a 'model' for the film composer to imitate. Sort of like when you were a child and you saw a Porsche and then made your own version out of a cardboard box and crayons.


Or maybe the soundtrack composers are producing better versions of the Porsche, who knows.


----------



## HansZimmer

Luchesi said:


> My hope is to instill a love for the whole phenomenon of CM


The soundtrack composers are the only one who are really doing something to try to keep classical music alive, namely writing pleasant, modern classical music which becomes popular.

While you are chatting in a forum, the live concert of the score of Schindler's List is producing milions views in youtube (53 milions).

Next logical step if you have enjoyed this piece: trying to listen to the Mozart's violin concertos.


----------



## HansZimmer

Aries said:


> I don't think the correlation between the money these composers earn and their quality is that big. There is some correlation but there are also other factors: Preferences of directors (and there is indication that they don't like independent music, which could be even better for the human brain), personal relationships, randomness. I would not trust modern institutions to really bring out the best. That being said, these "major composers of the film industry" have at least a better understanding of writing music which speaks to the common human brain than avantgarde composers.


No, it's not arbitrary as you think. John Williams is the composer with the world record of Oscar nominations for "Best original score" (47 nominations). Hans Zimmer got a lot of awards and nominations for the Lion King. Alfred Newman is the most awarded composer at the Oscars, Alan Menken the second one.

There are numbers which justify the consideration that the film producers have for them. They need someone who is able to write antropological music which speaks well to the average human brain, and the numbers say that the above composers are the right men.


----------



## HansZimmer

PeterKC said:


> It is not classical music. It is employed music.


Like incidental music?


----------



## HansZimmer

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> What facts do those who create or work closely with film music have that the rest of us don't?


They have tried and they succeeded. John Williams has the world record for Oscar nominations for "Best original score". It's like a Roger Federer of the composers.


----------



## Aries

HansZimmer said:


> No, it's not arbitrary as you think. John Williams is the composer with the world record of Oscars nomination for "Best original score" (47 nominations).


Using the Oscars as yardstick is doubious. It is an commercialized event. The avant-garde commits the mistake of completely disregarding the taste of the masses. But blindly running after the taste of the masses is also a mistake.


HansZimmer said:


> It's like a Roger Federer of the composers.


Roger Federer may be the Tennis player who earned the most money, but Rafael Nadel won more Grand Slams. Something similar could be true for John Williams. He is great for sure, but just the fact that he got the most Oscar nominations doesn't mean that there isn't someone better.


----------



## HansZimmer

Forster said:


> Says who? The film music composers must complete their work to time and to the satisfaction of the director. That's all. Instead of making assertions about a business I suspect you know nothing about (no more do I) why not read a little?


I know that the composers of film scores have to be fast, but they have to be fast at what? In writing music of quality. It's not that they are paid to be fast at writing bad music.

The fact that they would have more freedom of expression if they wrote not commisioned concert works doesn't mean that they are not excellent in composing commissioned music for a motion picture. In few words, the personal suffering of the composers is not relevant in the judgement of the results, which for me are excellent. And by the way Hans Zimmer admitted that the score of The Lion King has been very personal for him because he lost his father when he was 6 years old, so in some occasions the commissioned work touches the heart of the composer and someone might support the idea that the scores composers will likely write immortal music in these occasions.

However, I read somewhere that Mozart didn't like to write the slow movements. I don't know if it's true, but if you ask me, the slow movements of Mozart contain some of the best melodies I've ever heard in classical music. The point is that eventhough a composer might not be enthusiastic about what he has to compose, if he's professional and serious he will do the best he can to create music which satisfies the client.
As a computer programmer, I can say that I don't give a **** of the softwares that I have to write, for me they may not even exist, but this doesn't mean that I don't do my best to write code of quality.
The programmers also have to be fast like the scores composers... fast in what? In writing code of quality, not ****** code.


----------



## HansZimmer

mikeh375 said:


> versus....
> 
> 
> 
> = The Simple Truth v The Wishful Thinking Fantasy.
> What a film composer creates is dictated by external, non-musical influences and I doubt that any composer has ever been briefed to create "immortal works". The only thing on a composer's mind as work on a score progresses, is to please the powers who are dictating the musical narrative and that involves enormous creative and aesthetic compromise at times - hardly conditions for aspiring to absolute musical and canonical immortality.
> 
> That said, a small percentage of film score probably has achieved a timeless life outside of its utility. However there's only a handful of film composers who are even qualified, or in a position to give the kind of musical immortality we associate with great masters a shot.


@hammeredklavier has mentioned many times some musicologists who say there isn't any single proof in support of the idea that Mozart was aware that he was composing timeless music and that, in reality, he was simply focused in writing music of quality for the paying client.
So, timeless music is not necessarily intentional. If you simply put a great effort in creating good music for your client, your music might become timeless.

Who are the "qualified composer" is decided by the public, as always, not by some users in a forum, since the best technique is the one which produces meaningful music. John Williamd and Hans Zimmer are well regarded by the contemporary society, but it's still soon to know if their music is timeless.


----------



## mikeh375

HansZimmer said:


> Who are the "qualified composer" is decided by the public, as always, not by some users in a forum.


The public has nothing to do with that...at all. That's a decision for the film industry. If you mean that the public decide what film music is classical music, well the qualified film composer will know and think differently and might well come to a different conclusion, as implied by how the concert works of J. Williams are written.
I wonder what your opinion of William's Cello Concerto or First Violin Concerto are and if you grasp the compositional differences between them and for example, the theme to 'Raiders'.


----------



## HansZimmer

mikeh375 said:


> The public has nothing to do with that...at all. That's a decision for the film industry. If you mean that the public decide what is classical music, well good for the public, the qualified film composer will know differently.


If you know how economy works, the people invest in products which work. There are numbers which suggest that John Williams and Hans Zimmer are products which work. As I've written in many posts, John Williams for example has the world record of Oscar nominations for "Best original score", so he gained his position thanks to the consent of the critics.

There is no conspirancy. The major film music composers, who are commissioned for important films, are winning horses.


That said, I don't have the crystal sphere, so I don't know who will compose the timeless music, but if I had to place my bet, I'd place it on John Williams, and not on one of the many modern classical music composers.


----------



## PeterKC

HansZimmer said:


> Like incidental music?


Yes, I think so. It is serious music no doubt, but, it is the vehicle for the story. I guess I would liken it to opera without words. The sum is better that the separate parts. Just my two cents.


----------



## mikeh375

HansZimmer said:


> That said, I don't have the crystal sphere, so I don't know who will compose the timeless music, but if I had to place my bet, I'd place it on John Williams, and not on one of the many modern classical music composers.



I edited a bit on to my post that you probably missed...
Many modern masterpieces have already been recognised and acknowledged in the last 100 years, just not by your delicate ears. You've lost your bet already.


----------



## HansZimmer

mikeh375 said:


> I wonder what your opinion of William's Cello Concerto or First Violin Concerto are and if you grasp the compositional differences between them and for example, the theme to 'Raiders'.


My opinion is that the film music of John Williams has a better aesthetic in respect to his concert works for the simple fact that when he writes film music he get inspiration from romantic music, while when he writes music for concerts he get inspiration from modern classical music.
However, although the concert works of John Williams are not my cup of tea, I have to say that the kind of modern classical music that he writes is still better than some other works I have found in the category.


----------



## Forster

HansZimmer said:


> I know that the composers of film scores have to be fast, but they have to be fast at what? In writing music of quality. It's not that they are paid to be fast at writing bad music.


Nobody, but nobody suggested that they are paid to write bad music.

You said that film composers "must" write "immortal music". I simply rejected the notion that anything is _required_ of them beyond meeting deadlines and satisfying the director. I then quoted three top film composers' thoughts on the business which seemed to me to illustrate precisely that point. One assumes that to satisfy a discerning director, they write music of quality.


----------



## mikeh375

HansZimmer said:


> My opinion is that the film music of John Williams has a better aesthetic in respect to his concert works for the simple fact that when he writes film music he get inspiration from romantic music, while when he writes music for concerts he get inspiration from modern classical music.
> However, although the concert works of John Williams are not my cup of tea, I have to say that the kind of modern classical music that he writes is still better than some other works I have found in the category.


The liberated expression in William's concert work has more musical depth and reach than his film scores and is as a result, much more powerful as transcendental art music by comparison to dictated film cues. You can argue for a myopic dumbing down of music and a return to a different age as much as you want though, fortunately it'll have zero impact on the profession. Great rewards from music require much in the way of effort and not merely listening to music that "lets the ear lie back in an easy chair" (Ives). You should try putting real effort into getting to know music outside your comfort zone as it is worth it.


----------



## HansZimmer

mikeh375 said:


> The differences in approach to creating FM, Opera and CM and the resulting musics really are very self-evident to a composer. The classifications are more the listener's concern and whatever they decide or wish for does not impact nor influence the day to day filling in of manuscripts with the appropriate scrawls.


In reality when you speak about the differences between composing a suite for FM, an opera and a symphony you are simply explaining the difference between writing FM, operas and symphonies, not the difference between writing classical music and rock music, or classical music and jazz music.

Why don't you ask to a jazz composer what's the difference between writing standalone jazz music and jazz music for a film score? It's the same difference that there is also between writing standalone classical music and classical music for a film score. It's not a reason for saying that this film score of Dave Grusin is not jazz. @Aries, here an other film score of the nineties for you.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

Following up on my previous point, here's a particularly specific film/opera comparison - quite possibly due to direct influence.
(Mentioned it in the JW thread about a year ago, but forgot to post the links)


Nabucco, Abigaille's introduction (Arena di Verona 1981, Ghena Dimitrova):
Timestamp starts at 16:56;
at 17:19, Abigaille's entrance is accompanied by a multi-octave unison crescendo on b (building up to her first high note):





X-Men 2 (John Ottman), Kelly Hu is about to walk in on Mystique suspense:
Timestamp at 1:40;
1:45 similar sounding crescendo unison (on b-flat, though obv. b on DVD releases) swells up, setting up the cut to Kelly Hu:






For good measure, the Nabucco example again (the famous production with Csilla Boross - better sounding coloraturas imo):
1:59






Music follows (as well as leads) the rather rapid changes of pace and tides of tension in both scenes;
listening to either with sound only makes it rather clear that neither are "autonomous compositions standing on their own":





Is there a huge difference between the 2, in this regard? Does Verdi flow free while Ottman is super-constrained by all that stiffling timing?
Not my impression at all (and tbf he doubled as editor as well).


----------



## mikeh375

HansZimmer said:


> In reality when you speak about the differences between composing a suite for FM, an opera and a symphony you are simply explaining the difference between writing FM, operas and symphonies, not the difference between writing classical music and rock music, or classical music and jazz music.
> 
> Why don't you ask to a jazz composer what's the difference between writing standalone jazz music and jazz music for a film score? It's the same difference between writing standalone classical music and classical music for a film score. It's not a reason for saying that this film score of Dave Grusin is not jazz.


you don't seem to understand Hans and I've explained the differences before and can't be bothered to go over the same again, no offence. Needless to say in my and some of the biggest names in the business' experience you are very wrong about this. But good luck in getting the music world put back just the way you like it.


----------



## mikeh375

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> Following up on my previous point, here's a particularly specific film/opera comparison - quite possibly due to direct influence.
> (Mentioned it in the JW thread about a year ago, but forgot to post the links)
> 
> 
> Nabucco, Abigaille's introduction (Arena di Verona 1981, Ghena Dimitrova):
> Timestamp starts at 16:56;
> at 17:19, Abigaille's entrance is accompanied by a multi-octave unison crescendo on b (building up to her first high note):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> X-Men 2 (John Ottman), Kelly Hu is about to walk in on Mystique suspense:
> Timestamp at 1:40;
> 1:45 similar sounding crescendo unison (on b-flat, though obv. b on DVD releases) swells up, setting up the cut to Kelly Hu:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For good measure, the Nabucco example again (the famous production with Csilla Boross - better sounding coloraturas imo):
> 1:59
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Music follows (as well as leads) the rather rapid changes of pace and tides of tension in both scenes;
> listening to either with sound only makes it rather clear that neither are "autonomous compositions standing on their own":
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a huge difference between the 2, in this regard? Does Verdi flow free while Ottman is super-constrained by all that stiffling timing?
> Not my impression at all (and tbf he doubled as editor as well).


Yes there are superficial similarities, direct cribs and even some freedoms but overall, film music is under a creatively restrictive kosh compared to concert/opera music in several key compositional aspects that impact totally on any expression a composer might use for a concert work. Namely harmonic language restrictions, phrase lengths, dramatic arc, any expressiveness is subjugated and determined by the screen and director, orchestration/timbral limits are curtailed and are often meddled with in the final dubb anyway (for the benefit dialogue and sfx). In the worst cases a dictatorial aesthetic from the director who may even change notes here and there or insisting on the composer having to copy temp tracks as near as damn it. Any final music is literally the result of a creative committee which is fine for utility, not so much for absolute music imo. It should be obvious that a good composer will make musical sense of awkward timings, sync points and other restrictions, that's not what the discussion is about.

For opera, seeing that some seem to think this equates to film scoring in some way, I would add that the composer is their own free agent and apart from having to compose and score for singers, has no such restrictions re language, timings (other than sensible for the dramatic arc), phrase lengths, orchestration and so on. It's therefore a false analogy to equate opera and film from a compositional point of view in my experience. One is seriously impeded and utterly dictated to by non musical events (and even people), the other not so much.


----------



## HansZimmer

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> the differences between absolute music, theatralic and cinematic and all their various subforms all amount to a much more interesting subject than just wrestling over words


No, you are wrong about this. A discussion about the form and aesthetic is even more interesting. For example, in the last days I was explaining to some users in youtube the difference between the looping, static themes of some videogame soundtracks and the melodies of Mozart, which are essentially many short themes linked between each others. In few words, I was explaining the difference between a static melody and a developing melody. This is an observation about form. When it comes to the aesthetic, some of that looping themes are beatiful and close to the aesthetic of classical music, but what I was explaining in youtube is that many OST of videogames require a rework in order to reach the objective quality of Mozart's music: the composer should write thematic developments.

On the other hand, some videogames OST can theoretically meet the canon of classical music without any rework and many OST of film music don't require a rework because there is already a sufficient quality in the original work. Yes, you can write a symphony based on the melodic material of the OST, if you want, but we already have good orchestral suites in film music.


----------



## HansZimmer

mikeh375 said:


> I edited a bit on to my post that you probably missed...
> Many modern masterpieces have already been recognised and acknowledged in the last 100 years, just not by your delicate ears. You've lost your bet already.


Can you give examples of modern and modernist pieces which are as much popular as "Eine Kleine Nachtmusik"? I can give you examples of film scores which are popular like the latter.


----------



## Luchesi

Aries said:


> Not for young teens, but for 18,19 year old maybe. A somewhat chronological order of the eras for teaching makes probably sense, since the styles build up on each other with the exception of the Baroque-classical fraction.


According to research, we're at the mercy of luck and happenstances during our years of adolescent brain development, explains a little about the complicated process going on, about 13 years for girls and 14 years for boys. If we don't get a love of serious music in those years, we might develop a love later but it will be different and probably less intense, because the brain chemicals have already done their developmental work. It’s over (the blank slate of youth) for that person..

The amygdala is responsible for immediate reactions including fear and flight-or-fight behavior (apparently this is important so young - for survival). This region develops early, but the frontal cortex develops later. And this part of the brain, which does the logical thinking before we act, is still changing and maturing well into adulthood.
Also, during adolescence a rapid increase in the connections between the brain cells and making the pathways more effective enhances every sensory experience. The myelin continues to fill in to become an insulating layer that helps cells communicate.

All these changes give us a more vibrant experience when experiencing music in those years, and then it gets all mixed up with identity, sexuality, approval from our peers etc.

Pictures of the brain in action show that adolescents' brains work differently than adults when they make decisions or solve problems.

So apparently as we're latching on to our favorite types of music, it's not a thinking process, but it's more akin to a developing instinct, like apprehension at the sound of a rattlesnake or a lion roaring.


----------



## Chat Noir

HansZimmer said:


> Or maybe the soundtrack composers are producing better versions of the Porsche, who knows.


One can but dream.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

HansZimmer said:


> No, you are wrong about this. A discussion about the form and aesthetic is even more interesting. For example, in the last days I was explaining to some users in youtube the difference between the looping, static themes of some videogame soundtracks and the melodies of Mozart, which are essentially many short themes linked between each others. In few words, I was explaining the difference between a static melody and a developing melody. This is an observation about form. When it comes to the aesthetic, some of that looping themes are beatiful and close to the aesthetic of classical music, but what I was explaining in youtube is that many OST of videogames require a rework in order to reach the objective quality of Mozart's music: the composer should write thematic developments.
> 
> On the other hand, some videogames OST can theoretically meet the canon of classical music without any rework and many OST of film music don't require a rework because there is already a sufficient quality in the original work. Yes, you can write a symphony based on the melodic material of the OST, if you want, but we already have good orchestral suites in film music.


Yes, "form and aesthetic" is interesting - "wrestling over words" isn't, which is what I said lol


By "looping" do you mean the tracks ending and then looping back to the start, or like ostinato structure?


In terms of "suites" or medleys etc., idk depends on the examples and what you're specifically referring to - sometimes I checked out like SW or LotR live concerts and the compilation of all the already pre-written numbers in a sequence had a kind of cheapening effect on me;

however off the top of my head, the Matrix Reloaded Suite is really good (though perhaps some of the transitions could've been better, not sure).





Still, there is an untapped potential there in terms of composing some kind of creative, cohesive "symphony" out of all that stuff - however untapped potential doesn't = "this is bad" obviously.


----------



## HansZimmer

Forster said:


> Nobody, but nobody suggested that they are paid to write bad music.
> 
> You said that film composers "must" write "immortal music". I simply rejected the notion that anything is _required_ of them beyond meeting deadlines and satisfying the director. I then quoted three top film composers' thoughts on the business which seemed to me to illustrate precisely that point. One assumes that to satisfy a discerning director, they write music of quality.


So what? The minimum requirements for Mozart were also to satisfy his clients, not writing immortal music. The point is that a composer should aways try to do his best, he souldn't be satisfied with the minimum requirements. So, you are giving bad advices to the film music composers and I'm quite sure that the most ambitious composers have not followed them.


----------



## HansZimmer

Chat Noir said:


> One can but dream.


What's a good car? It's subjective. What's good music? It's subjective.

Well, no, to be honest when it comes to cars there are are many objective parameters to consider, while in music there is basically not objectivity. This is why the point is hugely debatable. There are persons who prefer the music of John Williams in respect to the one of Mozart.


----------



## Chat Noir

HansZimmer said:


> My posts can not be shortened. They are art.


I like this.


----------



## Chat Noir

HansZimmer said:


> What's a good a car? It's subjective. What's good music? It's subjective.
> 
> Well, no, to be honest when it comes to cars there are are many objective parameters to consider, while in music there is basically not objectivity. This is why the point is hugely debatable. There are persons who prefer the music of John Williams in respect to the one of Mozart.


This is progress. With this in mind it will be agreed that modern music is also subjectively good/bad... and all this circus can end?


----------



## Luchesi

DaveM said:


> There are some works that are so classical-like that I’m willing to bet you couldn’t pick out the difference if you reviewed just few pages. Of course, viewing the score of the whole work might be a giveaway, not because of the score itself, but due to the length since classical-like film music segments tend to be shorter.
> 
> 
> 
> In general, film composers are not any more able to discern what film music sounds classical-music-like than an experienced CM listener. They may be aware of other parameters having to do with differences in the composing process for a soundtrack which is obviously their expertise, but that’s a different subject.
> 
> 
> So do I:
> View attachment 180320


Are you upholding the view that film music is CM, or that it just sounds like CM to some people? To me, CM sounds like baroque music or classical period music or later music.

Posters will say that look at this composer, look at this film score. It sounds like special pleading for something that they wish was true.


----------



## HansZimmer

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> Yes, "form and aesthetic" is interesting - "wrestling over words" isn't, which is what I said lol
> 
> 
> By "looping" do you mean the tracks ending and then looping back to the start, or like ostinato structure?


Not necessarily ostinato.

See the difference between this track...






and this other one.






The second track exposes the theme of the first track at the beginning, and then after 1:27 there is a development based on the initial theme. At the end, after 2:28, the initial theme is still reprised.

In the first track there is only the basic theme. If the second track would simply orchestrate the melody of the first track, maybe Classic FM wouldn't have accepted it in the Classic FM Hall of Fame.

The looping of a track is still a different thing. Of course in a videogame the track must loop, but to loop a track of Mozart is a different thing in respect to loop a static theme.


----------



## pianozach

HansZimmer said:


> In reality when you speak about the differences between composing a suite for FM, an opera and a symphony you are simply explaining the difference between writing FM, operas and symphonies, not the difference between writing classical music and rock music, or classical music and *jazz* music.
> 
> Why don't you ask to a *jazz composer what's the difference between writing standalone jazz music and jazz music for a film score?* It's the same difference thah there is also between writing standalone classical music and classical music for a film score. It's not a reason for saying that this film score of Dave Grusin is not jazz. @Aries, here an other film score of the nineties for you.


I'm reminded of the stage musical *City of Angels* (for which I musical directed many years ago at a high end amateur theatre), which is designed as a 1940s-ish film noir tribute, so much so that half the show is designed to be in black & white.

The score is mostly Big Band sounding, but curiously is not SCORED as a Big Band score . . . it's a musical theatre score arranged to SOUND like a Big Band. 

Although my knowledge of jazz composition is limited, we had some musicians in the orchestra who were very familiar with Big Band, and were amused at how the score was arranged to sound like Big Band, yet was playable by typical pit musicians. 

Real jazz musicians can tell the difference. I can "fake" playing jazz, but real jazz players can instantly recognize that my chord voicings are NOT jazz voicings, even though untrained listeners might be fooled.


----------



## HansZimmer

Chat Noir said:


> This is progress. With this in mind it will be agreed that modern music is also subjectively good/bad... and all this circus can end?


With "modern music" do you mean "modern classical music"? If so, I've never said that the modernism in classical music is producing objectively bad music, but only that it's not antropological. It ignores how the average human brain processes sounds, and therefore I think that a modernist piece will never be popular as "Eine Kleine Nachtmusik".

The point is that if Classical Music will not rediscover his entertainment side, like in the classical period where the music was studied for touching the common denominator of the brain of humans, it will be forgot in favour of other genres of music.
Until there won't be a rollback from the world of classical music, the soundtracks composers will have a central role in keeping it alive, because the music of John Williams is a better entry point for the general public in respect to the modernist music.


----------



## Chat Noir

HansZimmer said:


> With "modern music" do you mean "modern classical music"? If so, I've never said that the modernism in classical music is producing objectively bad music, but only that it's not antropological. It ignores how the average human brain processes sounds, and therefore I think that a modernist piece will never be popular as "Eine Kleine Nachtmusik".


Right, so it's still running then. Best send in the clowns to divert everything.


----------



## HansZimmer

Chat Noir said:


> Right, so it's still running then.


The aesthetic of the classical period is outdated and therefore many young people can't connect with it. There is the need of NEW popular classical, with an updated aesthetic.



> Best send in the clowns to divert everything.


Strongly opinionated, arrogant and stupid comment.

The soundtrack composers bring the people into classical music, the persons like you they make them run away.


----------



## Chat Noir

Incredibly humourless and dull thread.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

HansZimmer said:


> They have tried and they succeeded. John Williams has the world record for Oscar nominations for "Best original score". It's like a Roger Federer of the composers.


Oscar nominations for best original score do not make the music classical.


----------



## HansZimmer

Chat Noir said:


> Incredibly humourless and dull thread.


Humor? Since you entered the discussion you have done nothing but writing pretentious idiocies. I inform you that if you can not connect with a melody doesn't mean that the composer is a clown. It simply means that you can not connect with it.

Melodic tastes are subjective, therefore the quality of a composition is subjective, period. It is useless that you try to raise your personal tastes at the status of objective quality. You only look ridiculous and childish by doing so.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

Luchesi said:


> According to research, we're at the mercy of luck and happenstances during our years of adolescent brain development, explains a little about the complicated process going on, about 13 years for girls and 14 years for boys. If we don't get a love of serious music in those years, we might develop a love later but it will be different and probably less intense, because the brain chemicals have already done their developmental work. It’s over (the blank slate of youth) for that person..
> 
> The amygdala is responsible for immediate reactions including fear and flight-or-fight behavior (apparently this is important so young - for survival). This region develops early, but the frontal cortex develops later. And this part of the brain, which does the logical thinking before we act, is still changing and maturing well into adulthood.
> Also, during adolescence a rapid increase in the connections between the brain cells and making the pathways more effective enhances every sensory experience. The myelin continues to fill in to become an insulating layer that helps cells communicate.
> 
> All these changes give us a more vibrant experience when experiencing music in those years, and then it gets all mixed up with identity, sexuality, approval from our peers etc.
> 
> Pictures of the brain in action show that adolescents' brains work differently than adults when they make decisions or solve problems.
> 
> So apparently as we're latching on to our favorite types of music, it's not a thinking process, but it's more akin to a developing instinct, like apprehension at the sound of a rattlesnake or a lion roaring.


Idk if I can relate to any of that


mikeh375 said:


> Yes there are superficial similarities, direct cribs and even some freedoms but overall, film music is under a creatively restrictive kosh compared to concert/opera music in several key compositional aspects that impact totally on any expression a composer might use for a concert work. Namely harmonic language restrictions, phrase lengths, dramatic arc, any expressiveness is subjugated and determined by the screen and director, orchestration/timbral limits are curtailed and are often meddled with in the final dubb anyway (for the benefit dialogue and sfx). In the worst cases a dictatorial aesthetic from the director who may even change notes here and there or insisting on the composer having to copy temp tracks as near as damn it. Any final music is literally the result of a creative committee which is fine for utility, not so much for absolute music imo. It should be obvious that a good composer will make musical sense of awkward timings, sync points and other restrictions, that's not what the discussion is about.
> 
> For opera, seeing that some seem to think this equates to film scoring in some way, I would add that the composer is their own free agent and apart from having to compose and score for singers, has no such restrictions re language, timings (other than sensible for the dramatic arc), phrase lengths, orchestration and so on. It's therefore a false analogy to equate opera and film from a compositional point of view in my experience. One is seriously impeded and utterly dictated to by non musical events (and even people), the other not so much.





> Any final music is literally the result of a creative committee which is fine for utility, not so much for absolute music imo.


Well replace the "for utility" with "for complementing and working together with the screen", and... yeah? It _isn't_ absolute music.
Neither is music theater.
Program music isn't quite at the extreme end of the "absolute music" spectrum either.

I don't see how "part-of-the-whole music" not automatically working as absolute diminishes its value in any way, any more than a piece of absolute m being unsuitable for a narrative or particular visual sequence diminishes _that's_ value - both are among the most fundamental functions of "music" to begin with; literally parts of why it evolved in our brains lol


However the emphasis is on _"automatically"_ - for instance, Debussy's "Minstrels" (as great as all its bits are) throws me off a whole lot more than either of the 2 FMs I just posted;
of course it has the plausible deniability of being humorous, but it's still a good illustration of how actual program music can be less suitable in an "absolute" context than a lot of FM.

So the a-priori assumption of "of course stuff written to match the screen is gonna be less convincing than stuff written without a screen - duuhh?" meets the organic, unpredictable reality, and turns out to not always be true - looks like there may be a huge overlap there.





> For opera, seeing that some seem to think this equates to film scoring in some way, I would add that the composer is their own free agent


No, unless he Wagners everything himself, he's bound by the script / collaboration with the librettist, and which of them has the pants on isn't inherently determined by the music theater form.



> and apart from having to compose and score for singers, has no such restrictions re language,


Huh? The composer has no restrictions on language if he's the one also writing the lyrics.

By the same token, a FMer who also edits and directs and writes, isn't restricted by anything - and we just had an example of a composer-editor with Ottman;

and then there's the thing with Sergio Leone literally shooting his scenes to Morricone's recorded soundtrack - so who's restricted by whom in _that _case?




> timings (other than sensible for the dramatic arc), phrase lengths, orchestration and so on. It's therefore a false analogy to equate opera and film from a compositional point of view in my experience.


Why "equate"? Film - once shot and edited, that is - can't be stretched and squeezed the way an opera/musical composer can bend and stretch the phrases and the spaces between them (and that's just the 1:1 conversational kind of opera e.g. Wagner - doubly so if phrase repetition, choir / backing singers and whole songs built around a few sentences is all on the table lol).

However


> One is seriously impeded and utterly dictated to by non musical events (and even people), the other not so much.


well "not so much" is the key here - in the literal sense:

the degree of precise timing may be "less", but it's still highly driven by "non musical events" - it's _music theatre_. Not absolute lol.



And, once again, emphasis is on "_may be_ less" - cause in this film/opera comparison I just posted, that doesn't seem to be the case at all:
the FM soundtrack does _*not*_ sound more clunky and unconvincing without the visuals, than the Nabucco example.

In fact it comes off as if the scene design and editing are every bit as structured after the music, as the music is after the scene - once more the a-priori assumption of "film has more restrictive timing therefore stifles the music" turns out to have missed a rather big thing or 2.





> Yes there are superficial similarities, direct cribs and even some freedoms but overall,


The point was that "the F example doesn't look less convincing than the opera example", and the "crib" was merely pointed out in order to further illustrate this point - it wasn't just a "look there's a crib, therefore theyre the same lol"?

Also "some freedoms" is a rather vague, and quite possibly understating description of "woah that whole computer section certainly almost sounds autonomous, with that rhythm-driven build-up of tension - are we even sure Ottman didn't first compose that and then started making editing choices? or did it simultaneously while thinking about the interplay of all the elements?".




> film music is under a creatively restrictive kosh compared to *concert/opera* music in several key compositional aspects that impact totally on any expression a composer might use for a *concert* work.


Those 2 are not to be conflated! One is absolute music (as long as not program), the other is not - and the degree to which opera works in concert varies from case to case, from segment to segment.




> Namely harmonic language restrictions,


W- w- wait, now the conflations really are starting to shoot past the orbit aren't they? How is film a restriction on _harmony_?



> orchestration/timbral limits are curtailed and are often meddled with in the final dubb anyway (for the benefit dialogue and sfx)


Way too much of a case-by-case issue for making generalized statements like that - there are cases where the soundtrack can't be lush enough, why curtail it then?
And other cases where the sound effects literally collaborate with the music in order to create a larger whole - so taking it out of the equation is, then, like taking a part of the orchestration out of the equation... which is a lot similar to what you just described lol.

Can post obvius Space examples in a few moments.




> phrase lengths, dramatic arc, any expressiveness is subjugated and determined by the screen and director,
> [...]
> . In the worst cases a dictatorial aesthetic from the director who may even change notes here and there or insisting on the composer having to copy temp tracks as near as damn it. Any final music is literally the result of a creative committee which is fine for utility,


Another often repeated conflation here:
There's nothing about the form of film that necessitates everyone but the poor composercel to have absolute dictatorial authority over everything (and use that authority for corrupt, cynical, and tone-deaf purposes), and nothing about the form of music theater that makes the composerchad the creative God and any librettists that might show up into his humble servants.

Then you talk about "creative committees", which is a very corporate sounding word and implies money-counting producers much more than a collaborating creative team - and make no mention of patrons, censors etc. who were around in the 18th century and beyond, or creative collaborations (like Mozart at Schikaneder's theater"?) that've been always going as well.


If the film industry just happens to have a much higher degree of money-grabbing tone-deaf producers ruining everything / toxic, frustrating styles of collaboration and deadlines than either the modern theater scene, or the music&theater scenes of the 19th or 18th-vv centuries, then, oh well, maybe - but when such implications come from sb who keeps portraying those scenes as bastions of unimpeded musical freedom and autonomy, it doesn't sound particularly convincing, I've got to say.




> It should be obvious that a good composer will make musical sense of awkward timings, sync points and other restrictions, that's not what the discussion is about.


Creating magic out of restrictions is a rather common occurrence, so maybe it is part of the discussion?

Either way, I don't see how this "awkward timings" description applies to this X2 scene, and if you have other examples of this in mind, it'd probably make sense to post some of them.


----------



## DaveM

What is it that inspires someone to post in this thread how awful the thread is when said poster has been one of the most active posters. There has been more than one example.


----------



## Chat Noir

HansZimmer said:


> Humor? Since you entered the discussion you have done nothing but writing pretentious idiocies. I inform you that if you can not connect with a melody doesn't mean that the composer is a clown. It simply means that you can not connect with it.


This is why this discussion is problematic. You don't understand English that isn't straightforward, and so any light-hearted diversions are misunderstood. As is demonstrated above. I don't blame you for that, it's not like we could all conduct this in Italian.



HansZimmer said:


> Melodic tastes are subjective, therefore the quality of a composition is subjective, period. It is useless that you try to raise your personal tastes at the status of objective quality. You only look ridiculous and childish by doing so.


And here. All these muddled statements and ideas. Like good old Dave you are a goalpost shifter and sometimes don't even perceive the utter contradiction of statements made. Most other people just listen to music they like, but nothing singles out the newly-evangelised as trying to 'inform' and correct all these cultural wrongs.[/QUOTE]


----------



## HansZimmer

mikeh375 said:


> you don't seem to understand Hans and I've explained the differences before and can't be bothered to go over the same again, no offence. Needless to say in my and some of the biggest names in the business' experience you are very wrong about this. But good luck in getting the music world put back just the way you like it.


I was asking to explain the difference between writing standalone jazz music and writing jazz for a film score.


----------



## HansZimmer

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Oscar nominations for best original score do not make the music classical.


I was speaking about quality, not about genre. If a score composer get many Oscar nominations it means that he writes music which works, indipendently from the fact that he writes classical, jazz or pop music.

Now, in the last 30 pages of this thread I have discussed about quality because some opponents have started to attack the quality of film music, but in reality the argument has NOTHING to do with this discussion. This discussion is born ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY to discuss about genre. In few words, someone might support the idea that John Williams is the worst classical music composers of the history, but I don't understand how someone can support the idea that a lot of his film scores have nothing to do with classical music. 

Quality and genre are different things. A jazz piece can be better than a classical music piece. Classical doesn't mean "high quality".


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

HansZimmer said:


> I was speaking about quality, not about genre. If a score composer get many Oscar nominations it means that he writes music which works, indipendently from the fact that he writes classical, jazz or pop music.
> 
> Now, in the last 30 pages of this thread I have discussed about quality because some opponents have started to attack the quality of film music, but in reality the argument has NOTHING to do with this discussion. This discussion is born ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY to discuss about genre. In few words, someone might support the idea that John Williams is the worst classical music composers of the history, but I don't understand how someone can support the idea that a lot of his film scores have nothing to do with classical music.
> 
> Quality and genre are different things. A jazz piece can be better than a classical music piece. Classical doesn't mean "high quality".


Isn't the question of this thread why film music is not considered classical music? No doubt there is excellent quality film music that is better than some classical music.


----------



## DaveM

Chat Noir said:


> This is why this discussion is problematic. You don't understand English that isn't straightforward, and so any light-hearted diversions are misunderstood. As is demonstrated above. I don't blame you for that, it's not like we could all conduct this in Italian.


His understanding of English is just as good as yours.



> And here. All these muddled statements and ideas. Like good old Dave you are a goalpost shifter and sometimes don't even perceive the utter contradiction of statements made..


It is not unusual that the less of value one has to offer, the more gaslighting one resorts to.


----------



## Chat Noir

DaveM said:


> His understanding of English is just as good as yours.


Don't be silly Dave.



DaveM said:


> It is not unusual that the less of value one has to offer, the more gaslighting one resorts to.


Gas is so expensive now it's all I can do to stay warm.


----------



## Chat Noir

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Isn't the question of this thread why film music is not considered classical music? No doubt there is excellent quality film music that is better than some classical music.


Ah, but there's an implicit personal exception involved though. It runs like this: all the film music 'I' think is good, because it also conforms with my views of proper 'melody'-led music, deserves classification as 'classical music' or in other words recognition as 'worthy' (since apparently it can't stand on its own merit). See other thread by same OP + colleagues to discover what the _correct_ and meaningful form of 'classical music' is.

Alongside this there is also the bizarre and contradictory admission that: music quality is subjective. Also an allied thread where 'wrong' forms of film music which sound like stereotyped dodecaphonic music is taken to task. So some film music is by nature very bad.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

pianozach said:


> I'm reminded of the stage musical *City of Angels* (for which I musical directed many years ago at a high end amateur theatre), which is designed as a 1940s-ish film noir tribute, so much so that half the show is designed to be in black & white.
> 
> The score is mostly Big Band sounding, but curiously is not SCORED as a Big Band score . . . it's a musical theatre score arranged to SOUND like a Big Band.
> 
> Although my knowledge of jazz composition is limited, we had some musicians in the orchestra who were very familiar with Big Band, and were amused at how the score was arranged to sound like Big Band, *yet was playable by typical pit musicians*.
> 
> Real jazz musicians can tell the difference. I can "fake" playing jazz, but real jazz players *can instantly recognize that my chord voicings are NOT jazz voicings*, even though untrained listeners might be fooled.


Is "musical theatre" a particular genre though - as opposed to just anything that isn't called an opera instead? How'd they call a musical done in a full-blown jazz style?
And of course if _this_ isn't jazz, what is it then? Some kind of almost-jazz-but-not-quite?

Either way, all of this aside it'd be interesting if there was more detailed analysis and explanations of that sort in this thread. Do some "wrong voicings" prevent sth from being CM? Which ones, and specifically? Or sth else? Etc.


----------



## Luchesi

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> Idk if I can relate to any of that


Maybe you grew to appreciate music later.


----------



## Aries

HansZimmer said:


> My opinion is that the film music of John Williams has a better aesthetic in respect to his concert works for the simple fact that when he writes film music he get inspiration from romantic music, while when he writes music for concerts he get inspiration from modern classical music.
> However, although the concert works of John Williams are not my cup of tea, I have to say that the kind of modern classical music that he writes is still better than some other works I have found in the category.


I think his Violin Concerto No. 1 is very listenable, compared to his film music I miss big characteristic themes and leit motifs. His film music reminds more of Wagner, his Violin Concerto more of Shostakovich with the relentless argumentative violin. But I think the concert is still rather neoromantical, less "modern" than Shostakovich or Prokofiev for example.



mikeh375 said:


> you don't seem to understand Hans and I've explained the differences before and can't be bothered to go over the same again, no offence. Needless to say in my and some of the biggest names in the business' experience you are very wrong about this. But good luck in getting the music world put back just the way you like it.


Artists are extravagant and have a lot of special opinions. Maybe we should not leave it up to them to define terms. I rather trust a dictionaries. Wikipedia lists film score and soundtrack as classical music genres: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_classical_music_genres



Luchesi said:


> According to research, we're at the mercy of luck and happenstances during our years of adolescent brain development, explains a little about the complicated process going on, about 13 years for girls and 14 years for boys. If we don't get a love of serious music in those years, we might develop a love later but it will be different and probably less intense, because the brain chemicals have already done their developmental work. It’s over (the blank slate of youth) for that person..
> 
> The amygdala is responsible for immediate reactions including fear and flight-or-fight behavior (apparently this is important so young - for survival). This region develops early, but the frontal cortex develops later. And this part of the brain, which does the logical thinking before we act, is still changing and maturing well into adulthood.
> Also, during adolescence a rapid increase in the connections between the brain cells and making the pathways more effective enhances every sensory experience. The myelin continues to fill in to become an insulating layer that helps cells communicate.
> 
> All these changes give us a more vibrant experience when experiencing music in those years, and then it gets all mixed up with identity, sexuality, approval from our peers etc.
> 
> Pictures of the brain in action show that adolescents' brains work differently than adults when they make decisions or solve problems.
> 
> So apparently as we're latching on to our favorite types of music, it's not a thinking process, but it's more akin to a developing instinct, like apprehension at the sound of a rattlesnake or a lion roaring.


I was 13 years and 8 months old when decided to start to listen to classical music. And the listening quickly spread widely. But did I really not listen to classical music before? I listened to classical videogame soundtracks in video games before, and it was my preferred music since I really disliked popular music in the childhood. Compared to popular music I liked the elevated and refined character of these soundtracks and the sound of the classical instruments compared to human singing. I think it supported my entry to classical concert music.

So I have to agree to Hans Zimmer here:


HansZimmer said:


> The soundtrack composers bring the people into classical music, the persons like you they make them run away.





HansZimmer said:


> So what? The minimum requirements for Mozart was also to satisfy his clients, not writing immortal music. The point is that a composer should aways try to do his best, he souldn't be satisfied with the minimum requirements. So, you are giving bad advices to the film music composers and I'm quite sure that the most ambitious composers have not followed them.


I think some contract time pressure may contriubute to valueable productivness. People who are good in something just have to do it, and they will do it good if they have to. But if they don't have to they might tend to overthink things and don't get stuff done and might get megalomaniac conceptwise. At least this is the experience I have with myself. Giving structure is valueable.


----------



## HansZimmer

pianozach said:


> I'm reminded of the stage musical *City of Angels* (for which I musical directed many years ago at a high end amateur theatre), which is designed as a 1940s-ish film noir tribute, so much so that half the show is designed to be in black & white.
> 
> The score is mostly Big Band sounding, but curiously is not SCORED as a Big Band score . . . it's a musical theatre score arranged to SOUND like a Big Band.
> 
> Although my knowledge of jazz composition is limited, we had some musicians in the orchestra who were very familiar with Big Band, and were amused at how the score was arranged to sound like Big Band, yet was playable by typical pit musicians.
> 
> Real jazz musicians can tell the difference. I can "fake" playing jazz, but real jazz players can instantly recognize that my chord voicings are NOT jazz voicings, even though untrained listeners might be fooled.


Isn't a genre of music supposed to be generic? Isn't "true jazz" a bit like the true Scotsman?

Speaking of classical music, my opinion is that to write a piece that sounds like classical music is a generic task, while writing music that sounds specifically like Mozart is a specific task. Why? Because if you want to sound like Mozart, you have to copy the melodies of Mozart, while if you want to write a piece which sounds like classical music you only have to copy the generic aesthetic.

The generic aesthetic is the common denominator between the different composers, while the melodic content seems to be a very personal thing: it's where the individuality of the composer comes out. If you have listened to a lot of classical music and you have a decent musical ear, you should be able to reconize easily if a determined melody is of Mozart, Vivaldi or Tchaikovsky in a quiz with closed questions. It's more difficult, of course, to hear the difference between a determined composer and an other composer who tries/tried to imitate his personal style.

If the categories become too specific ("true jazz", "true classical music", and so on...) there is no more space for the artistic individuality. If, for example, Mozart is the "true classical music", then everyone has to write the melodies like Mozart. It's not a so interesting perspective.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

HansZimmer said:


> Not necessarily ostinato.
> 
> See the difference between this track...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and this other one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The second track exposes the theme of the first track at the beginning, and then after 1:27 there is a development based on the initial theme. At the end, after 2:28, the initial theme is still reprised.
> 
> In the first track there is only the basic theme. If the second track would simply orchestrate the melody of the first track, maybe Classic FM wouldn't have accepted it in the Classic FM Hall of Fame.


The loop in the 1st obviously consists of 2 segments - the 2nd one continuing from the same opening phrase but then going a different (and arguably somewhat more complex) route.

Here's the famous "not SoaD" cover of the theme, featuring only the 1st, more straightforward segment:





So more simplistic than the 1st video -and it doesn't seem to be any more simplistic than "Das Wandern" (already brought that one up in an earlier post, gonna reply to that one a bit later), a very straightforward and emphatically repetitive song.






Sure there's an obvious purpose to that endless repetition, but still - doesn't prevent it from enjoying a high status in "the canon", and that 1st Zelda track with its high freq looping doesn't sound_ too_ far off does it? (Plus it has a very intricate texture, sounds like a beast to perform live.)


So, would Classic FM have accepted that, or the 2nd track minus that advanced and creative middle section, into its Hall of Fame? Well, I dunno? The even simpler Schubert album opener has made it into the Hall of Canon, so maybe?
I'm not familiar with Classic FM otherwise, so I don't know their particular criteria - maybe a really good orchestra arrangement like this would've already pleased them? Especially with those subtle harmony changes that it did in the main theme? Can't rule that out at all.
(Although I guess I don't know for sure if they're the ones who came up with those harmonies - the Zelda theme has probably been covered a lot of times. Is that 1st video the original version or also far from it?)






> The looping of a track is still a different thing. Of course in a videogame the track must loop, but to loop a track of Mozart is a different thing in respect to loop a static theme.


Well this is a very short loop of course, the bit that gets looped is like 1 minute and wouldn't really work as a singular beginning-to-end "piece" (works great in a loop though), or feel complete enough;

there's video game tracks that are 3-4 minutes and work as standalones, as well as loops - a very different animal of course.


Looping "Mozart" like that could work if one, say, took an A-B-A segment (like the A major variations) and looped it - idk haven't really thought about or seen that kind of thing yet though.


----------



## Forster

HansZimmer said:


> So what? The minimum requirements for Mozart was also to satisfy his clients, not writing immortal music.


Right - so why _must_ film music composers write immortal music?



HansZimmer said:


> The point is that a composer should aways try to do his best, he souldn't be satisfied with the minimum requirements.


Of course. But that _wasn't_ your point - at least, it wasn't what you wrote.



HansZimmer said:


> So, you are giving bad advices to the film music composers and I'm quite sure that the most ambitious composers have not followed them.


I'm not "giving advice" to anyone, and certainly not film composers. I am simply taking issue with some of the points you make in your posts. The fact that you think this is "giving advice" confirms that not only do we disagree about film music, but that we inhabit different dimensions when it comes to internet discussion.


----------



## Aries

Forster said:


> I don't know why some people are inclined to be so rude about film music: it's not supposed to soar to the heights of a Wagnerian opera or a Beethoven or Mahler symphony. It only has to be serviceable. If it strikes some people as more valuable than that, that's a bonus, not a prerequisite.


All music is supposed to be as good as possible. The better the better. Self-evident like that. So it is of course better if film music soars to the heights of a Wagnerian opera or a Beethoven or Mahler symphony. And some film music comes at least close (composers like Bernard Herrmann and John Williams in mind). When there is such great film music and then you hear much worse, just servicable film music, it is natural that there will be an inclination to be very critical. Because there is much more potential.

Film music composers should aspire to write immortal music like other classical composers or any composer.


----------



## Forster

I'm sure no film composer sets out to write bad music.

They set out to fill the brief as best they can.

That's all there is to it.

No need for you or me to set any other _requirement_, not even about quality or immortality.

Nothing wrong with hopes and expectations of course.


----------



## mikeh375

Well there's a lot of rejoinders to pick through here. What's clear from the somewhat sardonic micro-surgery is that you are not a composer Yusufe, or if you are, you have no film/media/utility music experience. So, from a composer's perspective, not a listeners......(with apologies to the veterans of this thread for any repetition).



YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> Well replace the "for utility" with "for complementing and working together with the screen", and... yeah? It _isn't_ absolute music.
> Neither is music theater.
> Program music isn't quite at the extreme end of the "absolute music" spectrum either.


Sure, "working together with the screen" is an excellent phrase but there's nothing amiss in calling film music utility music because that is what most of it is. The art of scoring is different to the art of composing for oneself. My point about the "committee" as you eventually surmised, was meant to imply that symphonies and concert work are not created that way. The composing of the cues themselves might even be by more than one composer.
I wasn't inferring anything about program and theatre music btw but as you've mentioned them, it's clear to me that program music leaves many more compositional parameters free from external influence for the composer than film music does, resulting in a more personal expression. Yes there is a literary structure, but that's about it and even that has no timing restrictions down to the second or frame. The creative freedom for interpretation of the text has all of the major compositional parameters freely workable for the composer. I do believe that Theatre music is technically closer to film music however, as many more parameters have expectations and requirements that need to be met.




YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> I don't see how "part-of-the-whole music" not automatically working as absolute diminishes its value in any way, any more than a piece of absolute m being unsuitable for a narrative or particular visual sequence diminishes _that's_ value - both are among the most fundamental functions of "music" to begin with; literally parts of why it evolved in our brains lol


My argument is not so superficial and stems from the _way_ music has to be written for film, the circumstances and the potentially resulting artistic compromise that yields very different music compared to a concert hall approach. The composer who writes in both genres will tackle each with a different technical and aesthetic mindset. That compromise for the sake of popular immediacy, external drama and circumstances is deleterious to the form, depth of expression, musical narrative /development one might expect from say a symphony - hence the different compostional paradigms or 'hats' the composer will wear. The resulting musics are very different and its that difference that casts a doubt on the concert hall validity of some film music for me because I equate the term 'concert hall' with untrammelled masterful composition. YMMV.




YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> However the emphasis is on _"automatically"_ - for instance, Debussy's "Minstrels" (as great as all its bits are) throws me off a whole lot more than either of the 2 FMs I just posted;
> of course it has the plausible deniability of being humorous, but it's still a good illustration of how actual program music can be less suitable in an "absolute" context than a lot of FM.
> 
> So the a-priori assumption of "of course stuff written to match the screen is gonna be less convincing than stuff written without a screen - duuhh?" meets the organic, unpredictable reality, and turns out to not always be true - looks like there may be a huge overlap there.


Debussy was under no restrictions and wrote what he wanted - the music is therefore valid as personal expression for me - regardless of any classification - in comparison to the more necessarily diluted form of expression a composer may have to employ for composing FM. Our definitions of 'absolute' quite understandably are very different. Mine is to the letter and technique, music for music's sake.
There is undoubtedly an overlap in quality between FM and CHM (concert hall music), especially when one considers Williams' work, but exceptions here and there do not alter the basic aesthetic tenet of mine that the core principles and practices of film music are fundamentally and creatively at odds with CHM.
The assumption that FM is weaker than CHM is actually a considered judgement that I only decide upon (or not), when they are directly compared in every aspect because then I sometimes have issues with the equation that FM=CM. These issues obviously stem from my experiences in media plus musical and insider know-how - perhaps that's my problem but I'm happy and comfortable with its conclusions. Maybe FM and CM should not be compared at all as they are created for different purposes and with very different outcomes. BTW, I like lots of film music (have even written some myself) and have already stated earlier in the thread that I believe the best of it has a place in the concert hall...I think it's important that I mention that.




YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> Huh? The composer has no restrictions on language if he's the one also writing the lyrics.


The language restriction refers mostly to harmony and line. In the context of the OP title, this is a big deal. I can do no better with explanation than urge you to listen to 10 minutes of J Williams' First Violin Concerto. In that work you hear Williams without external restrictions and the resulting music is more profound in expressive and musical intent. It is also in a different language to the 'Star Wars' main theme. The differences are so marked that one would be hard pressed to say they where the same composer. Everything about that work and others by him, from the long expansive, free-ranging linear lines and development, through to the harmonic basis and expressionist tone are at odds with his popular tunes and the duties they needed to fulfill.




YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> In fact it comes off as if the scene design and editing are every bit as structured after the music, as the music is after the scene - once more the a-priori assumption of "film has more restrictive timing therefore stifles the music" turns out to have missed a rather big thing or 2.


Film music _is_ very restrictive in its timings for musical phrasing and general narrative, this is patently obvious. From sync points to scene durations (with hit points along the way if needed within the one cue), to emotional arcs and instant shifts in mood. It's a given for a composer to have to make these durational happenings and events seem musically inevitable - thats just being professional. Non- musical requirements and expectations have no say in creating CHM unless the composer wants them and even then, they are subjugated to his/hers imagination and timings. FM is only stifling to a composer who also writes for the concert hall in that said composer will most likely not need to use the full technical arsenal available to him/her. This is how it should be and actually is, it is not a put down of FM itself. It does become an issue for me when the process of writing FM is compared to master works in the canon though.




YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> Those 2 are not to be conflated! One is absolute music (as long as not program), the other is not - and the degree to which opera works in concert varies from case to case, from segment to segment.


That's far too simplistic from a composer's pov. The composer of opera has many more freedoms technically than the composer of film music. It's the varying degrees of technical and expressive freedom that matter and their resulting impact on the end music. Some freedoms are curtailed more, some less so between differing genres. The less there are the better, but none other than what the composer enforces, is best of all.




YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> W- w- wait, now the conflations really are starting to shoot past the orbit aren't they? How is film a restriction on _harmony_?


Because the film composer has to write in an immediately comprehensible way which precludes the more complex harmony/language they might wish to use in CHM. There are exceptions of course and dissonance for example is used to great effect. But generally speaking a film composer will gravitate to the tonal by default and for good reason given its instantaneous appeal. None of which is an issue for me, however I don't expect a composer's CHM to be so tonally handicapped with just common chords simple progressions and cliched key changes, as that language has much more to offer. There is no conflation, it's just simply as it is.




YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> Way too much of a case-by-case issue for making generalized statements like that - there are cases where the soundtrack can't be lush enough, why curtail it then?
> And other cases where the sound effects literally collaborate with the music in order to create a larger whole - so taking it out of the equation is, then, like taking a part of the orchestration out of the equation... which is a lot similar to what you just described lol.


Well you seem pretty sure about this and yet the above is one of the reasons I know you don't know much about the other side, at the filmscore coalface which is quite understandable. It's not uncommon for the composer to deliver to the dubbing studio what's known as 'stems' - a breakdown of the music into a selection of similar tracks rather than a single full mix file. The collaboration of SFX and music you mention can be made more effective when the dubbing engineer has more micro-control over all audio. To save me typing, scroll down from here below to 'Music Scoring for Film and TV Productions'.
Stems In Music Production - Everything You Need To Know | Production Expert

The opposite being that I was once told that the engineer who dubbed a lot of Goldsmith's scores, used to have such faith in his work that he would literally set the level for the full mix of music and hardly touch it during the dubb. These days, stems are more prevalent in the dubbing theatre and yes, re-mixing occurs.



YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> Another often repeated conflation here:
> There's nothing about the form of film that necessitates everyone but the poor composercel to have absolute dictatorial authority over everything (and use that authority for corrupt, cynical, and tone-deaf purposes), and nothing about the form of music theater that makes the composerchad the creative God and any librettists that might show up into his humble servants.
> 
> Then you talk about "creative committees", which is a very corporate sounding word and implies money-counting producers much more than a collaborating creative team - and make no mention of patrons, censors etc. who were around in the 18th century and beyond, or creative collaborations (like Mozart at Schikaneder's theater"?) that've been always going as well.
> 
> 
> If the film industry just happens to have a much higher degree of money-grabbing tone-deaf producers ruining everything / toxic, frustrating styles of collaboration and deadlines than either the modern theater scene, or the music&theater scenes of the 19th or 18th-vv centuries, then, oh well, maybe - but when such implications come from sb who keeps portraying those scenes as bastions of unimpeded musical freedom and autonomy, it doesn't sound particularly convincing, I've got to say.


Well that's all a little OTT if you don't mind me saying so, tetchy even. Money making and producers, well who'd have thought..LOL. The collaboration between director and composer has to be congnizant not only of artistic success.



YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> Creating magic out of restrictions is a rather common occurrence, so maybe it is part of the discussion?


Couldn't agree more with the proviso that any restrictions are best self-imposed if the music is intended for the concert hall. As always YMMV.


----------



## mikeh375

Aries said:


> Artists are extravagant and have a lot of special opinions. Maybe we should not leave it up to them to define terms. I rather trust a dictionaries. Wikipedia lists film score and soundtrack as classical music genres: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_classical_music_genres


yeah, those artists don't know a thing. All of that specialist know-how that takes years of training and experience is such a barrier to the truth of the matter.
The Wiki link is rather vague, generalised somewhat and a teeny bit contradictory don't you think, regarding the classification of FM as CM?


----------



## Aries

mikeh375 said:


> yeah, those artists don't know a thing. All of that specialist know-how that takes years of training and experience is such a barrier to the truth of the matter.


Apparently, if they come up with such bad results of term definitions. Defining terms is the business of dictionaries, composers should maybe stick to their business: Writing music. Classical music is an umbrella term like popular music, not a term for specialities. On top of that rivalries could be the reason when one composers denys that an other is classical. You have a better overview over something from the far. Avantgarde composers who deny that classicist style composers or classical film music composers are "valid" or classical is a kind of Kindergarten you can ignore regarding term definitions.



mikeh375 said:


> The Wiki link is rather vague, generalised somewhat and a teeny bit contradictory don't you think, regarding the classification of FM as CM?


What do you mean exactly?


----------



## HansZimmer

PeterKC said:


> Yes, I think so. It is serious music no doubt, but, it is the vehicle for the story. I guess I would liken it to opera without words. The sum is better that the separate parts. Just my two cents.


So, to say "it's not classical music, but employed music" is like to say "He's not a child, he's a male". The case of incidental music (or works like "Pictures at an Exibition") shows that classical music can be employed music.
I also think that it's quite safe to say that Mozart, Beethoven and Tchaikovsky have composed music for theatre, but not for cinema, only because at their time the cinema didn't exist.


----------



## PeterKC

HansZimmer said:


> So, to say "it's not classical music, but employed music" is like to say "He's not a child, he's a male". The case of incidental music (or works like "Pictures at an Exibition") shows that classical music can be employed music.
> I also think that it's quite safe to say that Mozart, Beethoven and Tchaikovsky have composed music for theatre, but not for cinema, only because at their time the cinema didn't exist.
> 
> Not quite sure of the Mussorgsky example or what you mean by it.


----------



## PeterKC

Maybe you question should be broadened to include musicals. Why don't we consider 
Broadway Musicals as classical music?


----------



## HansZimmer

mikeh375 said:


> The liberated expression in William's concert work has more musical depth and reach than his film scores and is as a result, much more powerful as transcendental art music by comparison to dictated film cues.


To be honest, the difference between the aesthetic of film music and concert works simply shows that John Williams knows that romantique music with memorable themes is more fulfilling for most people in respect to more modern music.
So, I can bet that if the music of John Williams will become timeless, it will be thanks to his music for films, not thanks to his concert works.



> You can argue for a myopic dumbing down of music


Musical depth, dumbing down, and so on... are all subjective judgements. If you ask to the people who don't digest modern music, they will say that it's a dumbing down of the aesthetic of classical music.



> Great rewards from music require much in the way of effort and not merely listening to music that "lets the ear lie back in an easy chair" (Ives). You should try putting real effort into getting to know music outside your comfort zone as it is worth it.


I've already tried to listen to the contemporary music posted in this forum by some users. It doesn't do nothing for me. I'll wait for the next soundtrack.


----------



## HansZimmer

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> By the same token, a FMer who also edits and directs and writes, isn't restricted by anything - and we just had an example of a composer-editor with Ottman;
> 
> and then there's the thing with Sergio Leone literally shooting his scenes to Morricone's recorded soundtrack - so who's restricted by whom in _that _case?


Thanks.

Can I add that film music is also written for the end credits, so it's not always restricted from the editing? Can I also add that not always the best music is found in the end credits and that the music written for scenes can be better as standalone music?


----------



## HansZimmer

Chat Noir said:


> This is why this discussion is problematic. You don't understand English that isn't straightforward, and so any light-hearted diversions are misunderstood. As is demonstrated above. I don't blame you for that, it's not like we could all conduct this in Italian.


Did I understand something that you didn't write?



> And here. All these muddled statements and ideas. Like good old Dave you are a goalpost shifter and sometimes don't even perceive the utter contradiction of statements made. Most other people just listen to music they like, but nothing singles out the newly-evangelised as trying to 'inform' and correct all these cultural wrongs.



Can you explain this part? I don't understand what you mean.


----------



## HansZimmer

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Isn't the question of this thread why film music is not considered classical music? No doubt there is excellent quality film music that is better than some classical music.


No, the question is why some persons argue against the fact that classical music composed for a film score is classical music.
If written the way you report it, the question is wrong, because a lot of film music is not classical. You can find every kind of music in film music: jazz, pop, rock, rap...

To clarify, the score of Dune composed by Hans Zimmer for example has nothing to do with classical music, at least not with classical music of the common pratice period.
Other film scores, like for example the ones of The Age Of Innocence or "Sense and sensibility", are 100% classical, until proven otherwise. If you think that the sky is not blue, prove it!

Sense and sensibility (@Aries, an other recommended score of the nineties)







Age of Innocence


----------



## Chat Noir

HansZimmer said:


> Did I understand something that you didn't write?
> 
> Can you explain this part? I don't understand what you mean.


Are you having me on?


----------



## HansZimmer

Chat Noir said:


> Ah, but there's an implicit personal exception involved though. It runs like this: all the film music 'I' think is good, because it also conforms with my views of proper 'melody'-led music, deserves classification as 'classical music' or in other words recognition as 'worthy' (since apparently it can't stand on its own merit).


Straw man. The users who confuse the concept of "classical music" with the concept of "quality" are others, not me.

For example, I consider this score of John Williams as "classical music", but I don't like it so much.






Sometimes, a film score is classical music and it's also excellent.

It's not my fault if some people are not able to understand a simple question and read the title of this discussion as "Why do many people think that film music is not timeless like Beethoven?".
If I wanted to ask this, I would have opened a discussion with that title.

During the discussion, my opinion that some film music might be timeless has come out, but it's not the subject of this discussion.




> See other thread by same OP + colleagues to discover what the _correct_ and meaningful form of 'classical music' is.


The discussion to which you refer is not meant to attack the tastes of people who like modernist atonal music (which are a respectable niche audience), but it's meant to give suggestions about how to relaunch classical music between the new generations.
I simply wrote that atonal music and pastiches of Mozart's music, or continously reproposing old music, won't work. If you want to relaunch classical music, you have to copy film music. It's the future.

It's interesting that in that discussion you read a specific attack towards modernist music, since I also wrote that you can't relaunch classical music with old music or with pastiches of old music. Since I like the music of Mozart, it's clear that the above observation is not an attack towards Mozart's music. I just take note of reality: the music of Mozart doesn't connect with new generations. The composers have to offer different entry points for classical music. Something like "Star Wars" symphony, for example, premiered in a mixed concert where there is also Mozart's music.

What's your plan to save classical music?




> Alongside this there is also the bizarre and contradictory admission that: music quality is subjective.


It is, infact. And if you want to save classical music you have to abbandon the idea that the quality of music is objective and that the people don't understand the objective quality. Simply take note of the subjective tastes of the young people of today and produce NEW classical music that they can appreciate. It's as easy as that.
This doesn't mean that all composers must become entertainers, because there is also a room for classical music for a niche audience. I'm only saying that some good entertainers are also needed to save classical music and that the modernist gang should stop to attack modern composers who try to touch the heart of the people.

It seems that you don't understand that my posts are a reaction towards the snobbery of the modernist gangs against classical music composers who try to entertain people.


----------



## Chat Noir

HansZimmer said:


> but it's meant to give suggestions about how to relaunch classical music between the new generations.
> I simply wrote that atonal music and pastiches of Mozart's music, or continously reproposing old music, won't work. If you want to relaunch classical music, you have to copy film music. It's the future.


And here is exactly the problem, which seems to be invisible to you, and which in fact lays bare a simple prejudice. You have grouped together things supposedly at odds with 'relaunching classical music', where one of them is just a form you dislike (so-called 'atonal) and the other two are intended to give a supposed 'balance' to the prejudice. It's amusing in some ways, because the music you keep offering as 'relaunching' and 'saving' classical music is exactly proposing old music and is exactly pastiche and is exactly tired orchestral clichés strung together. Some is good on its own merits, yet the purpose you are giving it is highly overblown.



HansZimmer said:


> What's your plan to save classical music?


I don't need one, no-one needs one, it doesn't need to be 'saved'. That's your entire error. Until you learn that the trajectory of music where it isn't all the way you personally want it to be, isn't a sign of its 'death', you'll keep on with this ill-fated silliness.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

mikeh375 said:


> Well there's a lot of rejoinders to pick through here. What's clear from the somewhat sardonic micro-surgery is that you are not a composer Yusufe, or if you are, you have no film/media/utility music experience. So, from a composer's perspective, not a listeners......(with apologies to the veterans of this thread for any repetition).
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, "working together with the screen" is an excellent phrase but there's nothing amiss in calling film music utility music because that is what most of it is. The art of scoring is different to the art of composing for oneself. My point about the "committee" as you eventually surmised, was meant to imply that symphonies and concert work are not created that way.
> I wasn't inferring anything about program and theatre music btw but as you've mentioned them, it's clear to me that program music leaves many more compositional parameters free from external influence for the composer than film music does, resulting in a more personal expression. Yes there is a literary structure, but that's about it and even that has no timing restrictions down to the second or frame. The creative freedom for interpretation has all of the major compositional parameters freely workable for the composer. I do believe that Theatre music is technically closer to film music however, as many more parameters have expectations and requirements that need to be met.
> 
> 
> 
> My argument stems from the _way_ music has to be written for film and the potentially resulting artistic compromise that yields very different music compared to a concert hall approach. The composer who writes in both genres will tackle each with a different technical and aesthetic mindset. That compromise for the sake of popular immediacy, external drama and circumstances is deleterious to the form, depth of expression,musical narrative /development one might expect from say a symphony - hence the different compostional paradigms or 'hats' the composer will wear. The resulting musics are very different and its that difference that casts a doubt on the concert hall validity of some film music for me because I equate the term 'concert hall' with untrammelled masterful composition. YMMV.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Debussy was under no restrictions and wrote what he wanted - the music is valid as personal expression for me, in comparison to the more necessarily diluted form of expression a composer may have to employ for composing FM. Our definitions of 'absolute' quite understandably are very different. Mine is to the letter and technique, music for music's sake.
> The assumption that FM is weaker than CHM (concert hall music) is actually a considered judgement that only occurs for me when they are directly compared in every aspect because then I have issues. These issues obviously stem from my experiences in media and musical and insider know-how - perhaps thats my burden but I'm happy with its conclusions. Perhaps FM and CM should not be compared at all as they are created for different purposes and with very different outcomes. I like lots of film music (have even written some myself) and have already stated earlier in the thread that I believe the best of it has a place in the concert hall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The language restriction refers mostly to harmony and line. In the context of the OP title, this is a big deal. I can do no better with explanation than urge you to listen to 10 minutes of J Williams' First Violin Concerto. In that work you hear Williams without external restrictions and the resulting music is more profound in expressive and musical intent. It is also in a different language to the 'Star Wars' main theme. The differences are so marked that one would be hard pressed to say they where the same composer. Everything about that work and others by him, from the long expansive, free-ranging linear lines and development, through to the harmonic basis and expressionist tone are at odds with his popular tunes and the duties they need to fulfill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Film music _is_ very restrictive in its timings for musical phrasing and general narrative, this is patently obvious. From sync points to scene durations (with hit points along the way if needed within the one cue), to emotional arcs and instant shifts in mood. It's a given for a composer to have to make these durational happenings and events seem musically inevitable - thats just being professional. Non- musical requirements and expectations have no say in creating CHM unless the composer wants them and even then, they are subjugated to his/hers imagination and timings. FM is only stifling to a composer who also writes for the concert hall in that the composer will not use the full technical arsenal available to him. This is how it should be and actually is, it is not a put down of FM itself. It does become an issue for me when compared to master works in the canon though.
> 
> 
> 
> That's far too simplistic from a composer's pov. The composer of opera has many more freedoms technically than the composer of film music. It's the varying degrees of technical and expressive freedom that matter and their resulting impact on the end music. Some freedoms are curtailed more, some less so between differing genres. The less there are the better, but none other than what the composer enforces is best of all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the film composer has to write in an immediately comprehensible w
> ay which precludes the more complex harmony/language they might wish to use in CHM. There are exceptions of course but generally speaking a film composer will gravitate to the tonal by default and for good reason. That's not an issue for me, however I don't expect a composer's CHM to be as handicapped. There is no conflation, it's just simply as it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well you seem pretty sure about this and yet the above is one of the reasons I know you don't know much about the other side, at the filmscore coalface which is quite understandable. It's not uncommon for the composer to deliver to the dubbing studio what's known as 'stems' - a breakdown of the music into a selection of similar tracks rather than a single full mix file. The collaboration of SFX and music you mention can be made more effective when the dubbing engineer has more micro-control over all audio. To save me typing, scroll down from here below to 'Music Scoring for Film and TV Productions'.
> Stems In Music Production - Everything You Need To Know | Production Expert
> 
> The opposite being that I was once told that the engineer who dubbed a lot of Goldsmith's scores, used to have such faith in his work that he would literally set the level for the full mix of music and hardly touch it during the dubb. These days, stems are more prevalent in the dubbing theatre and yes, re-mixing occurs.
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's all a little OTT if you don't mind me saying so, tetchy even. Money making and producers, well who'd have thought..LOL. The collaboration between director and composer has to be congnizant not only of artistic success.
> 
> 
> 
> Couldn't agree more with the proviso that any restrictions are best self-imposed if the music is intended for the concert hall. As always YMMV.





A partial reply for now, to try and clear up a few things:



> Because the film composer has to write in an immediately comprehensible way which precludes the more complex harmony/language they might wish to use in CHM. There are exceptions of course but generally speaking a film composer will gravitate to the tonal by default and for good reason. That's not an issue for me, however I don't expect a composer's CHM to be as handicapped. There is no conflation, it's just simply as it is.


What exactly do you mean by "complex" vs. "tonal"?
Audiences aren't expected to analyze, understand and transcribe every last detail of a complex passage - sure some do and the artists probably want that as well, but the "popcorn masses" are just supposed to react to the score with their brains;

and our brain is highly and immediately (i.e. with no "training" or other such required) responsive to a lot of "non-tonal" harmony - perceiving a lot of the post-romantic stuff as, say, surreal, weird, mystifying, or in terms of outright cluster dissonance, unsettling and horrifying etc., and those kinds of devices are being spammed all over cinema constantly, in order to evoke those effects;
including Star Wars obviously.
(And a lot of "pop" as well.)

So are you talking about stuff _within_ those post-rom harmonies that audiences can't pick up on? And would potentially find less "weird" and more "relatable" if they did? Like making out the components in polytonality and whatnot?






> The language restriction refers mostly to harmony and line. In the context of the OP title, this is a big deal.* I can do no better with explanation than urge you to listen to 10 minutes of J Williams' First Violin Concerto. In that work you hear Williams without external restrictions and the resulting music is more profound in expressive and musical intent. It is also in a different language to the 'Star Wars' main theme. The differences are so marked that one would be hard pressed to say they where the same composer. Everything about that work and others by him, from the long expansive, free-ranging linear lines and development, through to the harmonic basis and expressionist tone are at odds with his popular tunes and the duties they need to fulfill.*





> Well you seem pretty sure about this and yet the above is one of the reasons I know you don't know much about the other side, at the filmscore coalface which is quite understandable. * It's not uncommon for the composer to deliver to the dubbing studio what's known as 'stems' - a breakdown of the music into a selection of similar tracks rather than a single full mix file. The collaboration of SFX and music you mention can be made more effective when the dubbing engineer has more micro-control over all audio. To save me typing, scroll down from here below to 'Music Scoring for Film and TV Productions'.
> Stems In Music Production - Everything You Need To Know | Production Expert
> 
> The opposite being that I was once told that the engineer who dubbed a lot of Goldsmith's scores, used to have such faith in his work that he would literally set the level for the full mix of music and hardly touch it during the dubb. These days, stems are more prevalent in the dubbing theatre and yes, re-mixing occurs.*


I'll check out both of these in a short while.


For right now, I'll just say that I'd heard about post-composer remixing (specifically in regards to EpI and VII - in the 1st case, Williams wrote an open letter to Lucas where he said he was distancing himself from the final remixed product, or sth like that; in the latter it was used as an explanation for some people's disappointments in that movie's score), and that there are 2 relevant sides to this:

1) What the product ends up being like - regardless of whether it was wagner'd by just 1 person, or was a collaborative effort between 2-3 or 100 people, etc. etc.;
some would argue that in Rigoletto's case, the censorship ended up working out for the best (cause else we wouldn't have Spaaaaaaraaaaaaaafucil), so that's just a necessary perspective to keep in mind.

2) What things look like from the composer's perspective, and various other things connected with the production work and BTS information - which appears to be your main focus here.






> Film music _is_ very restrictive in its timings for musical phrasing and general narrative, this is patently obvious. From sync points to scene durations (with hit points along the way if needed within the one cue), to emotional arcs and *instant shifts in mood*. It's a given for a composer to have to make these durational happenings and events seem musically inevitable - thats just being professional. Non- musical requirements and expectations have no say in creating CHM unless the composer wants them and even then, they are subjugated to his/hers imagination and timings. FM is only stifling to a composer who also writes for the concert hall in that the composer will not use the full technical arsenal available to him. This is how it should be and actually is, it is not a put down of FM itself. It does become an issue for me when compared to master works in the canon though.
> 
> ]quote[
> 
> That's far too simplistic from a composer's pov. The composer of opera has many more freedoms technically than the composer of film music. It's the varying degrees of technical and expressive freedom that matter and their resulting impact on the end music. Some freedoms are curtailed more, some less so between differing genres. The less there are the better, but none other than what the composer enforces is best of all.


htt ps://ww w.youtube.com/watch?v=VwVtPlIO5L8&t=82m36s

Since you initially replied to the post with that Nabucco/X-Men comparison, maybe it'd be better to reply to those concrete observations as well - otherwise it gets too opaque and blurry, and often not clear enough what exactly is being described there.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

PeterKC said:


> Maybe you question should be broadened to include musicals. Why don't we consider
> Broadway Musicals as classical music?


Theoretically, the term CM can be narrowed and stretched anywhere from only the most complex, long, and/or autonomously written stuff from Renaissance to early 20th century, to including pretty much anything that isn't full-blown folk played by rurals;

in practice, Broadway don't generally identify as CM, though of course there's lots of overlaps and "crossovers"; it's an identity thing.





HansZimmer said:


> Thanks.
> 
> Can I add that film music is also written for the end credits, so it's not always restricted from the editing? Can I also add that not always the best music is found in the end credits *and that the music written for scenes can be better as standalone music?*


That sounds quite plausible, however rn I'm struggling to think of such a concrete example (esp. within 1 movie), so can't really comment atm.




HansZimmer said:


> I simply wrote that atonal music and pastiches of Mozart's music, or continously reproposing old music, won't work. If you want to relaunch classical music,


My impression's that it's going pretty strong and doesn't need relaunching, but idk don't have the whole picture on this.




> you have to copy film music. It's the future.


You mean romanticism and post?




> It's interesting that in that discussion you read a specific attack towards modernist music, since I also wrote that you can't relaunch classical music with old music or with pastiches of old music. Since I like the music of Mozart, it's clear that the above observation is not an attack towards Mozart's music. I just take note of reality: the music of Mozart doesn't connect with new generations.






?


----------



## DaveM

HansZimmer said:


> Sense and sensibility (@Aries, an other recommended score of the nineties)


I think that was originally @DaveM.  I mention that because, out of the hours upon hours of carefully edited (often into suites) film music from the period of 1980 to (about) 2015 I have as recorded playlists, the Sense and Sensibility is one of the best examples of the term classical-music-like (as I posted with the track earlier in this thread).


----------



## HansZimmer

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> The loop in the 1st obviously consists of 2 segments - the 2nd one continuing from the same opening phrase but then going a different (and arguably somewhat more complex) route.
> 
> Here's the famous "not SoaD" cover of the theme, featuring only the 1st, more straightforward segment:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So more simplistic than the 1st video -and it doesn't seem to be any more simplistic than "Das Wandern" (already brought that one up in an earlier post, gonna reply to that one a bit later), a very straightforward and emphatically repetitive song.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure there's an obvious purpose to that endless repetition, but still - doesn't prevent it from enjoying a high status in "the canon", and that 1st Zelda track with its high freq looping doesn't sound_ too_ far off does it? (Plus it has a very intricate texture, sounds like a beast to perform live.)
> 
> 
> So, would Classic FM have accepted that, or the 2nd track minus that advanced and creative middle section, into its Hall of Fame? Well, I dunno? The even simpler Schubert album opener has made it into the Hall of Canon, so maybe?
> I'm not familiar with Classic FM otherwise, so I don't know their particular criteria - maybe a really good orchestra arrangement like this would've already pleased them? Especially with those subtle harmony changes that it did in the main theme? Can't rule that out at all.
> (Although I guess I don't know for sure if they're the ones who came up with those harmonies - the Zelda theme has probably been covered a lot of times. Is that 1st video the original version or also far from it?)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well this is a very short loop of course, the bit that gets looped is like 1 minute and wouldn't really work as a singular beginning-to-end "piece" (works great in a loop though), or feel complete enough;
> 
> there's video game tracks that are 3-4 minutes and work as standalones, as well as loops - a very different animal of course.
> 
> 
> Looping "Mozart" like that could work if one, say, took an A-B-A segment (like the A major variations) and looped it - idk haven't really thought about or seen that kind of thing yet though.



In the classical period the instrumental pieces were usually written in forms which consist basically of one or more main sections containing the main theme(s) and one ore more contrasting sections containing other themes, developments based on the main themes or variations of the main themes.

The easier form to understand is probably the one called "theme and variations", where you usually have the main theme at the beginning and then an undefined numbers of variations of it.
Then there is the rondò, which is like this: main theme - episode 1 (contrasting section) - main theme - episode 2 (contrasting section) - main theme - episode n (contrasting section)...
There are the tripartite forms, like the menuet, which is like this: outer section - inner section (contrasting section) - outer section.

Finally, the most important form, the sonata-form, which is usually like this: exposition - repetition of the exposition - development (contrasting section) - recapitulation - coda.

In multimovement works you usually find the sonata-form in the first movement, the menuet in the third movement and a rondò in the last movement.

Take for example the first movement of the Symphony 14 of Mozart (sonata-form).
00:00 Exposition
01:35 Repetition of the exposition
03:10 Development
03:43 Recapitulation

The development section is usually quite compressed in the Mozart's symphonies, but look at the structure of the exposition:
- 00:00 - 00:28: First theme
- 00:28 - 00:56: Second theme
- 00:56 - 01:15 Third theme
- 01:15 - 01:35 Fourth theme

The exposition already contains a well written, dynamic melody.






As the definition of classical music is vague, it's not that you can not orchestrate a static theme and say that it's classical music, but to join the domain of the RESPECTED classical music composers is an other thing. If you orchestrate static themes, the folks will compare your piece with the ones of the 15 years old Mozart and will say that there is not enough creativity in your works.


I think that a lied or song is not meant to be sophisticate as an instrumental piece, but remember that the great composers have all composed symphonies/concertos/sonatas/masses/opera.


----------



## pianozach

PeterKC said:


> Maybe you question should be broadened to include musicals. Why don't we consider
> Broadway Musicals as classical music?


I'll assume that your question is serious.

Well, we can't even decide where to draw the line when it comes to dividing Classical from non-Classical.

But the Broadway Musical genre is occasionally operatic in nature, but more than often, it ISN'T.

To really understand it's place in the Musical Spectrum, one must go all the way back to *Oratorio*, the development of *Opera*, then the offshoots of *Comic Opera* and *Operetta*, _AND_ how they led to a somewhat linear development that branched off to Stage Musicals.

But there's almost a direct line from the *Gilbert & Sullivan* operettas, to their new lives in the United States in the works of Reginald *De Koven* (Robin Hood, 1890), John Philip *Sousa* (El Capitan, 1896), Victor *Herbert* (Babes in Toyland, 1903), and Sigmund *Romberg* (The Student Prince, 1924; The Desert Song, 1926), etc..

After that were the rise of semi-operatic musicals developed by *Oscar Hammerstein II, Jerome Kern, Lorenz Hart, Richard Rodgers*, then to the likes of *Sondheim, Lucy Simon,* and *Andrew Lloyd Webber*.

The problem with including Broadway Musicals as "Classical Music" is similar to the question of whether "Film Music" is Classical. 

Musicals _can_ be Classical (*West Side Story*), and many have Classical elements, whether it's the singing style (*Oklahoma*) or the composing style (Sweeney Todd). The problem is that so many musicals are pointing NOT Classical (*Gypsy, Oliver!, Annie, Nunsense, Spamalot, Falsettos, Beauty and the Beast, Finian's Rainbow, The King & I*, etc.).


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

I'm familiar with those forms and a couple others, however atm I can't think of a piece with an A1-A2 structure (like that 1st Zelda example) - maybe there's a ton and I'm just being dumb, however for all I know atm, maybe that does disqualify it from the genre, idk.

Das Wandern does have sth that can be interpreted as a very short B section (or pre-chorus + chorus, alternatively).




> 00:00 - 00:28: First theme
> 00:28 - 00:56: Second theme
> 00:56 - 01:15 Third theme
> 01:15 - 01:35 Fourth theme


A bit more precisely (though not immediately relevant to the topic at hand), I think 00:56 is called the 2nd (or 2ndary?) theme, while 0:28 is the transition (modulation / un-modulation, respectively) into the 2nd theme, and 1:15 the conclusion of the exposition - forgot the precise terms.
Probably can be read in different ways though.



HansZimmer said:


> As the definition of classical music is vague, it's not that you can not orchestrate a static theme and say that it's classical music, but to join the domain of the RESPECTED classical music composers is an other thing. If you orchestrate static themes, the folks will compare your piece with the ones of the 15 years old Mozart and will say that there is not enough creativity in your works.


Well who respects whom is a whole other question, however I'm quite sure if I did that and then added a short simple middle section (in the tripartite sense, or similar) that wouldn't make everyone go from not respecting me at all, to a lot lol

There were also people who trashed the entire classicism period for being too primitive, Mozart being among those who were already heavily advancing it towards its end - so it's all a matter of perspective, really.



> I think that a lied or song is not meant to be sophisticate as an instrumental piece, but remember that the great composers have all composed symphonies/concertos/sonatas/masses/opera.


The ones who're famous now, yeah I think so; whether all their contemporary colleagues as well, don't know right now;

of course there's the concept of doing something advanced and impressive and thereby gaining respect for one's simpler works - however at the same time, throwing 1 guy's simple works into the trashbin while preserving another guy's simple works as respected entries, only because the 2nd guy also proved himself with harder challenges, wouldn't seem reasonable either.

Would ClassicFM have accepted a static-theme-only in their HoF, _if_ the composer in question had also written a 2 hour long symphony on the side lol? Who knows (well I at least don't).


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

pianozach said:


> I'll assume that your question is serious.
> 
> Well, we can't even decide where to draw the line when it comes to dividing Classical from non-Classical.
> 
> But the Broadway Musical genre is occasionally operatic in nature, but more than often, it ISN'T.
> 
> To really understand it's place in the Musical Spectrum, one must go all the way back to *Oratorio*, the development of *Opera*, then the offshoots of *Comic Opera* and *Operetta*, _AND_ how they led to a somewhat linear development that branched off to Stage Musicals.
> 
> But there's almost a direct line from the *Gilbert & Sullivan* operettas, to their new lives in the United States in the works of Reginald *De Koven* (Robin Hood, 1890), John Philip *Sousa* (El Capitan, 1896), Victor *Herbert* (Babes in Toyland, 1903), and Sigmund *Romberg* (The Student Prince, 1924; The Desert Song, 1926), etc..
> 
> After that were the rise of semi-operatic musicals developed by *Oscar Hammerstein II, Jerome Kern, Lorenz Hart, Richard Rodgers*, then to the likes of *Sondheim, Lucy Simon,* and *Andrew Lloyd Webber*.
> 
> The problem with including Broadway Musicals as "Classical Music" is similar to the question of whether "Film Music" is Classical.
> 
> Musicals _can_ be Classical (*West Side Story*), and many have Classical elements, whether it's the singing style (*Oklahoma*) or the composing style (Sweeney Todd). The problem is that so many musicals are pointing NOT Classical (*Gypsy, Oliver!, Annie, Nunsense, Spamalot, Falsettos, Beauty and the Beast, Finian's Rainbow, The King & I*, etc.).


Curious about a few more aspects here:

1) Is it clear at what point "musical theater" branched off from (light) oper(ett)a and assumed this new identity?

2) Something I've also failed to read up about as of now:
The original development of "through-sung" music theater (i.e. the lead-up to L'Orfeo and its 2 predecessors) - not called opera at that time - from expanding incidental theater music, and how that interplayed with the Oratorio being translated onto stage.

2a) Think there's also being song in theater (within regular plays) for a while before that, right?


----------



## Forster

HansZimmer said:


> No, the question is why some persons argue against *the fact that classical music composed for a film score is classical music*.


The part in bold is disputed. Maybe this is why some persons argue against it.

If the question isn't whether "classical music composed for a film score is classical music*",* but just "why some people argue against it", I'd say that at least three quarters of the posts in this thread have been off-topic.


----------



## HansZimmer

PeterKC said:


> Maybe you question should be broadened to include musicals. Why don't we consider
> Broadway Musicals as classical music?


Why not, if they have the aesthetic of classical music. The problem is that some of them have the aesthetic of pop music, so you should give titles.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

HansZimmer said:


> No, the question is why some persons argue against the fact that classical music composed for a film score is classical music.
> If written the way you report it, the question is wrong, because a lot of film music is not classical. You can find every kind of music in film music: jazz, pop, rock, rap...
> 
> To clarify, the score of Dune composed by Hans Zimmer for example has nothing to do with classical music, at least not with classical music of the common pratice period.
> Other film scores, like for example the ones of The Age Of Innocence or "Sense and sensibility", are 100% classical, until proven otherwise. If you think that the sky is not blue, prove it!


So what is your definition of classical music? What makes the score for The Age of Innocence classical music? You can't say something is 100% of one kind until proven otherwise. That's not how logic works. The burden of proof is on the maker of the claim. First, you need to define what classical music is unambiguously. And I don't mean you come up with our own definition but rather use the definition(s) given to it by the collective experts in the field. Then you need to show that the music you claim is classical exhibits the traits that define classical music.


----------



## Aries

PeterKC said:


> Maybe you question should be broadened to include musicals. Why don't we consider
> Broadway Musicals as classical music?


They use microphones for singing. Microphones aren't classical.



Chat Noir said:


> It's amusing in some ways, because the music you keep offering as 'relaunching' and 'saving' classical music is exactly proposing old music and is exactly pastiche and is exactly tired orchestral clichés strung together.


We should continue to investigate the character of this new film music, like that of composer Hans Zimmer. I think you have a point with 'orchestral clichés' in the sense that orchestral effects are achieved in a somewhat superficial uncreative way. But I don't think we can find pastiche. The style of Hans Zimmer is a completely new style, old composers definitely wrote differently in each epoch. But while I miss depth, perhaps that is exactly the characteristic that makes the music more accessible to a wider audience than old classical music. So while I am not the biggest fan of the direction of the development of film music, I cannot deny that it is a new style and is classical music. And as an introduction to classical music for listeners without experience, it is probably very suitable. Refined styles of classical music can be picked up later by listeners.

It is a different question whether the style of Hans Zimmer is serious music, serious classical music. I would say it is light classical music. But I think we would disagree what serious classical music can be today.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

By the way, this thread is a great example of why using genres to define music is useless other than to engender pointless debates. The only two categories of music that have any meaning to me are music I like and music I don't like.


----------



## pianozach

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> Curious about a few more aspects here:
> 
> 1) Is it clear at what point "musical theater" branched off from (light) oper(ett)a and assumed this new identity?


There is no clear point at which the "branching" occurred. It was a gradual transition. It was already happening with *Gilbert & Sullivan* in the 1880s, where they would incorporate oddball elements such as a "Minstrel Show". 

One cannot point to a year and definitively say that's when Classical changed into Romantic either.



YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> 2) Something I've also failed to read up about as of now:
> The original development of "through-sung" music theater (i.e. the lead-up to L'Orfeo and its 2 predecessors) - not called opera at that time - from expanding incidental theater music, and how that interplayed with the Oratorio being translated onto stage.


Um, _what?_



YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> 2a) Think there's also being song in theater (within regular plays) for a while before that, right?


Theatre would have songs, although it was likely to occur between scenes ("_Olios_"), and might have nothing to do with the plot of the show. If a song were inserted into the action, it was likely a popular song that a director put in a song that made sense.

There were also "_Revue_" shows that were very popular, and _Vaudeville_ (and it's black sheep sister _Burlesque_).

In my previous reply I neglected to mention *Jacques Offenbach* who was writing operettas from the 1850s to the 1870s, and was certainly an influence on the very early development of Musical Theatre.

But it really comes down to *Gilbert and Sullivan*'s profound influence on later musical theatre, creating examples of how to "integrate" musicals so that the lyrics and dialogue were designed to advance a coherent story.

If I had to make an offhand determination as to points that changed things, it would be 

1. *Gilbert and Sullivan's HMS Pinafore* (1878), and its follow-up The Pirates of Penzance (1879)
2. *Victor Herbert's Naughty Marietta* (1910)
3. Jerome *Kern* and Oscar *Hammerstein*'s *Showboat* (1927)
4. The *Gershwin Brothers' Porgy and Bess* (1935)
5. *Rodgers and Hammerstein's Oklahoma* (1943)


----------



## pianozach

Aries said:


> They use microphones for singing. Microphones aren't classical.


Earlier Musical Theatre did not use microphones; that is why performers like Ethel Merman were so popular - you could hear her even in the back row of the auditorium.

There is now "Classical Music" that incorporates microphones as part of its sound palette.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

pianozach said:


> There is no clear point at which the "branching" occurred. It was a gradual transition. It was already happening with *Gilbert & Sullivan* in the 1880s, where they would incorporate oddball elements such as a "Minstrel Show".
> 
> One cannot point to a year and definitively say that's when Classical changed into Romantic either.


Yeah I was obviously talking about a prolonged period and not an exact date lol




> Um, _what?_



You said opera evolved out of the Oratorio, and I read that it evolved out of incidental theater music (which had been increasing in its quantity for a while) - so the question was about how these two processes interacted with each other.




> Theatre would have songs, although it was likely to occur between scenes ("_Olios_"), and might have nothing to do with the plot of the show. If a song were inserted into the action, it was likely a popular song that a director put in a song that made sense.
> 
> There were also "_Revue_" shows that were very popular, and _Vaudeville_ (and it's black sheep sister _Burlesque_).


Hm couldn't find anything about "Olios" (except the spider genus that is).

Just to clarify, I was referring to the period before Monteverdi, Renaissance, Middle Ages etc., what forms of music theater there were during those times.


(Mistyped "been" as "being btw.)



> In my previous reply I neglected to mention *Jacques Offenbach* who was writing operettas from the 1850s to the 1870s, and was certainly an influence on the very early development of Musical Theatre.
> 
> But it really comes down to *Gilbert and Sullivan*'s profound influence on later musical theatre, creating examples of how to "integrate" musicals so that the lyrics and dialogue were designed to advance a coherent story.
> 
> If I had to make an offhand determination as to points that changed things, it would be
> 
> 1. *Gilbert and Sullivan's HMS Pinafore* (1878), and its follow-up The Pirates of Penzance (1879)
> 2. *Victor Herbert's Naughty Marietta* (1910)
> 3. Jerome *Kern* and Oscar *Hammerstein*'s *Showboat* (1927)
> 4. The *Gershwin Brothers' Porgy and Bess* (1935)
> 5. *Rodgers and Hammerstein's Oklahoma* (1943)


----------



## Aries

pianozach said:


> Earlier Musical Theatre did not use microphones; that is why performers like Ethel Merman were so popular - you could hear her even in the back row of the auditorium.
> 
> There is now "Classical Music" that incorporates microphones as part of its sound palette.


Imo there is often no clear cut between classical and non-classical. While microphones arn't classical imo, their incorporation may not be enough to classify a piece overall as clearly non-classical. Musicals however are centered around singing what makes it weight more heavy. Another thing I notice in musicals is that the music has jazz-influence or is jazz-rooted. That is also very non-classical. But it is possible and that such forms were closer related to classical music overall when they were created.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

HansZimmer said:


> To clarify, the score of Dune composed by Hans Zimmer for example has nothing to do with classical music, at least not with classical music of the common pratice period.
> Other film scores, like for example the ones of The Age Of Innocence or "Sense and sensibility", are 100% classical, until proven otherwise. If you think that the sky is not blue, prove it!
> 
> Sense and sensibility (@Aries, an other recommended score of the nineties)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Age of Innocence



All those numbers sound very autonomous / "absolute music" (except for the flat non-endings of some of them).

I've not seen either of these 2 movies as of now, however going by other period dramas I've seen (most recently Le Roi Danse, i.e. the Lully biopic), I assume that these pieces are used the same way original works are used in such period movies - as a general, setting-establishing background; reflecting the mood/pace of the scene they're in, but not there to specifically accompany the shots / tides of the dialogue / actions / other details of what's going on on the screen.

(Don't know if there's other parts of those scores that do more of that kind of thing though - should watch obviously)




So in the "Age of Innocence" one, there's a particular short bit (at 10:11, the a minor - b-flat major phrase) that strongly resembles a very similar bit from the Phantom Menace score - here's the time stamps:









As an interesting aside, for a while I'd had a false memory of that SW bit sounding a lot closer to the way its Age of Innocence counterpart sounds like - more stretched out, and with the a major chord being enhanced by higher octaves (a''c'''e''' that is); creating a more intense and emphasized effect.
Pretty sure I'd never heard a glimpse of Age of Innocence until right now, but who really knows right.



So that aside, this common bit can be said to further accentuate the vast difference in approach between the 2 examples - the piece from Age of Innocence is quite autonomous and independent (though not at 100% like the following number and most others - could pass for slightly-program Romantic piece, one with a certain "thought process" going on", but not a straight-ahead Classical movement, I don't think), whereas the Phantom Menace segment is the polar opposite:
constantly morphing and changing according to the flow and tides of the dialogue; then accentuating the scene transition, and doing the same kind of stuff there as well.

Someone listening to it on its own (perhaps even someone with no idea what it is or where it's from) can clearly tell that there's some kinda happenings going on outside of the music, rather than being self-contained/autonomous/absolute - most likely a movie;

however whether they'd perceive this lack of musical autonomy as a negative (i.e. janky, keeps throwing me off, makes no sense - "doesn't work on its own") or positive (intrigued about the scenarios it seems to be reflecting; the mind conjuring abstract images/scenarios as a reaction; etc. - the way program music is supposed to work), isn't a given - generally both types of reactions can happen;
in this case probably more the latter - however a poll of some kind would probably give a more concrete answer lol.


----------



## pianozach

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> Hm couldn't find anything about "Olios" (except the spider genus that is).


*Olio* is a term (an obsolete one now, I guess) that referred to the random miscellaneous songs (or skits) that the performers would perform between scenes of a show (usually in front of the curtain while the previous scene is struck, and the next scene is set).

Or, to put it another way, Vaudeville or musical entertainment presented between the scenes of a melodrama, burlesque, or minstrel show.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

Ah, found it on wikipedia now.
It's described as specifically vaudeville related though, not a term applied to anything in the 1500s?

Just read a bit about the Intermedio though; those and "pastoral plays" apparently did occasional staged dramatic singing before 1598 (i.e. Peri's "Dafne").


----------



## HansZimmer

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> So what is your definition of classical music?


A genre of music.



> What makes the score for The Age of Innocence classical music?


"If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck." 

If it looks like classical music, swims like classical music and quacks like classical music, then it's probably classical music.

I simply rely on perception. The grass is green and the score of The Age Of Innocence is classical music.


----------



## HansZimmer

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> By the way, this thread is a great example of why using genres to define music is useless other than to engender pointless debates. The only two categories of music that have any meaning to me are music I like and music I don't like.


The categories are not useless, otherwise this forum wouldn't make sense. The point is that they should be treated like generic categories, like I do. If it sounds like classical music, it's classical music, If it sounds like jazz, it's jazz.

The opponents simply want to to overcomplicate the definitions with hundreds of constraints ("classical music is not composed for images", "a classical music composer can do what he wants, also pissing on the floor, otherwise is not a classical music composer", "a classical music composer can pass through a red light and if he doesn't it's probably not a classical music composer",...) that ends up creating a ridiculous definition which can be used to also exclude what is already considered classical music. For what purpose? Only to ensure that there are not soundtracks in the category, as stated by @eljr.

When the definitions are treated in a political way ("what I don't like must remain outside of the category"), they become meaningless. If they remain generic, they make sense.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

HansZimmer said:


> If it sounds like classical music, it's classical music,


That's a very simplistic, and incorrect, way to categorize music. Sounds like classical to whom? The listener whose only experience with "classical" music is from the movies? Anything played by an orchestra is classical music to such a listener but seasoned listeners know that the content is a lot more important than the medium.


----------



## HansZimmer

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> I'm familiar with those forms and a couple others, however atm I can't think of a piece with an A1-A2 structure (like that 1st Zelda example) - maybe there's a ton and I'm just being dumb, however for all I know atm, maybe that does disqualify it from the genre, idk.


I think that the purpose of the rigid forms of the classical period was to forcing composers to be creative and avoid the temptation of repeating too much.

I think that today it doesn't make sense to have prescriptive forms, as they limit the artistic freedom. However it still makes sense to take inspiration from the forms of classical period

I wouldn't say that to not follow a determined form exclude your music from the genre. The point is that the people hear very nice themes in the videogame soundtracks and ask why the composers are not well regarded like Mozart.
The answer is that Mozart wrote advanced level classical music, while in the OST of videogames it's often basic level classical music.

However the themes are very nice, so I'm happy if they are used for creating more serious compositions... and you can already find good reworks of the OST.


Other persons ask why the composers of videogame sountracks are not well regarded as film music composers and the answer is the same: the compositions for film scores is more advanced, if you consider composers like John Williams and James Horner. Original orchestrations conducted by them (not MIDI like in many videogame OST), developing melodies, dramatic arcs, counterpoints, fugal writting, and so on...

I'm not a fanatic of the raw technique, but the film music composers don't use these things only to show off, but to reach greater level of expressivity in respect to the composers of the videogame soundtracks.



> A bit more precisely (though not immediately relevant to the topic at hand), I think 00:56 is called the 2nd (or 2ndary?) theme, while 0:28 is the transition (modulation / un-modulation, respectively) into the 2nd theme, and 1:15 the conclusion of the exposition - forgot the precise terms.
> Probably can be read in different ways though


Yes, I think you are right. The second theme is functional, used for the transition from one key to an other key. It's still a theme, however. A component of the melody.

The fourth theme can be called "the coda of the exposition".



> Well who respects whom is a whole other question, however I'm quite sure if I did that and then added a short simple middle section (in the tripartite sense, or similar) that wouldn't make everyone go from not respecting me at all, to a lot lol


A composer always attracts unjustified hatred. We have seen it in this discussion, where some people attack the composers of film music only because they don't like their music.

However I reject this approach to music. There is an objective quality and a subjective quality. If someone puts a respectable effort into writing the melodies, you can not say that he's a failed composer only because you don't like his music, or because you personally want a more adventurous harmony or things like that.

You can respect his work and, at the same time, say that his music doesn't do for you.

On the other hand, if a composer writes a static theme repeated without variations for 5 minutes makes himself attackable on the objective level ("there is no creativity in this composition!").


----------



## HansZimmer

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> That's a very simplistic, and incorrect, way to categorize music. Sounds like classical to whom? The listener whose only experience with "classical" music is from the movies? Anything played by an orchestra is classical music to such a listener but seasoned listeners know that the content is a lot more important than the medium.


The content is a personal thing: it's where the individuality of the composer comes out.

So, if you want that your music sounds like Mozart, you have to copy the content (the melodies), while if you want to compose classical music you simply get inspiration from the fundamental aesthetic and compositional approaches and you write your own content.

The definition IS and MUST remain generic, otherwise you limit the artist freedom and individuality. If you say that Mozart is the true classical music, then everyone has to write the melodies like Mozart. Is this what we want?

Regarding the forms (sonata, rondò, minuet), you find my observations in the previous post.


Of course to understand if a soundtrack sounds like classical music you have to be familiar with classical music, so I'm not saying what every opinion has the same value.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> That's a very simplistic, and incorrect, way to categorize music. Sounds like classical to whom? The listener whose only experience with "classical" music is from the movies? Anything played by an orchestra is classical music to such a listener but seasoned listeners know that the content is a lot more important than the medium.


Then metal covers of Vivaldi would be CM - unless one argued that the instruments and the ways of playing them were also a crucial part of the genre.

Also 2), given how some of the New Music literally parted with all of the compositional conventions that there were, wouldn't pretty much anything tonal / phrase/segment-based qualify as CM before sth like Atmospheres ever got a chance?


And 3) something I'm curious about, were there ever cases in the 19th century where some public release got completely rejected by all the colleagues and critics, due to "superficially resembling romanticism but being inauthentic in the details and voicings" - and so, as a result of that, failed to become a member of today's "Canon"?

Is there a whole number of (great sounding) pseudo-Romantic pieces from the 19th century that will never make it into proper concert halls because, while successful with the audiences back then, experts recognized the wrong voicings?

Just getting panned obviously didn't stop the Grand Galop Chromatique from becoming a Liszt staple;

some of course take the stance that a lot of what others think of as "CM" from the 19th or earlier centuries, in fact isn't - maybe just stuff like La Danza (i.e. barely if at all distinguishable from folk), or perhaps larger sets.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

HansZimmer said:


> I think that the purpose of the rigid forms of the classical period was to forcing composers to be creative and avoid the temptation of repeating too much.
> 
> I think that today it doesn't make sense to have prescriptive forms, as they limit the artistic freedom. However it still makes sense to take inspiration from the forms of classical period


Well prescriptive rules can be applied in limited local contexts, but would simply lack the power to reach much beyond that - except the copyright/IP stuff and how it's made its way into the law as well as monopoly platform moderation/bot policies.

If 18th century purists took control of Silicon Valley maybe they could take over the world once more via that route 





> I wouldn't say that to not follow a determined form exclude your music from the genre. The point is that the people hear very nice themes in the videogame soundtracks and ask why the composers are not well regarded like Mozart.
> The answer is that Mozart wrote advanced level classical music, while in the OST of videogames it's often basic level classical music.


Well that's the whole "credibility" thing which got brought up - getting respect for one's simple stuff after demonstrating more advanced chops elsewhere.




> However the themes are very nice, so I'm happy if they are used for creating more serious compositions... and you can already find good reworks of the OST.
> 
> 
> Other persons ask why the composers of videogame sountracks are not well regarded as film music composers and the answer is the same: the compositions for film scores is more advanced, if you consider composers like John Williams and James Horner. Original orchestrations conducted by them (not MIDI like in many videogame OST), developing melodies, dramatic arcs, counterpoints, fugal writting, and so on...
> 
> I'm not a fanatic of the raw technique, but the film music composers don't use these things only to show off, but to reach greater level of expressivity in respect to the composers of the videogame soundtracks.
> 
> [...]
> 
> On the other hand, if a composer writes a static theme repeated without variations for 5 minutes makes himself attackable on the objective level ("there is no creativity in this composition!").


That 1st Zelda track probably could've passed as a strophic / mini-song/piece and entered "canon" if whoever'd written it had earned said credibility elsewhere.
At least I'm not aware of any reasons why it couldn't have.



Haven't managed to delve too much into videogames as of now, but from looking around a bit my impression is that more recent soundtracks (the 21st century ones) are kinda already enjoying a similar status to film soundtracks - getting played in halls etc., and not seen as "camp" the way old Atari tunes tend to be.
What was that concert I bumped into recently, Skyrim?

Don't know to what extent those are the original OST versions or arrangements though.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Here's another viewpoint that may be controversial to the OP (or anyone else who loves film music), but I strongly believe that there is enough classical music to be consumed, analyzed, enjoyed, loved, etc. that worrying about or even discussing film music in any kind of meaningful way is voided when compared to classical music. Of course, film music serves its purpose, but the amount of classical music out there will be enough to keep one busy for a thousand lifetimes.


----------



## DaveM

I wish that those making what they believe to be profound statements about film music actually knew more about it. There are so many posts that indicate relatively little exposure other than whatever was from the movie theatre or whatever exposure is/was beyond that apparently ended somewhere in the 60s.

The period of (broadly) 1980-2015 brought some of the most original/melodic/accessible soundtrack music ever composed. Producers/film studios (with the occasional exceptions) generally don’t want to pay for the fully fleshed-out music these days so it is an era that is largely ended. Btw, if I have to read one more post about John Williams, as if he defines that era above everyone else, I may just upchuck.


----------



## Ethereality

HansZimmer said:


> TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what is your definition of classical music?
> 
> 
> 
> A genre of music.
Click to expand...

I generally disagree that Classical is a genre. It's synonymous imo with classic music, that which has been popular for a hundred plus years. There are however actual genres within Classical music, and some of these genres overlap into Film music. For example,_ Instrumental _music_. Incidental _music_. Comoperatic _music, a genre I invented meaning anything symphonic that might sound like an opera or epic soundtrack._ Symphonic _music is another genre. _Film_ music is yet another one, as it may include soundtracks that might be popular centuries later, but we'll need to wait and see what becomes classic.

While some genres don't overlap with Film music. For instance, _Traditional_ music, _Concert _works,_ Performance _art, etc.


----------



## Luchesi

Ethereality said:


> I generally disagree that Classical is a genre. It's synonymous imo with classic music, that which has been popular for a hundred plus years. There are however actual genres within Classical music, and some of these genres overlap into Film music. For example,_ Instrumental _music_. Incidental _music_. Comoperatic _music, a genre I invented meaning anything symphonic that might sound like an opera or epic soundtrack._ Symphonic _music is another genre. _Film_ music is yet another one, as it may include soundtracks that might be popular centuries later, but we'll need to wait and see what becomes classic.
> 
> While some genres don't overlap with Film music. For instance, _Traditional_ music, _Concert _works,_ Performance _art, etc.


Thanks. I agree mostly, but CM has categories such as quartets, symphonies, sonatas, concertos, variations. Film music doesn't fit into any of those. Some FM might be considered to have an overture.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Neo Romanza said:


> Here's another viewpoint that may be controversial to the OP (or anyone else who loves film music), but I strongly believe that there is enough classical music to be consumed, analyzed, enjoyed, loved, etc. that worrying about or even discussing film music in any kind of meaningful way is voided when compared to classical music. Of course, film music serves its purpose, but the amount of classical music out there will be enough to keep one busy for a thousand lifetimes.


Absolutely. Now I don't watch a lot of movies so my sampling of film music is spotty at best but I've heard many of the most popular ones, the award-winning scores, and there isn't much that appeals to me outside of the film setting. I certainly would not want to sit down and listen to a film score with my undivided attention the way I would listen to a great symphony, for example.

I would argue that if film music sounds like classical music to someone then that person likely has a shallow knowledge/experience of classical music.


----------



## That Guy Mick

While it seems to be a proper concern for debate on a dreary day, when skies are cloudy gray and the dismay of depression clouds one's mind, it begs the question. Film music is film music. Film music can be styled on any genre and can properly be referred to by that music genre without significant harm to any party involved. The efficacy of a piece exists beyond the banality of conversation.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

Luchesi said:


> Thanks. I agree mostly, but CM has categories such as quartets, symphonies, sonatas, concertos, variations. Film music doesn't fit into any of those. Some FM might be considered to have an overture.


Well those'd be "concert works".


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

Neo Romanza said:


> Here's another viewpoint that may be controversial to the OP (or anyone else who loves film music), but I strongly believe that there is enough classical music to be consumed, analyzed, enjoyed, loved, etc. that worrying about or even discussing film music in any kind of meaningful way is voided when compared to classical music. Of course, film music serves its purpose, but the amount of classical music out there will be enough to keep one busy for a thousand lifetimes.


Yeah, how much time would it take again to go through, idk, every score that's available / has survived, or every recording that's been made / is available, every movie in existence, etc. - 1000 years? 10 000 years?


----------



## Aries

Neo Romanza said:


> Here's another viewpoint that may be controversial to the OP (or anyone else who loves film music), but I strongly believe that there is enough classical music to be consumed, analyzed, enjoyed, loved, etc. that worrying about or even discussing film music in any kind of meaningful way is voided when compared to classical music. Of course, film music serves its purpose, but the amount of classical music out there will be enough to keep one busy for a thousand lifetimes.


How to search for classical music?

What I do is I look what composers I already like wrote that I don't know yet.
And I look for works in my prefered form I don't know yet, what is the symphony.

The first method gives my a lot of film music. Composers write only a limited amount of works. If film music is in it why ignore it? It doesn't fall off strongly. I don't like it as much as symphonies, but it is still good. 

And then there are also composers who are good but almost only write film music. What I often do is that I search what these film music composers wrote else, but often there is not much. I think this is suboptimal, but if the composers is good the film music will still be good, despite there are better forms imo.


----------



## HansZimmer

Neo Romanza said:


> Here's another viewpoint that may be controversial to the OP (or anyone else who loves film music), but I strongly believe that there is enough classical music to be consumed, analyzed, enjoyed, loved, etc. that worrying about or even discussing film music in any kind of meaningful way is voided when compared to classical music. Of course, film music serves its purpose, but the amount of classical music out there will be enough to keep one busy for a thousand lifetimes.


Film music has a different style in respect to baroque, classical and romantique music and I want to listen to all the genres. If someone refuses any of these genres, he is limiting his exploration of music. I also limit my exploration of music by refusing modern atonal music, but it's not that the modernists can tell me that I'm close minded if they also refuse an entire genre, namely the soundtracks.


----------



## HansZimmer

Ethereality said:


> I generally disagree that Classical is a genre. It's synonymous imo with classic music, that which has been popular for a hundred plus years. There are however actual genres within Classical music, and some of these genres overlap into Film music. For example,_ Instrumental _music_. Incidental _music_. Comoperatic _music, a genre I invented meaning anything symphonic that might sound like an opera or epic soundtrack._ Symphonic _music is another genre. _Film_ music is yet another one, as it may include soundtracks that might be popular centuries later, but we'll need to wait and see what becomes classic.
> 
> While some genres don't overlap with Film music. For instance, _Traditional_ music, _Concert _works,_ Performance _art, etc.


Your definition of classical music has been clearily rejected by the society, because we speak about "contemporary classical music" and there are persons here who post new classical music.

The definition is debatable, but it can not be in contradiction with reality.


Classic pieces is infact a different word in respect to classical music. Mozart's music is a classic/standard of classical music, in the same way as the music of The Beatles might become a standard/classic of pop music.

So yes, I think that classical music is a genre, but it's a big container which contains different subgenres. When a definition becomes so large, dissolves, and it's difficult to understand exactly what is the internal coherence. You can resolve the issue by saying that a genere can contain many different subgenres.
The music of John Williams can be categorized as "classical soundtracks", a subcategory of soundtracks and a subgenre of classical music.


----------



## HansZimmer

Luchesi said:


> Thanks. I agree mostly, but CM has categories such as quartets, symphonies, sonatas, concertos, variations. Film music doesn't fit into any of those. Some FM might be considered to have an overture.


The word "classical soundtracks" is already used. It might be a subcategory of "incidental classical music".


----------



## HansZimmer

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Absolutely. Now I don't watch a lot of movies so my sampling of film music is spotty at best but I've heard many of the most popular ones, the award-winning scores, and there isn't much that appeals to me outside of the film setting. I certainly would not want to sit down and listen to a film score with my undivided attention the way I would listen to a great symphony, for example.


There are also persons who don't like baroque music, persons who only like orchestral music, and so on... so what? To have a preference between subgenres is quite normal, but this doesn't diqualify any subgenre from classical music.



> I would argue that if film music sounds like classical music to someone then that person likely has a shallow knowledge/experience of classical music.


Can you explain exactly what are the elements thanks to which I should understand that this score is not classical music?







Which are the elements which exclude this piece from the genre "classical waltzer"?







Finally, the most important question. If it's not classical music, then what is? Do you know any genre of music which is closer than classical music?


----------



## Neo Romanza

HansZimmer said:


> Film music has a different style in respect to baroque, classical and romantique music and I want to listen to all the genres. If someone refuses any of these genres, he is limiting his exploration of music. I also limit my exploration of music by refusing modern atonal music, but it's not that the modernists can tell me that I'm close minded if they also refuse an entire genre, namely the soundtracks.


You don't like the early modernist composers like Debussy, Bartók, Ravel, Prokofiev et. al.?


----------



## Highwayman

HansZimmer said:


> Finally, the most important question. If it's not classical music, then what is?


What about _film _music?


----------



## Forster




----------



## Luchesi

HansZimmer said:


> The word "classical soundtracks" is already used. It might be a subcategory of "incidental classical music".


In my personal view of the arts (those achievements with a serious intention of furthering the art), a major work should have a background (from music history) and hopefully it leads to works (and composers) after it. It's significant in this way.

In the history of painting, literature, dance, all of them. The development as it describes humans and their need for artifice, it's so interesting.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Honestly, I'm surprised this thread has gone on as long as it has (we're up to 100 pages now) and the reason I feel this way is simple: we're on a classical forum and this is especially directed at @HansZimmer. You seem to not understand that there are members here that don't share your enthusiasm for film music and there's no amount of convincing on your part that is going to sway them. I've enjoyed _some_ film music, but it's not something I personally seek out nor does it fulfill me like classical music. And I may be sounding presumptuous here but I'm sure it's the same with many members here.


----------



## Ethereality

HansZimmer said:


> Your definition of classical music has been clearily rejected by the society, because we speak about "contemporary classical music" and there are persons here who post new classical music.
> 
> The definition is debatable, but it can not be in contradiction with reality.
> 
> 
> Classic pieces is infact a different word in respect to classical music. Mozart's music is a classic/standard of classical music, in the same way as the music of The Beatles might become a standard/classic of pop music.
> 
> So yes, I think that classical music is a genre, but it's a big container which contains different subgenres. When a definition becomes so large, dissolves, and it's difficult to understand exactly what is the internal coherence. You can resolve the issue by saying that a genere can contain many different subgenres.
> The music of John Williams can be categorized as "classical soundtracks", a subcategory of soundtracks and a subgenre of classical music.


I agree that contemporary music like Dmitri Shostakovich, Louis Armstrong or Ella Fitzgerald can start to become classical now, having a good chance of settling into the real cannon after a while, but disagree that modern music which people post is classical. Doesn't make sense to bunch all these different styles together under a decided 'genre'.

The real point of the classical term is, you're always going to have one group appreciating _classical history. _It might entail multiple genres and varying tastes, but everything will generally be the same course of study. Thus if Shostakovich wins out over the other two in the end, it's for a_ scholarly_ reason. The history of education always determines what's predominant in a classical period. If the two jazz singers go out of style after another century, it's for a scholarly reason.

Sometimes in the classical period of anything, you can reference innovators 1,000+ years difference from each other. The classical era keeps expanding. Modern concert compositions could become classical pieces after a long history, people are free to claim which ones will. To a lot of people, it doesn't matter to their own tastes what might become top classical pieces.


----------



## HansZimmer

Neo Romanza said:


> Honestly, I'm surprised this thread has gone on as long as it has (we're up to 100 pages now) and the reason I feel this way is simple: we're on a classical forum and this is especially directed at @HansZimmer. You seem to not understand that there are members here that don't share your enthusiasm for film music and there's no amount of convincing on your part that is going to sway them. I've enjoyed _some_ film music, but it's not something I personally seek out nor does it fulfill me like classical music. And I may be sounding presumptuous here but I'm sure it's the same with many members here.


Your personal tastes concerning a determined work and an other don't define the musical genres.

This question is open to anyone who want to give serious arguments: Why do many people think that classical music composed for film scores is not classical music? | Page 100


----------



## Neo Romanza

HansZimmer said:


> Your personal tastes don't define the musical genres.


This isn't about "personal tastes". This is about you not taking a hint. Stop your finger wagging. You're *not* some kind of authority on music and it's apparent that you have a limited knowledge of classical music.


----------



## HansZimmer

Highwayman said:


> What about _film _music?


Film music is not a genre. You can find rock music, jazz music, pop music, rap music, electronic music in film scores. That's why some soundtracks are specifically categorized as "classical soundtracks", so that you can dintisguish them from other kind of soundtracks.


----------



## HansZimmer

Neo Romanza said:


> This isn't about "personal tastes". This is about you not taking a hint. Stop your finger wagging. You're *not* some kind of authority on music and it's apparent that you have a limited knowledge of classical music.


This is not an argument. It's only a tentative to start a fight. I'm open to a debate with the users who want to start a serious analytical debate.

We can start with this.

What are the elements which make this classical...







... and which, at the same time, make this NOT classical?


----------



## Neo Romanza

HansZimmer said:


> This is not an argument. It's only a tentative to start a fight. I'm open to a debate with the users who want to start a serious analytical debate.
> 
> We can start with this.
> 
> What are the elements which make this classical...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... and which, at the same time, make this NOT classical?


I'm not starting a fight, but I made my point to you, which evidently flew right over your head. What I've observed of you so far is that you spend more time talking about music than actually listening to it. Are you going to even answer my question I asked you a few posts ago? I asked you what do you think of Debussy, Ravel, Bartók and Prokofiev? These composers were early modernists and your opinion of modernists seems to be limited to composers who used atonality rather predominantly.


----------



## HansZimmer

Neo Romanza said:


> I'm not starting a fight, but I made my point to you, which evidently flew right over your head. What I've observed of you so far is that you spend more time talking about music than actually listening to it. Are you going to even answer my question I asked you a few posts ago? I asked you what do you think of Debussy, Ravel, Bartók and Prokofiev? These composers were early modernists and your opinion of modernists seems to be limited to composers who used atonality rather predominantly.


I like modern classical music if it's not atonal or strange, but this has nothing to do with this discussion.


----------



## HansZimmer

An other input for this discussion.

In rateyourmusic the soundtrack album "John Williams Conducts John Williams: The Star Wars Trilogy" is categorized as "cinematic classical": John Williams Conducts John Williams: The Star Wars Trilogy by John Williams

If you click on the category, you land on a page which explains what does the word means: Cinematic Classical - Music genre - Rate Your Music 

_This genre describes the style of orchestral compositions generally associated with soundtracks to modern high-budget films, games, and other non-live media. It has its roots in Western Classical Music, particularly late Romanticism, taking inspiration from the dramatism, large orchestra, use of leitmotif, and emotiveness of the genre. There is also a notable influence from Modern Classical, with its common focus on atmosphere and texture over melody. Additionally, non-classical sources such as Traditional Folk Music, Jazz and modern popular music are often incorporated into the orchestral setting, generally to set the location, themes or time period of the accompanying media. The style is played with a large symphonic orchestra, with additional modern and non-Western instruments included if required by the composer. Whilst this form of music is associated strongly with soundtracks, not every example of it is a soundtrack, and not every orchestral soundtrack fits this style.

The development of synchronised sound allowed full symphony orchestras to accompany films, not bound by the size of a cinema. Most films of the period of the 1930s and 1940s were scored with a combination of Easy Listening and operatic romanticism, particularly influenced by Richard Wagner and Richard Strauss. Some early examples exist of scores beginning to fuse romantic and modern classical for dramatic effect however, such as Wolfgang Zeller's score to the 1932 horror film Vampyr.

The 1950s was the decade where mainstream soundtracks begun to move away from pure romanticism, into the more modern and eclectic approach described by this grouping. In this period, composers such as Miklós Rózsa begun using musicological research to inform their works to create soundtracks that would fit better with a film's setting. Composers who studied with or were influenced by avant-garde modern classical composers also began to emerge. They used new techniques like atonality, unresolved dissonance and even Serialism in their works, though not to the extent that the soundtrack would be inaccessible to the general public. Particularly influential from this time were Bernard Herrmann's works for filmmaker Alfred Hitchcock, including Vertigo and Psycho.

This approach to orchestral music became the standard. For example, Ennio Morricone's soundtrack to Il buono, il brutto, il cattivo [The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly] fuses melodic symphonic orchestral sections with tense, dissonant modernism and non-classical sources that indicate location such as Mexican Folk Music and Western music, creating the widely known sound of Spaghetti Western. John Williams fused the sweeping late period romanticism of 'Golden Age' Hollywood scores with melodic symphonic bombast, sections of 20th century atonality and dissonant cluster chords. The incorporation of some Electronic elements into the orchestral setting became common as synthesizers and digital technology became more widely accessible, for example Wendy Carlos's soundtrack to TRON. Minimalism was another important later influence on the style, with Hans Zimmer's soundtrack to Inception very clearly showing the incorporation of the genre in its repetitive nature under the Epic Music style. Note, however, that not all modern orchestral soundtracks fit this style, such as the score to The Shining which is more purely derived from avant-garde modern classical, and the score to The Age of Innocence which returns to classical romanticism to fit its setting.

Whilst mostly associated with films, the style can be found in other media. In television, the style is used mostly in cinematic, fictional series, with examples including Star Trek, Game of Thrones and Lost. Video games were initially bound by their technical limitations, though attempts were made to recreate the style in certain adventure games such as I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream. Later, pre-recorded soundtracks were made possible, which allowed for orchestral soundtracks, with examples of this style being found in games such as Halo 3 and Shadow of the Colossus. _


----------



## Neo Romanza

HansZimmer said:


> I like modern classical music if it's not atonal or strange, but this has nothing to do with this discussion.


"Atonal" or "strange"...right.  As for this film music discussion, it's not much of one when all you've done the whole time was wag your finger at other members. Anyway, film music has little relevance in my own listening and I suspect many other members have the same situation.

You need to learn how to accept that not everyone puts film music up on some kind of pedestal like you do.


----------



## HansZimmer

Neo Romanza said:


> "Atonal" or "strange"...right.  As for this film music discussion, it's not much of one when all you've done the whole time was wag your finger at other members. Anyway, film music has little relevance in my own listening and I suspect many other members have the same situation.
> 
> You need to learn how to accept that not everyone puts film music up on some kind of pedestal like you do.


I'm not putting film music on pedestal, as the title of this discussion doesn't say "Film music is excellent". Yes, I've written that in my opinion some film scores are excellent, but this has nothing to do with the topic of this discussion. This discussion is ONLY about categories.

To say that determined film scores are not classical music because you don't like them is not a valid argument, otherwise someone can say that a piece of music must expelled from classical music because he doesn't like it, and this would be ridiculous.

This discussion is starting to bore me because of the low quality of the arguments. So, I won't answer to other posts which don't give a meaningul answer to my post #1997: Why do many people think that classical music composed for film scores is not classical music?


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

Neo Romanza said:


> "Atonal" or "strange"...right.


A lot of it _is _strange, because the suspension of common tonality creates surreal effects;
not sure if you're disagreeing with this premise (and if you do, whether completely or partially), or you're referring to the "modern music" that_ doesn't _(completely) do away with tonality.

However in the latter case, OP didn't call all of it strange/atonal in the 1st place - just a subset of it.

Are you saying that _NONE_ of "modern music" is strange or atonal?




> As for this film music discussion, it's not much of one *when all you've done the whole time was wag your finger* at other members.


Dude, just now on page 100 he posted 2 comparison challenges (that makes for 4 giant embedded youtube links), and a definition article from a website.


----------



## DaveM

Neo Romanza said:


> "Atonal" or "strange"...right.  As for this film music discussion, it's not much of one when all you've done the whole time was wag your finger at other members. Anyway, film music has little relevance in my own listening and I suspect many other members have the same situation.
> 
> You need to learn how to accept that not everyone puts film music up on some kind of pedestal like you do.


So far you haven’t contributed anything to the discussion. Is your purpose here to just put HZ in his place and set him straight according to you. And this thread is not about atonal music. As for little relevance of film music to the ‘many others’ including you, did you pop in just to let everyone know? Apparently, given the length of the thread, a lot of people _are_ interested


----------



## Neo Romanza

DaveM said:


> So far you haven’t contributed anything to the discussion. Is your purpose here to just put HZ in his place and set him straight according to you. And this thread is not about atonal music. As for little relevance of film music to the ‘many others’ including you, did you pop in just to let everyone know? Apparently, given the length of the thread, a lot of people _are_ interested


Who made you the thread police? I'll say what I want about film music on this thread since that's what this thread is about. As I said previously in a post that you must've missed, film music serves its purpose in a film, but outside it cannot stand on its own. As for categorizing film music, who really cares. This is a classical forum not a film music forum.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'll continue with listening to Prokofiev's 6th symphony, which is a magnificent work and better than any film score I've heard. So chew on that!


----------



## HansZimmer

Neo Romanza said:


> Now if you'll excuse me, I'll continue with listening to Prokofiev's 6th symphony, which is a magnificent work and better than any film score I've heard. So chew on that!


How many film scores are you listened to closely, without the distraction of the film (in which the music is covered by noises and dialogue and during which you don't pay attention to the music because you are concentrated on the action)?


----------



## Neo Romanza

HansZimmer said:


> How many film scores are you listened to closely, without the distraction of the film?


How many Schoenberg works have you actually listened to without resorting to the opinion of "it's atonal" so it's garbage?


----------



## HansZimmer

Neo Romanza said:


> How many Schoenberg works have you actually listened to without resorting to the opinion of "it's atonal" so it's garbage?


Why do you answer to a question with an other question? I don't speak about music which I don't know, so I won't express my opinion about Schoenberg. I can only say that I prefer tonal music.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

Ok anyone who keeps posting here (arguing for the "it's not CM" side, that is) without, as a minimum:
-addressing those 2 comparison challenges on p100
-dissecting that rateurmusic article at least to some extent,

is officially a Hackfraud.



When I said I'll look more into that stem / sound effects interplay thing, I didn't then keep making the same point over and over again as if nothing'd happened.

Silly.


----------



## Neo Romanza

HansZimmer said:


> Why do you answer to a question with an other question? I don't speak about music which I don't know, so I won't express my opinion about Schoenberg. I can only say that I prefer tonal music.


And I can only say I prefer classical music to any music written for film.


----------



## Bulldog

HansZimmer said:


> How many film scores are you listened to closely, without the distraction of the film (in which the music is covered by noises and dialogue and during which you don't pay attention to the music because you are concentrated on the action)?


You're upside-down. The film can't be a distraction, but the music sure can.


----------



## HansZimmer

Neo Romanza said:


> And I can only say I prefer classical music to any music written for film.


But in my case I express a stylistic preference, namely a preference for tonality. It's not that I say that I don't like all the pieces of music of determined composers without having never listened to them closely. So, my question is valid: how many suites of the composers of film music have you listened to closely, without the distraction of the films? To be honest, if I heard film music in a distracted way I wouldn't be able to express my judgements, because I almost don't notice the music during the films. I need to listen to the suites to evaluate the music. I can express my judgement because I've done my homeworks.


----------



## Neo Romanza

HansZimmer said:


> But in my case I express a stylistic preference, namely a preference for tonality. It's not that I say that I don't like all the pieces of music of determined composers without having never listened to them closely. So, my question is valid: how many suites of the composers of film music have you listened to closely, without the distraction of the films? To be honest, if only heard film music in a distracted way I wouldn't be able to express my judgements, because I almost don't notice the music during the films. I need to listen to the suites to evaluate the music. I can express my judgement because I've done my homeworks.


You've done your homework. Good lad. Now, don't be late for class!


----------



## HansZimmer

Bulldog said:


> You're upside-down. The film can't be a distraction, but the music sure can.


The film is a distraction if your purpose is to listen and evaluate the soundtrack. It's a completely different experience to listen to film music with the headphones, the volume properly adjusted, no distractions and no noises. I know the difference because for my competition in the Movie Corner (Best Dramatic Film Score - 1996) I only really notice the music while I'm doing the assembly. I always watch the films before doing the assembly and I know that I always lose many musical details during the film. This is the reason for which I wouldn't like to compose music for films: I know that my music will be always underrated by most persons, dooesn't matter how much effort I put in the composition.


----------



## mmsbls

HansZimmer said:


> Film music has a different style in respect to baroque, classical and romantique music and I want to listen to all the genres. If someone refuses any of these genres, he is limiting his exploration of music. I also limit my exploration of music by refusing modern atonal music, but it's not that the modernists can tell me that I'm close minded if they also refuse an entire genre, namely the soundtracks.


I assume "refuse a genre" means that someone does not wish to listen to that type of music. Based on this thread, I think the majority of those who like modern music also like some soundtracks. They do not "refuse the genre" of soundtracks. Unlike you and atonal music, many of them actually seem quite knowledgeable about soundtracks.



HansZimmer said:


> This question is open to anyone who want to give serious arguments: Why do many people think that classical music composed for film scores is not classical music? | Page 100


I believe you do not want to engage in serious arguments on the question you posed in the OP. Several people have been very clear in explaining that the reason film music is not classical music has little to do with how it sounds and precisely to do with the process of writing the music. Mike H's post gave detailed examples of how film music can differ from what we consider classical music. That post did _not _discuss how the music sounds. 

You have spent the entire thread saying some film music sounds like classical music. I think just about everyone generally agrees that the two can sound similar. The argument given by many of those opposing your belief has nothing to do with how the music sounds. You simply don't care. I'm not sure why. 

When you say after almost 2000 posts that the OP question "is open to anyone who want to give serious arguments" as though no one has given such arguments, it sounds almost like trolling.


----------



## bargolus

This is a pretty fun discussion. Three things that strike me:

1 - It resembles the debate on the distinction between 'art' - created for personal/expressive/aethestic/'for-itself' reasons - and 'craft' - created for utilitarian/functional/'extraneous' reasons. Can a sophisticated haircut, a beautifully decorated living room, or a flavourful meal be considered 'art' or is it mere 'craft'? Can 'merely' utilitarian music also be absolute music? Similarly, with the FM vs. CM discussion.

2 - 'Classical music' is itself a bit of an invented category, as earlier composers would probably very unlikely recognize later composers as having much in common with them. Bach probably wouldn't consider Beethoven to have much in common with him and Beethoven probably wouldn't even consider Boulez to be music at all. Maybe the way in which we try to fit the history of music to our ideas of a line of succession from Bach to Boulez says more about our current times?

3 - Given that we don't live in 17th century Prussia or 19th century Austro-Hungary and have a much more eclectic mix of music available to listen to, we might instead ask, what purpose does it serve us to collectively maintain the social constructs, FM and CM? And what language games are we really playing, when we argue over whether they are 'truly' or different or 'essentially' the same?


----------



## Luchesi

bargolus said:


> This is a pretty fun discussion. Three things that strike me:
> 
> 1 - It resembles the debate on the distinction between 'art' - created for personal/expressive/aethestic/'for-itself' reasons - and 'craft' - created for utilitarian/functional/'extraneous' reasons. Can a sophisticated haircut, a beautifully decorated living room, or a flavourful meal be considered 'art' or is it mere 'craft'? Can 'merely' utilitarian music also be absolute music? Similarly, with the FM vs. CM discussion.
> 
> 2 - 'Classical music' is itself a bit of an invented category, as earlier composers would probably very unlikely recognize later composers as having much in common with them. Bach probably wouldn't consider Beethoven to have much in common with him and Beethoven probably wouldn't even consider Boulez to be music at all. Maybe the way in which we try to fit the history of music to our ideas of a line of succession from Bach to Boulez says more about our current times?
> 
> 3 - Given that we don't live in 17th century Prussia or 19th century Austro-Hungary and have a much more eclectic mix of music available to listen to, we might instead ask, what purpose does it serve us to collectively maintain the social constructs, FM and CM? And what language games are we really playing, when we argue over whether they are 'truly' or different or 'essentially' the same?


Beethoven alive today wouldn't have the artistic awareness to appreciate Boulez? I don't think people back then were different than a Boulez fan today. 

Welcome to the forum. We need contributors.


----------



## bargolus

Luchesi said:


> Beethoven alive today wouldn't have the artistic awareness to appreciate Boulez? I don't think people back then were different than a Boulez fan today.
> 
> Welcome to the forum. We need contributors.


Thanks! I guess it depends on your thought experiment! Imagining Beethoven alive today (say a 250+ year-old vampire) makes me think of him being slowly inducted into (post)modernity - tv's, radio, cars, WWII, pop music, Adorno (?) etc. so he would have context for Boulez and understand it as original music (I do like Boulez myself!).

However, if I think of Boulez time-travelling back to 1824 and handing Beethoven the score to Le marteau sans maître, I don't know if Beethoven would have thought of the score as much more than an elaborate joke. Probably not something that he'd suddenly feel a urge to study in depth given his busy life otherwise?






This discussion has also reminded me of Borges' famous short story, "Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote", in which Pierre Menard ends up publishing Don Quixote in the 20th word-for-word as a new piece, but with him as author, and the interpretation of the work becomes radically different, because the context for its publication has changed:

"It is a revelation to compare Menard’s Don Quixote with Cervantes’. The latter, for example, wrote (part one, chapter nine):

. . . truth, whose mother is history, rival of time, depository of deeds, witness of the past, exemplar and adviser to the present, and the future’s counselor.

Written in the seventeenth century, written by the “lay genius” Cervantes, this enumeration is a mere rhetorical praise of history. Menard, on the other hand, writes:

. . . truth, whose mother is history, rival of time, depository of deeds, witness of the past, exemplar and adviser to the present, and the future’s counselor.

History, the mother of truth: the idea is astounding. Menard, a contemporary of William James, does not define history as an inquiry into reality but as its origin. Historical truth, for him, is not what has happened; it is what we judge to have happened. The final phrases—exemplar and adviser to the present, and the future’s counselor —are brazenly pragmatic.

The contrast in style is also vivid. The archaic style of Menard—quite foreign, after all—suffers from a certain affectation. Not so that of his forerunner, who handles with ease the current Spanish of his time."


----------



## HansZimmer

mmsbls said:


> I assume "refuse a genre" means that someone does not wish to listen to that type of music. Based on this thread, I think the majority of those who like modern music also like some soundtracks. They do not "refuse the genre" of soundtracks. Unlike you and atonal music, many of them actually seem quite knowledgeable about soundtracks.


I think you are quite wrong about this, because I've noticed that there are basically two groups in this forum:

The people who prefer film music more than contemporary classical music
The people who prefer contemporary classical music more than film music

In practice, there are two different views about how classical music of today should be.
The modernist gang who has attacked film music in this discussion, in other discussions has agreed about the idea that Alma Deutscher is not a valid composer, that she is disoriented, while the people who prefer film music defended her.

I'm sure that there are people who are not picky and open to all the forms of modern classical music, but don't be naïve: the users who have attacked film music in this discussion are not superpartes. They have their PERSONAL idea about how must be the correct contemporary classical music and want to expel from classical music or belittle all the artists who don't fit with their views.

In our side there are also users who think that the forms of modern classical music that they don't like should be expelled from classical music, but as for me, I don't want to expel nothing. I think that there must be different forms to satisfy different tastes/expectations.
There will be always internal fights in classical music, but no one can do nothing with the fact that cinematic classical music and serial music are both forms of classical music. You simply have to keep in mind that "classical music" is not a container of music you like. There things you like, and things you don't like.


----------



## HansZimmer

mmsbls said:


> I believe you do not want to engage in serious arguments on the question you posed in the OP. Several people have been very clear in explaining that the reason film music is not classical music has little to do with how it sounds and precisely to do with the process of writing the music. Mike H's post gave detailed examples of how film music can differ from what we consider classical music. That post did _not _discuss how the music sounds.
> 
> You have spent the entire thread saying some film music sounds like classical music. I think just about everyone generally agrees that the two can sound similar. The argument given by many of those opposing your belief has nothing to do with how the music sounds. You simply don't care. I'm not sure why.
> 
> When you say after almost 2000 posts that the OP question "is open to anyone who want to give serious arguments" as though no one has given such arguments, it sounds almost like trolling.


All the arguments of this discussion have been based on a huge logical fallacy, namely on the idea that you have to determine if something is film music or classical music.

It's like to discuss if the boy in my avatar is a child or is a male.

A bit of logical math here below.
The set A is "film music".
The set B is ".classical music".

Some elements belong to the set A (for example the score of Dune by Hans Zimmer), some others to the set B (for example Symphony No. 5 of Beethoven) and, finally, some others to the intersection between the set A and the set B (AB, for example the score of The Age of Innocence and Sense and Sensibility). As we have seen in the post #2000, AB is called "cinematic classical": Why do many people think that classical music composed for film scores is not classical music?

@mikeh375 and @verandai have explained the difference between composing AB and composing B. They have not proven that AB doesn't exist. Therefore my argument has not been demolished.


A is the set "males". B is the set "children".

Is the boy in my avatar a male (A) or a child (B)? He is a male AND he is a child (AB).
Not all children are males and not all males are children. However, some persons are both (AB)
Not all film scores are classical music and not all classical music pieces are film scores, but some are both (AB).
Mikeh375 has explained the difference between a child male and an adult male (namely, the difference between A and AB), not the difference between males and females.


----------



## Enthusiast

HansZimmer said:


> I think you are quite wrong about this, because I've noticed that there are basically two groups in this forum:
> 
> The people who prefer film music more than contemporary classical music
> The people who prefer contemporary classical music more than film music
> 
> In practice, there are two different views about how classical music of today should be.
> The modernist gang who has attacked film music in this discussion, in other discussions has agreed about the idea that Alma Deutscher is not a valid composer, that she is disoriented, while the people who prefer film music defended her.
> 
> I'm sure that there are people who are not picky and open to all the forms of modern classical music, but don't be naïve: the users who have attacked film music in this discussion are not superpartes. They have their PERSONAL idea about how must be the correct contemporary classical music and want to expel from classical music or belittle all the artists who don't fit with their views.
> 
> In our side there are also users who think that the forms of modern classical music that they don't like should be expelled from classical music, but as for me, I don't want to expel nothing. I think that there must be different forms to satisfy different tastes/expectations.
> There will be always internal fights in classical music, but no one can do nothing with the fact that cinematic classical music and serial music are both forms of classical music. You simply have to keep in mind that "classical music" is not a container of music you like. There things you like, and things you don't like.


A neat summary even if the modernists are referred to as a "gang" and the film music buffs are referred to as "us". But, of course, there is nothing wrong with people enjoying film music. What is up for debate is the status of film music. But this is more than the question "is it classical music or not" - it's more about _*when *_it is and isn't classical music, when it is worthy of joining Mozart and Brahms in a concert programme. For me film music is more likely to be classical music when the film's aspirations are closer to art and timelessness. Most film music mentioned in this thread (along with the embarrassing music of Alma Deutscher) does not IMO meet this test. I would be comfortable by referring to it as light music and there is, of course, no shame in listening to and enjoying light music.


----------



## HansZimmer

Enthusiast said:


> A neat summary even if the modernists are referred to as a "gang" and the film music buffs are referred to as "us". But, of course, there is nothing wrong with people enjoying film music. What is up for debate is the status of film music. But this is more than the question "is it classical music or not" - it's more about _*when *_it is and isn't classical music, when it is worthy of joining Mozart and Brahms in a concert programme. For me film music is more likely to be classical music when the film's aspirations are closer to art and timelessness. Most film music mentioned in this thread (along with the embarrassing music of Alma Deutscher) does not IMO meet this test. I would be comfortable by referring to it as light music and there is, of course, no shame in listening to and enjoying light music.


In 2200 the music of Star Wars is still performed in concerts.

Enthusiast: "Ops, I was wrong!".

You seem to have crystal spheres that I don't have, because I don't know which pieces of modern classical music will become timeless, if any. And however it doesn't matter for me, because it's an Argumentum ad populum. I don't need to follow the tastes of other people, and therefore to know which classical music pieces will survive. I have my own tastes and I'm happy with them. The film scores that I promoted in this discussion is music that I like and I don't need to know anything else.

However if classical music is a synonimous of timeless music (and it's not), then the posts about contemporary music must be banned from the main section of this forum, because we don't know if they are timeless or not. Many of them will probably be forgotten soon. It happened to many composers of the classical period too. The guy who composed the spurious Violin Concerto No. 6 of Mozart doesn't even have a wikipedia page, but he was still a classical music composer.

It's not the single individual who decides what is the timeless classical music and what is not, but the society. So, Classic FM is doing the right thing in the Classic FM Hall of Fame: it gives to the audience the possibility to vote between many pieces of classical music, which include film scores and concert works. In the first positions you often find suites of film music (in the last competition there were The Gladiator, Harry Potter and Lord of The Rings for example).


Finally, the idea that the best music is composed for serious films is a bit naive, because although it's true that there is a greater chance to find good music in serious films, there is still examples of good music in less serious films, even comedies and animated films.
Infact some of the well regarded theatre music of Mozart has been written for opera buffa, not for opera seria, so I don't understand why in cinema the music written for less serious films or animated films should be discriminated.

That said, some of the film scores I posted were written for art films (Age of Innocence and Schindler's List), but in Home Alone in my opinion you find John Williams at his best. @Aries other memorable film music of the nineties.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ You "quote" me saying something I don't remember saying in this thread and something I certainly wouldn't have said because the music that accompanied the first Star Wars film gets played in concerts. I would have said "so what?" and "what has that got to do with its merit?" 22 years is nothing and there will always be a big audience for the trashy. 

Personally, I think we can tell quite a lot about how well a piece will survive over centuries. Some will be popular as well while other pieces may - like much of Mozart and Beethoven - be for more refined tastes. Obviously I can't prove this but I don't need to. What I seem to know is a product of my taste. That's subjective but is anyone asking me to post an objective truth? I'm entitled to my view just as you are entitled to yours. My taste is seemingly very different to yours but that's OK.

Now,



> Finally, the idea that the best music is composed for serious films is a bit naive, because although it's true that there is a greater chance to find good music in serious films, there is still examples of good music in less serious films, even comedies and animated films.
> Infact some of the well regarded theatre music of Mozart has been written for opera buffa, not for opera seria, so I don't understand why in cinema the music written for less serious films or animated films should be discriminated.
> 
> That said, some of the film scores I posted were written for art films (Age of Innocence and Schindler's List), but in Home Alone in my opinion you find John Williams at his best. @Aries other memorable film music of the nineties.


I think you confuse serious art and comedy when you suggest that comedy cannot be serious art. Read Shakespeare. You mention Mozart and seem to be suggesting that The Marriage of Figaro and Cosi are not serious art. Clearly (I assume you agree) they are great masterpieces.

BTW, I am surprised to see a suggestion that Schindler's List is an art film. It was a blockbuster, dealing with a serious subject but hardly telling us any great and rare truth about it.


----------



## mmsbls

HansZimmer said:


> I think you are quite wrong about this, because I've noticed that there are basically two groups in this forum:
> 
> The people who prefer film music more than contemporary classical music
> The people who prefer contemporary classical music more than film music
> 
> In practice, there are two different views about how classical music of today should be.
> The modernist gang who has attacked film music in this discussion, in other discussions has agreed about the idea that Alma Deutscher is not a valid composer, that she is disoriented, while the people who prefer film music defended her.
> 
> I'm sure that there are people who are not picky and open to all the forms of modern classical music, but don't be naïve: the users who have attacked film music in this discussion are not superpartes. They have their PERSONAL idea about how must be the correct contemporary classical music and want to expel from classical music or belittle all the artists who don't fit with their views.
> 
> In our side there are also users who think that the forms of modern classical music that they don't like should be expelled from classical music, but as for me, I don't want to expel nothing. I think that there must be different forms to satisfy different tastes/expectations.
> There will be always internal fights in classical music, but no one can do nothing with the fact that cinematic classical music and serial music are both forms of classical music. You simply have to keep in mind that "classical music" is not a container of music you like. There things you like, and things you don't like.


Some people who have argued that film music is different from classical music also have posted on specific soundtracks showing both that they enjoy them and that they are quite knowledgeable about them. Are you really unaware of that? Really?

Also which of the two groups that you mention at the beginning of your post do you belong to?


----------



## Neo Romanza

HansZimmer said:


> I think you are quite wrong about this, because I've noticed that there are basically two groups in this forum:
> 
> The people who prefer film music more than contemporary classical music
> The people who prefer contemporary classical music more than film music
> 
> In practice, there are two different views about how classical music of today should be.
> The modernist gang who has attacked film music in this discussion, in other discussions has agreed about the idea that Alma Deutscher is not a valid composer, that she is disoriented, while the people who prefer film music defended her.
> 
> I'm sure that there are people who are not picky and open to all the forms of modern classical music, but don't be naïve: the users who have attacked film music in this discussion are not superpartes. They have their PERSONAL idea about how must be the correct contemporary classical music and want to expel from classical music or belittle all the artists who don't fit with their views.
> 
> In our side there are also users who think that the forms of modern classical music that they don't like should be expelled from classical music, but as for me, I don't want to expel nothing. I think that there must be different forms to satisfy different tastes/expectations.
> There will be always internal fights in classical music, but no one can do nothing with the fact that cinematic classical music and serial music are both forms of classical music. You simply have to keep in mind that "classical music" is not a container of music you like. There things you like, and things you don't like.


Honestly, I don't get what your whole point is and I don't think you do either. You ramble on and on endlessly, but you say nothing. Your whole two groups theory is bogus, because what about the people who only listen to Romantic Era music and don't like film music or the Baroque fans who only listen this era of music? Where do they fit in? Your whole premise seems to be built on trying to establish film music being the same as classical music. It's not. I don't need to prove this nor do I have point you to any specific articles that make this point. Film music is it's own category outside of all genres because of what it was designed and tailor-made for: the movie screen. Film music is created on the basis of scene-by-scene scenarios. If it isn't, then the film composer is doing a lousy job. Take away the film and you have a jumbled, sporadic sequence of diced-up music that, without the accompaniment of the visuals, doesn't make any musical sense. Sure, there are scenes here and there that could stand on their own and this is based on a memorable theme or whatever, but the whole film score itself could not. That's what I'm trying to explain to you, but you don't want to acknowledge what I'm writing, because of your own personal biases. I'm basing my own opinion on what I'm hearing, which is all that matters to me --- not someone like you wagging their finger at me telling me otherwise. Film music doesn't belong anywhere near classical music, because it's not --- the writing processes for classical are more deeply personal and more complex than writing for film.


----------



## HansZimmer

Enthusiast said:


> ^ You "quote" me saying something I don't remember saying in this thread and something I certainly wouldn't have said because the music that accompanied the first Star Wars film gets played in concerts. I would have said "so what?" and "what has that got to do with its merit?" 22 years is nothing and there will always be a big audience for the trashy.
> 
> Personally, I think we can tell quite a lot about how well a piece will survive over centuries. Some will be popular as well while other pieces may - like much of Mozart and Beethoven - be for more refined tastes. Obviously I can't prove this but I don't need to. What I seem to know is a product of my taste. That's subjective but is anyone asking me to post an objective truth? I'm entitled to my view just as you are entitled to yours. My taste is seemingly very different to yours but that's OK.


We are both entitled to our own tastes, but we are not entitled to call "the trashy" the compositions which we don't PERSONALLY enjoy.

Infact here above you have not written that the music of Star Wars doesn't do for you. You have written that it's trash.
I used the word "modernist gang" in my previous post because its members have an unbearable attitude. They think they can decide which are the good pieces and which are the bad pieces for us all, and they want to expel from classical music the pieces and the artists who don't obey their personal tastes and personal expectations.

I have already written what I think about the subject: the melodies are subjective, so the value of a composition is subjective.
The classical music contains all the pieces written in the language of classical music (including the film scores) and then everyone will have his personal preferences for one piece or the other one. If many people like a determined piece or composer, they can become a standard of classical music, but it's not so relevant for me. Since I don't feel obligated to follow the tastes of the masses inside classical music, I'm free to reject a major composer/piece and to prefer a minor composer/piece. It's subjective.

However the double standard that are applied are funny. The fact that Mozart's music is a standard is the demonstration that his music is valid, while if many people like the music of John Williams is irrelevant.


----------



## mmsbls

HansZimmer said:


> All the arguments of this discussion have been based on a huge logical fallacy, namely on the idea that you have to determine if something is film music or classical music.


No. People on this thread have simply stated why they believe film music is or is not classical music. You asked, several times, why people think film music is not classical. Several have answered your question. They have done so in a clear, reasonable manner. There is no logical fallacy. There are only differing definitions or maybe opinions. You asked, and they answered your question. 

@mikeh375 and @verandai have explained the difference between composing AB and composing B. They have not proven that AB doesn't exist. Therefore my argument has not been demolished.

Proof does not apply to the physical world, only to logic and math. No one here has tried to prove that film music is not classical. They have given their reasons for believing so. Of course your argument has not been demolished. What makes you think anyone has tried to demolish an argument? 

It's fairly simple. You choose to believe that genres of music should be defined based on their sound. Obviously, you feel that's reasonable and the correct way to define genres. There's nothing wrong with that. Many others feel the same way. Others see specific differences in the two types of music (film and classical) and feel those differences are more important than the sound of the music. That's also reasonable. It happens to be the view of the TC moderation team since we setup a separate forum area for film music. As far as I can tell, the vast majority are not greatly concerned with those differing views. 

I think this situation is similar to the astronomical community and the question of whether Pluto is a planet. Some think yes for certain reasons while the committee that defines what a planet is voted to not include Pluto for a well defined, clear reason. There is no proof one way or the other. No one attempts to demolish other arguments. The community simply debated and came to a conclusion. 

Again, you asked a question, and other answered. In hundreds of posts, you seem to be saying their opinions on this issue are wrong while not seeming to understand them at all. I don't know why.


----------



## Enthusiast

HansZimmer said:


> We are both entitled to our own tastes, but we are not entitled to call "the trashy" the compositions which we don't PERSONALLY enjoy.


I am "entitled" to describe what I _feel _about the music of John Williams. I think it was clear I was not aspiring to be objective in that judgment. But "trashy" is the exact feeling I get when I hear that music being treated as concert music.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

Enthusiast said:


> ^ You "quote" me saying something I don't remember saying in this thread and something I certainly wouldn't have said because the music that accompanied the first Star Wars film gets played in concerts. I would have said "so what?" and "what has that got to do with its merit?" 22 years is nothing and there will always be a big audience for the trashy.
> 
> Personally, I think we can tell quite a lot about how well a piece will survive over centuries. Some will be popular as well while other pieces may - like much of Mozart and Beethoven - be for more refined tastes. Obviously I can't prove this but I don't need to. What I seem to know is a product of my taste. That's subjective but is anyone asking me to post an objective truth? I'm entitled to my view just as you are entitled to yours. My taste is seemingly very different to yours but that's OK.


Contemporary critics trashed Liszt's Galop, and now audiences and virtuosos eat that trash up.

Rigoletto and Boheme had mixed reception - Britten looked down at the latter.
Canon Staples now.

Bach was regarded as outdated and "not having stood the test of time", until he suddenly did 100s of years later.



It's good that you professed subjectivity and ignorance of the future, cause just to reiterate the "test of time" is bs.






> I think you confuse serious art and comedy when you suggest that comedy cannot be serious art. Read Shakespeare. You mention Mozart and seem to be suggesting that The Marriage of Figaro and Cosi are not serious art. Clearly (I assume you agree) they are great masterpieces.
> 
> BTW, I am surprised to see a suggestion that Schindler's List is an art film. It was a blockbuster, dealing with a serious subject but hardly telling us any great and rare truth about it.


Uh, yeah, how about just stop using the word "serious" then, in order to avoid the confusion?

I've got a great clip of German music academic Joachim Kaiser (in a Herrmann Prey interview) calling the Barber of Seville "E-Musik" (E and U being the German version of this dichotomy - "ernst" and "untertainment").

Literally an opera BUFFA, which was explicitly contrasted with SERIA(ous) lolmfao - and now it's getting called E-Musik Serious.


Just stop already, _please_?







And "art" isn't well-defined either, the notion that it's there to "tell a great and rare truth" is just one of dozens of definitions of what "art" is supposed to be.


----------



## HansZimmer

Neo Romanza said:


> Honestly, I don't get what your whole point is and I don't think you do either. You ramble on and on endlessly, but you say nothing. Your whole two groups theory is bogus, because what about the people who only listen to Romantic Era music and don't like film music or the Baroque fans who only listen this era of music? Where do they fit in? Your whole premise seems to be built on trying to establish film music being the same as classical music. It's not. I don't need to prove this nor do I have point you to any specific articles that make this point. Film music is it's own category outside of all genres because of what it was designed and tailor-made for: the movie screen. Film music is created on the basis of scene-by-scene scenarios. If it isn't, then the film composer is doing a lousy job. Take away the film and you have a jumbled, sporadic sequence of diced-up music that, without the accompaniment of the visuals, doesn't make any musical sense. Sure, there are scenes here and there that could stand on their own and this is based on a memorable theme or whatever, but the whole film score itself could not. That's what I'm trying to explain to you, but you don't want to acknowledge what I'm writing, because of your own personal biases. I'm basing my own opinion on what I'm hearing, which is all that matters to me --- not someone like you wagging their finger at me telling me otherwise. Film music doesn't belong anywhere near classical music, because it's not --- the writing processes for classical are more deeply personal and more complex than writing for film.


The fact that there are concerts of film music shows that it can stand on its own. You can't decide for all the people on the earth.

Your personal tastes are not relevant in determinining what is or what is not classical music. Everything written in the language of classical music is classical music, soundtracks included. You can say that you like the composition X but not the composition Y: it's not that the category of classical music must contain only what you PERSONALLY like.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

Neo Romanza said:


> Honestly, I don't get what your whole point is and I don't think you do either. You ramble on and on endlessly, but you say nothing. Your whole two groups theory is bogus, because what about the people who only listen to Romantic Era music and don't like film music or the Baroque fans who only listen this era of music? Where do they fit in? Your whole premise seems to be built on trying to establish film music being the same as classical music. It's not. I don't need to prove this nor do I have point you to any specific articles that make this point. Film music is it's own category outside of all genres because of what it was designed and tailor-made for: the movie screen. Film music is created on the basis of scene-by-scene scenarios. If it isn't, then the film composer is doing a lousy job. Take away the film and you have a jumbled, sporadic sequence of diced-up music that, without the accompaniment of the visuals, doesn't make any musical sense. Sure, there are scenes here and there that could stand on their own and this is based on a memorable theme or whatever, but the whole film score itself could not. That's what I'm trying to explain to you, but you don't want to acknowledge what I'm writing, because of your own personal biases. *I'm basing my own opinion on what I'm hearing, which is all that matters to me --- not someone like you wagging their finger at me telling me otherwise*. [<?<---->?>] *Film music doesn't belong anywhere near classical music, because it's no*t --- the writing processes for classical are more deeply personal and more complex than writing for film.





mmsbls said:


> No. People on this thread have simply stated why they believe film music is or is not classical music. You asked, several times, why people think film music is not classical. Several have answered your question. They have done so in a clear, reasonable manner. There is no logical fallacy. There are only differing definitions or maybe opinions. You asked, and they answered your question.
> 
> @mikeh375 and @verandai have explained the difference between composing AB and composing B. They have not proven that AB doesn't exist. Therefore my argument has not been demolished.
> 
> Proof does not apply to the physical world, only to logic and math. *No one here has tried to prove that film music is not classical. They have given their reasons for believing so. Of course your argument has not been demolished. What makes you think anyone has tried to demolish an argument?*
> 
> It's fairly simple. You choose to believe that genres of music should be defined based on their sound. Obviously, you feel that's reasonable and the correct way to define genres. There's nothing wrong with that. Many others feel the same way. Others see specific differences in the two types of music (film and classical) and feel those differences are more important than the sound of the music. That's also reasonable. It happens to be the view of the TC moderation team since we setup a separate forum area for film music. As far as I can tell, the vast majority are not greatly concerned with those differing views.
> 
> I think this situation is similar to the astronomical community and the question of whether Pluto is a planet. Some think yes for certain reasons while the committee that defines what a planet is voted to not include Pluto for a well defined, clear reason. There is no proof one way or the other. No one attempts to demolish other arguments. The community simply debated and came to a conclusion.
> 
> Again, you asked a question, and other answered. In hundreds of posts, you seem to be saying their opinions on this issue are wrong while not seeming to understand them at all. I don't know why.


Aww the duality of man.


Anyone can read through the 1st page of this thread, and 2nd and the 3rd, to see how all these points have already been addressed from the start - however people with an agenda just keep talking past one another as always.


Imo if "CM" isn't clearly defined, as many keep repeating (just like "classical theater" or painting isn't defined, and especially whether film counts as a successor to those traditions), why do some keep insisting on their own definitions? Preference I suppose?



Either way, just for the record here, the whole "autonomy of film music vs. opera music" remains, as far as this thread goes, as of now unresolved - there's some open questions and un-analyzed comparisons and examples left hanging, on both sides of the deb8.

Since that's an interesting subject by itself, there'd be a point in doing it in some separate thread in the kino subforum, where it wouldn't be attached to this tribal tugwar context.


----------



## Neo Romanza

HansZimmer said:


> The fact that there are concerts of film music shows that it can stand on its own. You can't decide for all the people on the earth.
> 
> Your personal tastes are not relevant in determinining what is or what is not classical music. Everything written in the language of classical music is classical music, soundtracks included. You can say that you like the composition X but not the composition Y: it's not that the category of classical music must contain only what you PERSONALLY like.


And what you fail to leave out is that a lot of people who go to see concerts of film music suites don't know a thing about classical music. In other words, what you're saying is these concerts are "pops" concerts and are catered to the lowest common denominator, because they know that _these_ people will buy the tickets. Like I told you (or another member here), don't conflate concert attendance with artistic merit.

As for film music being classical music, no, I don't think so --- classical music, besides all of the independent thinking that goes into a piece, can be performed on its own. Film music cannot and I don't buy into your idea of a concert suite all of sudden being classical music. No, it doesn't work like that.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

Neo Romanza said:


> As for film music being classical music, no, I don't think so --- classical music, besides all of the independent thinking that goes into a piece, can be performed on its own. Film music cannot and I don't buy into your idea of a concert suite all of sudden being classical music. No, it doesn't work like that.


htt ps://ww w.youtube.com/watch?v=VwVtPlIO5L8&t=82m36s 

This wouldn't "work" in a concert performance.


However opera is trash theater from the 19th century and earlier - it's not classical music like symphonies, concertos etc.

Nebuchadnezzar didn't have 2 daughters in a love triangle struggling for the throne? It's trash.


----------



## Aries

mmsbls said:


> No. People on this thread have simply stated why they believe film music is or is not classical music.


I stated that film music can be classical and also non-classical. It is a logical fallacy to assume film music has to be either generally classical music or generally not classical music.



mmsbls said:


> It's fairly simple. You choose to believe that genres of music should be defined based on their sound. Obviously, you feel that's reasonable and the correct way to define genres. There's nothing wrong with that. Many others feel the same way. Others see specific differences in the two types of music (film and classical) and feel those differences are more important than the sound of the music. That's also reasonable. It happens to be the view of the TC moderation team since we setup a separate forum area for film music.


Well, within the section Music and Repertoire there are several subforums: Solo Chamber Music, Ballet, Opera, Vocal music, Music for Cinema and TV, Non-Classical music among other subforums. It is reasonable that specific subtypes of classical music get their own subforum here. And it is reasonable that the Music for Cinema subforum is on the same level as the Opera subforum for example and not and subsubforum of the Non-Classical music subforum.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

Aries said:


> I stated that film music can be classical and also non-classical. It is a logical fallacy to assume film music has to be either generally classical music or generally not classical music.


They're saying the former is pseudo-classical, for various reasons (incl. "lack of autonomy", as well possibly sth about "wrong voicings" (i.e. that City of Angels jazz comparison).

Meaningless question to me btw, I just jumped in here to make some specific points about things (and look at some points made by other commenters).


----------



## HansZimmer

mmsbls said:


> No. People on this thread have simply stated why they believe film music is or is not classical music. You asked, several times, why people think film music is not classical. Several have answered your question. They have done so in a clear, reasonable manner. There is no logical fallacy. There are only differing definitions or maybe opinions. You asked, and they answered your question.
> 
> @mikeh375 and @verandai have explained the difference between composing AB and composing B. They have not proven that AB doesn't exist. Therefore my argument has not been demolished.
> 
> Proof does not apply to the physical world, only to logic and math. No one here has tried to prove that film music is not classical. They have given their reasons for believing so. Of course your argument has not been demolished. What makes you think anyone has tried to demolish an argument?
> 
> It's fairly simple. You choose to believe that genres of music should be defined based on their sound. Obviously, you feel that's reasonable and the correct way to define genres. There's nothing wrong with that. Many others feel the same way. Others see specific differences in the two types of music (film and classical) and feel those differences are more important than the sound of the music. That's also reasonable. It happens to be the view of the TC moderation team since we setup a separate forum area for film music. As far as I can tell, the vast majority are not greatly concerned with those differing views.
> 
> I think this situation is similar to the astronomical community and the question of whether Pluto is a planet. Some think yes for certain reasons while the committee that defines what a planet is voted to not include Pluto for a well defined, clear reason. There is no proof one way or the other. No one attempts to demolish other arguments. The community simply debated and came to a conclusion.
> 
> Again, you asked a question, and other answered. In hundreds of posts, you seem to be saying their opinions on this issue are wrong while not seeming to understand them at all. I don't know why.


Pluto has been expelled from the category of "planets" because the scientific community in 2006 has given an official and quite objective definition to the word "planet" and they determined that Pluto was not a planet according to the new definition.

So, it's not that a single individual in a forum has decided that Pluto is not a planet. In the case of classical music, there isn't any official definition which exclude "commissioned works written to accompany a narrative", while, on the other hand, I showed that words such as "classical soundtracks" or "cinematic classical" are used and recognized.
Furthermore, if you update the definition of classical music in such way (and for the moment there hasn't been any official update of definition in such sense) then the commisioned works of incidental music will have to be expelled from classical in the same way as pluto has been expelled from the category of "planets".


There is a reason if the definition of classical music is vague: to allow a lot of flexibility, including the possibility of creating the subgenre "classical soundtrack" or "cinematic classical".
In few words, to demonstrate that the subcategory is legitimate I only have to demonostrate that the official definition of classical music doesn't reject the creation of these subcategories, therefore there is no need to cancel them.

Until there won't be any official update of the definition, Classic FM won't do anything wrong in including the "cinematic classical" in the Classic FM Hall Of Fame. Remember that the point of this discussion is that someone attacked Classic FM for his LEGITIMATE choice. The persons who attack have the burden of proof. They have to demonostrate that the category "cinematic classical" is not possible.


----------



## Enthusiast

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> Contemporary critics trashed Liszt's Galop, and now audiences and virtuosos eat that trash up.
> 
> Rigoletto and Boheme had mixed reception - Britten looked down at the latter.
> Canon Staples now.
> 
> Bach was regarded as outdated and "not having stood the test of time", until he suddenly did 100s of years later.
> 
> 
> 
> It's good that you professed subjectivity and ignorance of the future, cause just to reiterate the "test of time" is bs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, yeah, how about just stop using the word "serious" then, in order to avoid the confusion?
> 
> I've got a great clip of German music academic Joachim Kaiser (in a Herrmann Prey interview) calling the Barber of Seville "E-Musik" (E and U being the German version of this dichotomy - "ernst" and "untertainment").
> 
> Literally an opera BUFFA, which was explicitly contrasted with SERIA(ous) lolmfao - and now it's getting called E-Musik Serious.
> 
> 
> Just stop already, _please_?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And "art" isn't well-defined either, the notion that it's there to "tell a great and rare truth" is just one of dozens of definitions of what "art" is supposed to be.


This is mostly nit picking and also is not entirely accurate. For example, Bach retained his reputation after he died even if not with the general public. And are you telling me that the Marriage of Figaro is not a serious work? It is no surprise that you can find examples of famous critics and composers not liking some works that are masterpieces. Britten also disliked Brahms, for example. But in many of these cases I suspect the status of the work that was being described critically was clear enough to the critic. They just didn't like some works or composers. 

It seems my meaning got across to you even though I did not define (sheesh!) what I mean by art.


----------



## Enthusiast

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> htt ps://ww w.youtube.com/watch?v=VwVtPlIO5L8&t=82m36s
> 
> However opera is trash theater from the 19th century and earlier - it's not classical music like symphonies, concertos etc.
> 
> Nebuchadnezzar didn't have 2 daughters in a love triangle struggling for the throne? It's trash.


This is madness of the sort that might be expected in a thread of more than 100 pages on whether or not film music stands up as classical.


----------



## HansZimmer

Enthusiast said:


> I am "entitled" to describe what I _feel _about the music of John Williams.


What you feel is personal, not objective, so you can not say that the music of John Williams is objectively trash and you are not entitled to expel the music you don't like from classical music as long as the music it's written in the language of classical music.


----------



## mmsbls

Aries said:


> I stated that film music can be classical and also non-classical. It is a logical fallacy to assume film music has to be either generally classical music or generally not classical music.


This is not a logical issue. The issue is how members of TC view film music. People have given reasons to view some film music as classical and reasons to view film music as a separate category of music. Both views seem reasonable to me. 

Incidentally, if I define film music as music written to accompany a film and classical music as music not written to accompany a film, those are two logically distinct categories. It's also true that such a distinction is not very useful by itself, but let's please drop the logical aspect of this discussion. 
[/QUOTE]


----------



## Luchesi

bargolus said:


> Thanks! I guess it depends on your thought experiment! Imagining Beethoven alive today (say a 250+ year-old vampire) makes me think of him being slowly inducted into (post)modernity - tv's, radio, cars, WWII, pop music, Adorno (?) etc. so he would have context for Boulez and understand it as original music (I do like Boulez myself!).
> 
> However, if I think of Boulez time-travelling back to 1824 and handing Beethoven the score to Le marteau sans maître, I don't know if Beethoven would have thought of the score as much more than an elaborate joke. Probably not something that he'd suddenly feel a urge to study in depth given his busy life otherwise?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This discussion has also reminded me of Borges' famous short story, "Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote", in which Pierre Menard ends up publishing Don Quixote in the 20th word-for-word as a new piece, but with him as author, and the interpretation of the work becomes radically different, because the context for its publication has changed:
> 
> "It is a revelation to compare Menard’s Don Quixote with Cervantes’. The latter, for example, wrote (part one, chapter nine):
> 
> . . . truth, whose mother is history, rival of time, depository of deeds, witness of the past, exemplar and adviser to the present, and the future’s counselor.
> 
> Written in the seventeenth century, written by the “lay genius” Cervantes, this enumeration is a mere rhetorical praise of history. Menard, on the other hand, writes:
> 
> . . . truth, whose mother is history, rival of time, depository of deeds, witness of the past, exemplar and adviser to the present, and the future’s counselor.
> 
> History, the mother of truth: the idea is astounding. Menard, a contemporary of William James, does not define history as an inquiry into reality but as its origin. Historical truth, for him, is not what has happened; it is what we judge to have happened. The final phrases—exemplar and adviser to the present, and the future’s counselor —are brazenly pragmatic.
> 
> The contrast in style is also vivid. The archaic style of Menard—quite foreign, after all—suffers from a certain affectation. Not so that of his forerunner, who handles with ease the current Spanish of his time."


Thanks, your post again spurred me to think about history and how it was written and by who and how it's described (without words) by the images we of this century have firmly in our minds.
What are the sources of history? books and documents and letters and groupings of people and where they lived and what we can ascertain from all the unrelated data. But I'm not a historian.. heh

As for the history of science, all we really have are the nebulous bios, but mainly we have the science that was discovered, documented and theorized about. 'Very different it seems to me.

Can we truly sympathize with what it was like for Beethoven to live in an age of terrible disease, discomfort hot days, cold days, no indoor plumbing, primitive communications, very little entertainment compared to today. Poor paper and quills and candle light and many noisy disturbances nightly in the streets. And the wars, of course. Wow!


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

Enthusiast said:


> This is mostly nit picking and also is not entirely accurate. For example, Bach retained his reputation after he died even if not with the general public.


I'm not aware of the details and extent of which circles he retained his reputation in, however from all I've read, it seems like large parts of the community put his work on the shelves to gather dust until the Viennese School (with "Mozart being one of the leading factors") started rediscovering him and increasingly incorporating those findings in their own works.

And also "being well-regarded but determined outdated and not good to perform (a lot?)" isn't exactly the platonic ideal of sb "standing the test of time" is it?

And why did Mendelssohn decide to orchestrate that Passion performance of his in a different/fuller fashion, based on the reasoning that audiences would've disliked it otherwise - but now lots of people eat up HIP as if it was nothing?

Seems like this entire case points toward "test of time" being a non-linear wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey thing at best, and just a chaotic herd mentality process at worst.


However if you have information contrary to this picture, you can obviously post it here.






> And are you telling me that the Marriage of Figaro is not a serious work?


It has dramatic + political proto-Revolutionary elements that the Barbiere didn't have one bit (even if Bartolo was a send-up of some prick that Beaumarchais knew - forgot who that was).

And the Marriage of Figaro opera was of course a famous case of censorship and the artists managing to do something worthy out of their limitations - making it non-classical music theater, while Beaumarchais was classical theater.





> It is no surprise that you can find examples of famous critics and composers not liking some works that are masterpieces. Britten also disliked Brahms, for example. But in many of these cases I suspect the status of the work that was being described critically was clear enough to the critic. They just didn't like some works or composers.
> 
> It seems my meaning got across to you even though I did not define (sheesh!) what I mean by art.


Hey as long as everyone avoids simplistic and wrong "test of time duh" statements, it's all cool.


Goethe disliked Schumann's "Erlkönig" btw;
and also, not all song lyrics (that aren't adaptations of poetry) work outside the music - does that mean that the poetry in classical songs are not classical?

Ah anyway whatever lol jk


----------



## Enthusiast

HansZimmer said:


> What you feel is personal, not objective, so you can no say that the music of John Williams is objectively trash and you are not entitled to expel the music you don't like from classical music as long as the music it's written in the language of classical music.


Well, I never claimed that my impressions and taste concerning John Williams were objective. So you should be OK with what I am saying even if you feel differently. The post you quoted and seem to want to disagree with made that clear.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

Enthusiast said:


> This is madness of the sort that might be expected in a thread of more than 100 pages on whether or not film music stands up as classical.


The red sky has fallen upon my head.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

Luchesi said:


> Can we truly sympathize with what it was like for Beethoven to live in an age of terrible disease, discomfort hot days, cold days, no indoor plumbing, primitive communications, very little entertainment compared to today. Poor paper and quills and candle light and many noisy disturbances nightly in the streets. And the wars, of course. Wow!


Watch "Le Roi Danse"


----------



## Luchesi

mmsbls said:


> This is not a logical issue. The issue is how members of TC view film music. People have given reasons to view some film music as classical and reasons to view film music as a separate category of music. Both views seem reasonable to me.
> 
> Incidentally, if I define film music as music written to accompany a film and classical music as music not written to accompany a film, those are two logically distinct categories. It's also true that such a distinction is not very useful by itself, but let's please drop the logical aspect of this discussion.


To me, logically, we need strict categories for education. In any subject. Otherwise it's all a jumble for the young student.

Adults have their own categories, if they want to, or if that's just how it's turned out for them through the decades. Who can argue with a personal view of what's what and what's important as a category?

So if we seriously teach that FM is CM I can see how it can be damaging. The child won't have the time and attention for CM, because obviously FM is composed to be more immediately enticing. IOW, you don't have to live with the score (of FM), which is how some people put it.


----------



## HansZimmer

Neo Romanza said:


> And what you fail to leave out is that a lot of people who go to see concerts of film music suites don't know a thing about classical music. In other words, what you're saying is these concerts are "pops" concerts and are catered to the lowest common denominator, because they know that _these_ people will buy the tickets. Like I told you (or another member here), don't conflate concert attendance with artistic merit.


I don't use the numbers to demonstrate the artistic merit. The artistic merit of many film scores is showed by the fact there are many different articulated melodies and articulated orchestrations. This can at least shows that the composer has put a great effort in the writing the music, but of course no one can demonstrate that the melodies are not only articulated but also BEATIFUL, because every composition has a subjective quality which depends entirely on subjective tastes and personal emotional reaction to the music.

You should simply stop to think that your personal emotional reactions to a determined piece and an other are objective. Simply listen to the pieces of music that you like without trying to put down the pieces that other people like by saying that there are not artistic merits, and then you will be able to live in peace with yourself and the other folks.


----------



## HansZimmer

mmsbls said:


> Incidentally, if I define film music as music written to accompany a film and classical music as music not written to accompany a film, those are two logically distinct categories.


If I said that chairs can not have four legs, all the chairs of the world wouldn't be no more chairs, but there is a reason if the the definition of "chair" is vague and doesn't enter in the merit of the details.

The writer of The Guardian (see the article in the OP: Can film music ever be classical?) has unilaterally decided that a chair can not have four legs and he started to attack a restaurant because it uses chairs with four legs.

Some users of this forum agree with the article, but meanwhile Classic FM is still including the cinematic classical in the Classic FM Hall of Fame and the websites label some OST albums as "cinematic classical" or "classical soundtrack", without violating in any way the official definition of classical music.


----------



## mmsbls

HansZimmer said:


> Pluto has been expelled from the category of "planets" because the scientific community in 2006 has given an official and quite objective definition to the word "planet" and they determined that Pluto was not a planet according to the new definition.
> 
> So, it's not that a single individual in a forum has decided that Pluto is not a planet. In the case of classical music, there isn't any official definition which exclude "commissioned works written to accompany a narrative", while, on the other hand, I showed that words such as "classical soundtracks" or "cinematic classical" are used and recognized.


This isn't a question of definitions. You ask why, and people answered. It's their view, not an official voted upon definition agreed upon by all sentient beings.



> Furthermore, if you update the definition of classical music in such way (and for the moment there hasn't been any official update of definition in such sense) then the commisioned works of incidental music will have to be expelled from classical in the same way as pluto has been expelled from the category of "planets".


You still don't seem to understand what Mike H has tried to explain. It's not a definition. It's the procedure or process used by composers (and others involved) to write film music. That process differs significantly from how classical music is written. And it differs from how classical incidental music is written. If you go to Mike's post that lists some examples of how film music is written, you'll see that none of those have anything to do with incidental music.



> The persons who attack have the burden of proof. They have to demonostrate that the category "cinematic classical" is not possible.


I suppose you could view some members here as attacking your view. The people I have talked about are in no way attacking your view. They have tried to give an answer to your question. It's not a question of whether a category is possible or not. It's a question of how people view specific music. Certain music written for films has been written using a process that has distinct elements that are not used in classical music.

Anyway, you believe some film music can be viewed as classical. Fine. Based on your responses, it appears you cannot accept that others have good reasons to view film music differently. I'm not sure why that's the case.


----------



## Aries

mmsbls said:


> Incidentally, if I define film music as music written to accompany a film and classical music as music not written to accompany a film, those are two logically distinct categories. It's also true that such a distinction is not very useful by itself, but let's please drop the logical aspect of this discussion.


Lets talk about the usefulness or meaningfulness of this definition. If classical music is defined as music not written for a film then most popular music and jazz music would be classical music. That would be a very unsatisfactory definition. You could fix it somewhat if you split the non-film music into Classical, Popular and Jazz, but then it would be also nearby to do the same with film music. Then we would have six categories of music:

Classical non-film music,
Jazz non-film music,
Pop non-film music,
Classical film music,
Jazz film music,
Pop film music.

Imo there is an obvious way to clean these categories up... In german there is a distinction between Musikgattung (the composition form) und Musikgenre (overall style), but apparently it is both translated to genre in english. However it would be a natural clean up to distinguish between the overall styles (Classical, Jazz, Pop) and the form (song, symphony, opera, film, chamber music etc.) separeatly in different dimension. The separation of the respective film music forms into separated genres seems artifical. And it suggest the thought that either the difference between style and form (knowing that all forms have implications for the style) was not understood, or that there is a agenda.

But another thought I have is that the term "Classical music" wasn't conceived with other genres and an overall division of music in mind and that such an overall classification using the term classical music does not do justice to the term classical music. The term was rather conceived with just the actual appearance of the genre in its past in the mind, regarding style, forms and other things. And I think this is how the term is still mostly perceived. Film music doesn't fit in this sense because film is a non-traditional form. Modernism and Avantgarde doesn't fit because the style is non-traditional style. Alma Deutscher fits.

But I think it is senseful to acknowledge that classical music has adapted new developments in style and form. However many average Joes will not acknowlege it because they don't care, and this is another reason why many people think that classical music composed for film scores is not classical music.


----------



## HansZimmer

Luchesi said:


> To me, logically, we need strict categories for education. In any subject.


To create strict and coherent categories is difficult and you can easily end in creating illogical categories. First of all, to children you have to teach the importance of the logical consistency, which is important in science.

Now, a child asks why some pieces of music which use the same musical languages are excluded from the category. You answer that in the category there are only the pieces of high quality.

Then the child asks who has decided that the pieces included in the category are of "high quality" and the ones excluded of "low quality". God?

The logical conclusion of a smart child is that he's in a indoctrination camp, not in a SCHOOL which teaches the usage fo the REASON ("Think with your own brain"). It doesn't seem that you are really worried about teaching to children the critical thinking, which is even more important than notionism.

Do you want to teach classical music to children? Then you can simply teach to them the common elements of the pieces that belong to the category and you are done with your lesson, without the need to create dogmatic and closed categories.


----------



## mmsbls

Aries said:


> Lets talk about the usefulness or meaningfulness of this definition. If classical music is defined as music not written for a film then most popular music and jazz music would be classical music. That would be a very unsatisfactory definition. You could fix it somewhat if you split the non-film music into Classical, Popular and Jazz, but then it would be also nearby to do the same with film music. Then we would have six categories of music:
> 
> Classical non-film music,
> Jazz non-film music,
> Pop non-film music,
> Classical film music,
> Jazz film music,
> Pop film music.
> 
> Imo there is an obvious way to clean these categories up... In german there is a distinction between Musikgattung (the composition form) und Musikgenre (overall style), but apparently it is both translated to genre in english. However it would be a natural clean up to distinguish between the overall styles (Classical, Jazz, Pop) and the form (song, symphony, opera, film, chamber music etc.) separeatly in different dimension. The separation of the respective film music forms into separated genres seems artifical. And it suggest the thought that either the difference between style and form (knowing that all forms have implications for the style) was not understood, or that there is a agenda.
> 
> But another thought I have is that the term "Classical music" wasn't conceived with other genres and an overall division of music in mind and that such an overall classification using the term classical music does not do justice to the term classical music. The term was rather conceived with just the actual appearance of the genre in its past in the mind, regarding style, forms and other things. And I think this is how the term is still mostly perceived. Film music doesn't fit in this sense because film is a non-traditional form. Modernism and Avantgarde doesn't fit because the style is non-traditional style. Alma Deutscher fits.
> 
> But I think it is senseful to acknowledge that classical music has adapted new developments in style and form. However many average Joes will not acknowlege it because they don't care, and this is another reason why many people think that classical music composed for film scores is not classical music.


Are you joking? I made that definition solely for the purpose of explaining about logical fallacies. That definition is silly garbage. Of course it's not useful.


----------



## Luchesi

Aries said:


> Lets talk about the usefulness or meaningfulness of this definition. If classical music is defined as music not written for a film then most popular music and jazz music would be classical music. That would be a very unsatisfactory definition. You could fix it somewhat if you split the non-film music into Classical, Popular and Jazz, but then it would be also nearby to do the same with film music. Then we would have six categories of music:
> 
> Classical non-film music,
> Jazz non-film music,
> Pop non-film music,
> Classical film music,
> Jazz film music,
> Pop film music.
> 
> Imo there is an obvious way to clean these categories up... In german there is a distinction between Musikgattung (the composition form) und Musikgenre (overall style), but apparently it is both translated to genre in english. However it would be a natural clean up to distinguish between the overall styles (Classical, Jazz, Pop) and the form (song, symphony, opera, film, chamber music etc.) separeatly in different dimension. The separation of the respective film music forms into separated genres seems artifical. And it suggest the thought that either the difference between style and form (knowing that all forms have implications for the style) was not understood, or that there is a agenda.
> 
> But another thought I have is that the term "Classical music" wasn't conceived with other genres and an overall division of music in mind and that such an overall classification using the term classical music does not do justice to the term classical music. The term was rather conceived with just the actual appearance of the genre in its past in the mind, regarding style, forms and other things. And I think this is how the term is still mostly perceived. Film music doesn't fit in this sense because film is a non-traditional form. Modernism and Avantgarde doesn't fit because the style is non-traditional style. Alma Deutscher fits.
> 
> But I think it is senseful to acknowledge that classical music has adapted new developments in style and form. However many average Joes will not acknowlege it because they don't care, and this is another reason why many people think that classical music composed for film scores is not classical music.


For the many categories you listed what was the composer's intention in each case? 

If you look at the scores, or research the composer, you can see whether it's composed for entertainment, for film scenes, for a popular appetite, for high art, for academics... for a modernist insight, for dancing in a musical.. Is it difficult to discern a reliable category for FM or CM? Of course, I wouldn't expect a child to be able to reliably categorize or even a person with little musical knowledge.


----------



## Luchesi

HansZimmer said:


> To create strict and coherent categories is difficult and you can easily end in creating illogical categories. First of all, to children you have to teach the importance of the logical consistency, which is important in science.
> 
> Now, a child asks why some pieces of music which use the same musical languages are excluded from the category. You answer that in the category there are only the pieces of high quality.
> 
> Then the child asks who has decided that the pieces included in the category are of "high quality" and the ones excluded of "low quality". God?
> 
> The logical conclusion of a smart child is that he's in a indoctrination camp, not in a SCHOOL which teaches the usage fo the REASON ("Think with your own brain"). It doesn't seem that you are really worried about teaching to children the critical thinking, which is even more important than notionism.
> 
> Do you want to teach classical music to children? Then you can simply teach to them the common elements of the pieces that belong to the category and you are done with your lesson, without the need to create dogmatic and closed categories.


I can see why you say that. But for me I always start with consensus categories and I'm well aware of the gray areas between the categories. 

Yes, I would like children to see the world as I do, but they will have to decide for themselves, but educational categories in any subject is a good place to start. Another technique would involve playing a lot of music and not saying anything beforehand and then have long discussions in groups. That's inefficient and not how education is viewed. Time is of the essence.


----------



## Luchesi

Ask a film composer, are you writing CM? I think they would look at you with a puzzled look. What's your definition
or what do you mean by CM? 
You know, something that sounds like CM?

I think the composer would say, no I'm not.


----------



## DaveM

Neo Romanza said:


> ... Film music is created on the basis of scene-by-scene scenarios. If it isn't, then the film composer is doing a lousy job. Take away the film and you have a jumbled, sporadic sequence of diced-up music that, without the accompaniment of the visuals, doesn't make any musical sense…


You’re exposing a very limited experience of film music.


----------



## Forster

mmsbls said:


> You still don't seem to understand


...much of anything to do with productive discussion on an internet forum.


----------



## DaveM

This discussion is going in several directions at once, some of them irrelevant. Some posters who haven’t bothered to read up on what has already been discussed have arrived only recently and are raising old issues as if they are new. It’s becoming very circular and redundant.

Fwiw, getting back to the core issue (All of the following is IMO): Any music composed for film is best categorized as soundtrack/film music. But, for various reasons, film composers, at various times in the past have composed substantial segments of very classical-like music for films, often at the opening of a movie, as an end-title of a movie and sometimes within the movie. Some of these segments can act as short standalone works. Some can be edited into suites, something I am very familiar with. A substantial number sound more like classical music than some music presently classed as classical music.


----------



## Forster

HansZimmer said:


> If I said that chairs can not have four legs, all the chairs of the world wouldn't be no more chairs, but there is a reason if the the definition of "chair" is vague and doesn't enter in the merit of the details.


A totally useless analogy.



HansZimmer said:


> The writer of The Guardian (see the article in the OP: Can film music ever be classical?) has unilaterally decided that a chair can not have four legs and he started to attack a restaurant because it uses chairs with four legs.


No, he did no such thing.



HansZimmer said:


> Some users of this forum agree with the article, but meanwhile Classic FM is still including the cinematic classical in the Classic FM Hall of Fame and the websites label some OST albums as "cinematic classical" or "classical soundtrack", without violating in any way the official definition of classical music.


All Tristan Jakob-Hoff did was to express his _*personal opinions*_ about Classic FM, film music, CM and the difference between the two. Who cares what he thinks? I don't. It's not important. Classic FM will continue to programme the work they wish to. And you can decide for yourself what counts as classical and what doesn't, without having to convert anyone here to your viewpoint. If you want to campaign for something, make it something useful.

Just go and explore some of the marvellous OSTs out there that _aren't_ by any of the three or four composers who have been quoted ad nauseam and then come back and tell us which new film composers you have discovered who have written quality music.


----------



## AlexD

Opera has a visual element from the stage as well as a contribution from the orchestra, as does ballet.

Are they not accepted forms of classical music, depsite the fact that they rely upon a visual/dramatic element?

It's not like film composers invented borrowing/ripping off sequences of music from their predecessors to make things sound good. 

If film scores are not classical music, then by the same logic, opera and ballet cannot be classical music either.

It is a ludicrous position. 

Ask yourself - would Verdi/Mozart/Beethoven be taking commissions from Hollywood to write film scores if they had the chance?
h
We'd be visiting Wagner World instead if Disneyland if he had a say in it. 

Telling someone John Williams can't be classical because Georege Lucas/Speilberg commissioned the piece isn't really helpful. What;s the difference between George Lucas & King Ludwig II?


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

Enthusiast said:


> This is madness of the sort that might be expected in a thread of more than 100 pages on whether or not film music stands up as classical.


Ah, whoops and here's someone who actually thinks this for real lol
Jun 30, 2022 

He hates harpsichords too btw


----------



## Ethereality

AlexD said:


> Opera has a visual element from the stage as well as a contribution from the orchestra, as does ballet.
> 
> Are they not accepted forms of classical music, depsite the fact that they rely upon a visual/dramatic element?
> 
> It's not like film composers invented borrowing/ripping off sequences of music from their predecessors to make things sound good.
> 
> If film scores are not classical music, then by the same logic, opera and ballet cannot be classical music either.
> 
> It is a ludicrous position.
> 
> Ask yourself - would Verdi/Mozart/Beethoven be taking commissions from Hollywood to write film scores if they had the chance?
> h
> We'd be visiting Wagner World instead if Disneyland if he had a say in it.
> 
> Telling someone John Williams can't be classical because Georege Lucas/Speilberg commissioned the piece isn't really helpful. What;s the difference between George Lucas & King Ludwig II?


Film music can eventually be classical, music of classical study ie:



Ethereality said:


> I agree that contemporary music like Dmitri Shostakovich, Louis Armstrong or Ella Fitzgerald can start to become classical now, having a good chance of settling into the real cannon after a while, but disagree that modern music which people post is classical yet. Doesn't make sense to bunch so many different styles together and call it a 'genre'.
> 
> The real point of the classical term is, you're always going to have one group appreciating _classical history. _It might entail multiple genres and varying tastes, but everything will generally be the same course of study. Thus if Shostakovich wins out over the other two in the end, it's for a_ scholarly_ reason. The history of education always determines what's predominant in a classical period. If the two jazz singers go out of style after another century, it's for a scholarly reason.
> 
> Sometimes in the classical period of anything, you can reference innovators 1,000+ years difference from each other. The classical era keeps expanding. Modern concert compositions could become classical pieces after a long history, people are free to claim which ones will. To a lot of people, it doesn't matter to their own tastes what might become top classical pieces.


If you study soundtracks, you may realize that this is one of the most iconic pieces:


----------



## Luchesi

AlexD said:


> Opera has a visual element from the stage as well as a contribution from the orchestra, as does ballet.
> 
> Are they not accepted forms of classical music, depsite the fact that they rely upon a visual/dramatic element?
> 
> It's not like film composers invented borrowing/ripping off sequences of music from their predecessors to make things sound good.
> 
> If film scores are not classical music, then by the same logic, opera and ballet cannot be classical music either.
> 
> It is a ludicrous position.
> 
> Ask yourself - would Verdi/Mozart/Beethoven be taking commissions from Hollywood to write film scores if they had the chance?
> h
> We'd be visiting Wagner World instead if Disneyland if he had a say in it.
> 
> Telling someone John Williams can't be classical because Georege Lucas/Speilberg commissioned the piece isn't really helpful. What;s the difference between George Lucas & King Ludwig II?


Can you look at the scores and tell what's symphonies, opera, ballet and film music?


----------



## HansZimmer

mmsbls said:


> This isn't a question of definitions. You ask why, and people answered. It's their view, not an official voted upon definition agreed upon by all sentient beings.
> 
> 
> 
> You still don't seem to understand what Mike H has tried to explain. It's not a definition. It's the procedure or process used by composers (and others involved) to write film music. That process differs significantly from how classical music is written. And it differs from how classical incidental music is written. If you go to Mike's post that lists some examples of how film music is written, you'll see that none of those have anything to do with incidental music.
> 
> I suppose you could view some members here as attacking your view. The people I have talked about are in no way attacking your view. They have tried to give an answer to your question. It's not a question of whether a category is possible or not. It's a question of how people view specific music. Certain music written for films has been written using a process that has distinct elements that are not used in classical music.
> 
> Anyway, you believe some film music can be viewed as classical. Fine. Based on your responses, it appears you cannot accept that others have good reasons to view film music differently. I'm not sure why that's the case.


@mikeh375 has written interesting observations, but in the wrong discussion. If the title was "What's the difference between composing a concert work and a soundtrack?", his answers would be perfect. I want to emphasize that I have nothing to contest about the explanations of mikeh375, only one little thing: in the interview to Philip Glass posted by someone in this discussion, he said that he has used a more adventurous harmony in film music than in concert works, so it's not entirely true that the composers always use a more restricted harmony in film music.
However it's certainly true that the most celebrated themes of film music are confined in tonality, and it's essentially the reason for which some people tend to prefer film music in respect to a lot of modern concert music.
Remember, however, that film music composers are not well paid simply because they are able to write "sugary melodies" which become popular, but because of their skills in transforming images in music.

The public like the sweet melody of Schindler's List, but the music of the Auschwitz scene is never played. For that reason, the casual listeners of film music don't fully understand the artistic work that there is in a film score, while a serious listener of film music listens to the entire suites and therefore also knows these pieces.

The first is for the scene inside Auschwitz.













The famous sweet piece of Schindler's List has been written for a sweet scene. So it's not simply a sweet melody, but the RIGHT melody in the RIGHT place.







It should be illegal to extract a piece of film music from the suite. You play the suite, or you play nothing.

To translate images in music is also a clever artistic work and if someone thinks that only concert music is art it means that he has a limited view of art.


However, what we are doing here is simply to discuss the difference between composing AB (cinematic classical music) and B (classical music), in a system in which A=soundtracks. It's the same difference that there is between composing AB (cinematic jazz) and B (concert jazz).
You can call AB and B how you want, but the definitions don't change the logical substance. We are entitled to our own opinions, but we are not entitled in fighting logic.

The existence of AB has not been confutated by anyone in this discussion, so what Classic FM does is legit.


----------



## HansZimmer

Luchesi said:


> Ask a film composer, are you writing CM? I think they would look at you with a puzzled look. What's your definition
> or what do you mean by CM?
> You know, something that sounds like CM?
> 
> I think the composer would say, no I'm not.


It's a logical fallacy to imagine a person who is not present in the discussion and say what he/she would say if he/she was present in the discussion.

As Tony Hymnas and Patrick Doyle are not present in the discussion, I don't know what they would say, but it's obvious that their intention in this film score was to write music in the style of the classical period. I don't have to know what is their personal definition of "classical music" to conclude that this is classical music according to a resoneable definition of the word.


----------



## HansZimmer

DaveM said:


> This discussion is going in several directions at once, some of them irrelevant. Some posters who haven’t bothered to read up on what has already been discussed have arrived only recently and are raising old issues as if they are new. It’s becoming very circular and redundant.
> 
> Fwiw, getting back to the core issue (All of the following is IMO): Any music composed for film is best categorized as soundtrack/film music. But, for various reasons, film composers, at various times in the past have composed substantial segments of very classical-like music for films, often at the opening of a movie, as an end-title of a movie and sometimes within the movie. Some of these segments can act as short standalone works. Some can be edited into suites, something I am very familiar with. A substantial number sound more like classical music than some music presently classed as classical music.


See the post of @Aries about the difference between styles and forms. It's not that SOME film scores have the style of classical music. The correct statement is that MOST film scores have the style of classical music. "Cinematic classical" is clearily prevalent in respect to other styles of soundtracks.

The form, on the other hand, is "film music", which can be seen as a subcategory of the category "incidental music". So, do I see the difference between cinematic film music and a symphony? Yes, they are different forms. I can also see the difference between incidental music and symphonies, or between operas and symphonies. Each form is different from the compositional perspective and it's absolutely correct to explain the difference between each others, but it's not the point of this discussion.


----------



## SanAntone

> It's not that SOME film scores have the style of classical music. The correct statement is that MOST film scores have the style of classical music.


Really? I would guess that comedy movies do not have music in a style of classical music, but light pop music, often actual pop songs. And many movies have what I would describe as orchestral pop (the Henry Mancini, Michel Legrand, John Berry style), or action movies have a kind of music which I would not describe as classical style.

The majority of film scores are forgettable fluff.


----------



## mikeh375

HansZimmer said:


> @mikeh375 has written interesting observations, but in the wrong discussion. If the title was "What's the difference between composing a concert work and a soundtrack?", his answers would be perfect.


I believe my post is in the correct thread as it gives several reasons why professional composers (who believe it or not are actually 'people'), might not consider the end result of their film score labours classical, especially if they also write concert work. I'd say the post answers the thread question head on if obviously from a perspective you are not privy to. Unless of course you think they don't know what they are writing.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

Ethereality said:


> If you study soundtracks, you may realize that this is one of the most iconic pieces:


Link's not working (unless this was a joke post of course, not sure lol)






SanAntone said:


> And many movies have what I would describe as orchestral pop (the Henry Mancini, Michel Legrand, John Berry style),


Hm not familiar with those as of now, and not sure I get what kinda sound we're talking about here; gonna have to go look.




> or action movies have a kind of music which I would not describe as classical style.


There's different kinds of "action movies", however a useful comparison here might be between the original 3 Mad Max movies and Fury Road - the former have a symphonic score with lots of post-rom / late rom stylistics (by Brian May, and Maurice Jarre respectively), while the latter is a heavily electronic Hans Zimmer-y type score (actually by Tom Holkenborg aka Junkie XL), possibly the kind you're thinking about here.


----------



## mmsbls

mikeh375 said:


> I believe my post is in the correct thread as it gives several reasons why professional composers (who believe it or not are actually 'people'), might not consider the end result of their film score labours classical, especially if they also write concert work. I'd say the post answers the thread question head on if obviously from a perspective you are not privy to. Unless of course you think they don't know what they are writing.


I think it makes sense that many (most?) people define musical genres based on the sound because so many genres are defined that way and, after all, sound is what music is all about. I think it can be difficult to see that the process can cause those intimately involved to view the music differently. Your examples in that post (and others along similar lines) show an enormous difference in film and classical music. The thought of a composer writing classical music and being constrained by any of those issues simply makes no sense. The constraints are too large. 

Do you think any composers of film and concert work view those works in the same category? That's probably a tough question since it's not very well defined, but your general thoughts would be interesting.


----------



## Aries

mmsbls said:


> I think it makes sense that many (most?) people define musical genres based on the sound because so many genres are defined that way and, after all, sound is what music is all about.


Music is sound. Music isn't the process of creating music. Classifying music by more or less hypothetical assumptions about how it was made is weird when you have it black on white on paper and on tape what it actually is.



mmsbls said:


> Do you think any composers of film and concert work view those works in the same category? That's probably a tough question since it's not very well defined, but your general thoughts would be interesting.


Why do you narrow this down to living composers?

Shostakovich and Prokofiev gave their film music opus numbers like for any other work.


----------



## mikeh375

Aries said:


> Music is sound. Music isn't the process of creating music. Classifying music by more or less hypothetical assumptions about how it was made is weird when you have it black on white on paper and on tape what it actually is.
> 
> Why do you narrow this down to living composers?
> 
> Shostakovich and Prokofiev gave their film music opus numbers like for any other work.


the assumptions aren't hypothetical. They are related from experience


----------



## Aries

mikeh375 said:


> the assumptions aren't hypothetical. They are related from experience


You know exactly the process how Vivaldi, Shostakovich or Mozart composed music?


----------



## mikeh375

Aries said:


> You know exactly the process how Vivaldi, Shostakovich or Mozart composed music?


yes. Some things don't change.


----------



## Aries

mikeh375 said:


> yes.


I think you are not telling the truth.


----------



## mikeh375

Aries said:


> I think you are not telling the truth.


Why do you say that?


----------



## Aries

mikeh375 said:


> Why do you say that?


These composers are dead, and they could only know for themselves what they were doing exactly.


----------



## mikeh375

aaah but some things never really change, to include writing music. Some of this I understand well and the post listing some of the film constraints is bang on the money true. Sure if we are being pedantic, I most assuredly did not go boozing with the Russians or praying with Vivaldi, I was responding to you thinking the constraints I listed, that can have a hold on fim music's creation where hypothetical, they are not.


----------



## Aries

mikeh375 said:


> aaah but some things never really change, to include writing music.


mmsbls assumes that there is a change when the music written is film music. We are talking about adjustmens to external factors which are especially common regarding film music. But there are often adjustments to something. For example adjustments to the prefered style of listeners or to lyrics. But this is something we can't really know. We can't know how laborious or natural it was for Mozart to set a specific section of text into music. It is more or less hypotetical.


----------



## DaveM

mikeh375 said:


> aaah but some things never really change, to include writing music. Some of this I understand well and the post listing some of the film constraints is bang on the money true. Sure if we are being pedantic, I most assuredly did not go boozing with the Russians or praying with Vivaldi, I was responding to you thinking the constraints I listed, that can have a hold on fim music's creation where hypothetical, they are not.


I am remembering from another thread where you and two others where having a composer love-fest. If memory serves, the process of composing music these days you-all were describing did not exactly remind of how Vivaldi, Shostakovich and Mozart must have approached it. Maybe some things never really change, but between now and then, my guess is that a lot has changed.


----------



## mikeh375

DaveM said:


> I am remembering from another thread where you and two others where having a composer love-fest. If memory serves, the process of composing music these days you-all were describing did not exactly remind of how Vivaldi, Shostakovich and Mozart must have approached it. Maybe some things never really change, but between now and then, my guess is that a lot has changed.


Some things stay the same Dave even if the tools change. Btw, you can join in the lovefest too if you wish, seeing that you have also written music. We are all part of a continuum ...
Here's something that's fun and may be of interest for the veterans of this thread.
(@mmsbls I'll give your post some thought.)


----------



## DaveM

mikeh375 said:


> Some things stay the same Dave even if the tools change. You can join in the love fest too seeing that you have also written music, we are not fussy...q


The question is how significant are those ‘some things’. My composing has been strictly amateurish -enough to know how difficult it is to compose a significant melody and develop it- mostly piano works with some exceptions such as creating MIDI-based orchestral accompaniments to works such as this relatively rare work (myself playing the piano and orchestral instrument parts):


----------



## hammeredklavier

I don't think Beethoven would have objected his work being played as incidental music, if it was highly profitable.


----------



## Aries

mikeh375 said:


> Some things stay the same Dave even if the tools change.


It is impossible to know as much about the composing music as about the result of music. We have the resulting music black on white on paper. These are hard facts. And this is the music in itself.

In your post 1177: Why do many people think that classical music composed... you argue that the personal expression of composers may be compromised in film music. But if this expression is personal how can you know it exactly? If it "stays the same" it would not be personal.

I think composing music has not just a personal aspect but also subconscious aspects, which the composer himself doesn't even know exactly. Assumptions about the personality level and how disruptive external influences are are hypothetical and not a hard fact. And it is not the music itself. A classical piece of music of music is classical no matter what the thought process behind was. If an AI writes classical music it is also classical.


----------



## mikeh375

Aries said:


> It is impossible to know as much about the composing music as about the result of music. We have the resulting music black on white on paper. These are hard facts. And this is the music in itself.
> 
> In your post 1177: Why do many people think that classical music composed... you argue that the personal expression of composers may be compromised in film music. But if this expression is personal how can you know it exactly? If it "stays the same" it would not be personal.
> 
> I think composing music has not just a personal aspect but also subconscious aspects, which the composer himself doesn't even know exactly. Assumptions about the personality level and how disruptive external influences are are hypothetical and not a hard fact. And it is not the music itself. A classical piece of music of music is classical no matter what the thought process behind was. If an AI writes classical music it is also classical.


I can understand your position as a reasonable one coming from a non-composing perspective. Just for your information, seing that we are both denizens of the internet, my comments stem from 2 sources, namely formal academic training in composition and nearly 30 years of real world professional composing experience in the musical matters concerning this thread.

Whilst you are correct in that the subconscious plays a big part in composing, so does the technical aspect and it is there that musical training or analysis can discern much about process and _musical personality_ and thus deriving much regarding personal approach, similarities and how expression is achieved. Then from stylistic analysis and comparisons with peers, one can see divergences that can be indicative of personality traits. The way things are done and the way they deviate can reveal so much if one has the capacity and desire to delve. Perhaps I should make clear that when I talk of personality and expression, it is mainly in the musical sense.

The disruptive aspect or imposition of any constraints I've listed in media/film work should be patently obvious and my reasoning concerning the impact of such strictures on compositional paradigms and outcomes - to include personal approaches - is real. If a composer is wanting to write a symphony, concerto etc, and has the talent, wherewithal and know-how to achieve it, then for what it is worth I can assure you that their mindset and approach will be utterly different and well divorced from the requirements imposed on them if they have to compose a cue or main titles theme. Critically and as a direct consequence of the circumstances, the technical and expressive reach of the music itself will obviously be very different in both cases - maybe not always - Williams and a few others are excellent at cross fertilising - but in most cases. That difference in the means to the end and the expressive result is precisely why I don't flat out, accept that film music is classical, in that it can sit next to a work from the cannon and hold its own. Therefore calling film music 'classical' is a superficial categorisation only imo.

Unfettered personal expression as in the freedom to go where the music leads the instincts, soul and imagination - an 'absolute' process if you will - is a rare luxury in media work.


----------



## Aries

mikeh375 said:


> If a composer is wanting to write a symphony, concerto etc, and has the talent, wherewithal and know-how to achieve it, then for what it is worth I can assure you that their mindset will be utterly different and well divorced from the requirements imposed on them if they have to compose a cue or main titles theme. Critically and as a direct consequence of the circumstances, the technical and expressive reach of the music itself will obviously be very different in both cases - maybe not always - Williams and a few others are excellent at cross fertilising - but in most cases.
> 
> Unfettered personal expression as in the freedom to go where the music leads the instincts, soul and imagination - an 'absolute' process if you will - is a rare luxury in media work.


In film music the story line is specified by others than the composer. But when Wagner wrote Der Ring des Nibelungen for example he also could not just write what he wanted. He could not led Siegfried survive for example. The overall framework was already fixed by the lore. And in the Ring there are also sections with main title theme qualities like the valkyrie ride.

Symphonies also end most of the time with a happy end. What was the first symphony in history ending tragically? Tchakovskis 6th? Haydn didn't even wrote a single symphony in minor before the 39th, and that doesn't even implicate codas in minor. There were general expectations about where the music leads.

But I wonder if there are forms with even more tight restrictions for composers than film music. I think about songs. You have to write for a singing voice. You must keep the text and verse. The length is somewhat predetermined. It doesn't seem like there is much room for free expression like in symphonic music.


----------



## mikeh375

mmsbls said:


> I think it makes sense that many (most?) people define musical genres based on the sound because so many genres are defined that way and, after all, sound is what music is all about. I think it can be difficult to see that the process can cause those intimately involved to view the music differently. Your examples in that post (and others along similar lines) show an enormous difference in film and classical music. The thought of a composer writing classical music and being constrained by any of those issues simply makes no sense. The constraints are too large.
> 
> Do you think any composers of film and concert work view those works in the same category? That's probably a tough question since it's not very well defined, but your general thoughts would be interesting.


Yes I agree that the sound alone is the foremost reason for classifications and I do seem to have been in hot water at times in this thread for merely pointing out what is patently obvious to those at the coalface about process. You're right, that it disagrees to a certain extent with the populous view is not surprising I guess.

I actually anticipated a question like yours early on in the thread and referenced the William's Violin Concerto as an example of how different the thought processes are. He clearly has a weight taken away from his creativity when composing CHM (concert hall music). This is evident in all musical and expressive aspects, just ask your wife and daughter to have a listen to 5 minutes of his first Violin Concerto (you can hear it on YT with score) and then play them the theme from 'Raiders' and see what they say regarding emotional depth and for example, the more expansive and unlimited phrasing and line. There you will hear Williams unbounded and imv closer to my definition of art music. He clearly wears different composing hats for the two genres.

In my experience writing for film and media the furthest thing from my mind was the concert hall. Instead I replaced the unlimited and exciting possibilities of exploration in music with known parameters and cliches with which to work and utilise them instead. Most of my successes where down to pieces that utilised very narrow techniques such as a few common chords- not too complex at all - obvious 'uplifting' key changes, corny standardised orchestral 'tricks' and so on - techniques that produced expected results. Occassionally I got the chance to go musically further than the accepted norm and delve into a bigger bag of tricks but for the most part, I could if I needed rattle off a few minutes of synchronised music a day and still get a beer or two in at the boozer because the musical limitations and expectations where small. There was of course immense pressure to earn the money and keep deadlines so perhaps its just as well that I didn't have to work too hard to actually find the tunes.

Of the colleagues I knew who where also academically trained to the extent that they could if they wished write CHM , they too did not consider their day job as having anything to do with the concert hall. We used musical guiding principles we learnt in our formative years of course and even directly used classical techniques when required. None of which came from a more profound place within or tbh really pushed us musically, this was music by rote more often than not and that was/is the weakness compared to the depth displayed by much in the canon...imo of course..  I'll say again though that there is also excellence in film work, it's not all cliche and formulas imo and some of it does not feel out of place in the concert hall to my ears.


----------



## mikeh375

Aries said:


> But I wonder if there are forms with even more tight restrictions for composers than film music. I think about songs. You have to write for a singing voice. You must keep the text and verse. The length is somewhat predetermined. It doesn't seem like there is much room for free expression like in symphonic music.


It might appear that way, however here's a few things to consider...
I've mentioned before that the list of impositions I detailed don't apply_ all _of the time, not even in film work. What does apply specifically in film is a restriction on atonality's use along with more complex harmony _as a general rule that is_ - tonality is the default starting point and dissonance is more regulated but there are often exceptions. (I'm thinking of harmonic practices right up to the present day btw that go beyond common compound chords and their progressions). Instrumental combination is also prone to restrictions in some way, as is phrase length, rhythmic freedom, freedom of expression, etc., etc.

These aspects alone, relieved from the burdens and expectations of film work, are utterly freeing for the lieder composer (and Opera), thus inviting much more in the way of personal expression and interpretation because there are no limits to how the imagination can be applied in setting the text and more pertinently, no demands on creating a dramatic arc beyond what feels right. The dramatic musical narrative is as you know, particularly subservient in film work. The text will determine much of course, not least a desire to appropriately express the meaning but that is unique to every composer and their language. The only limitation there is the degree or not to which they are prepared to compromise with the listener, a decision most assuredly taken away from them in film work.


----------



## mikeh375

DaveM said:


> The question is how significant are those ‘some things’. My composing has been strictly amateurish -enough to know how difficult it is to compose a significant melody and develop it- mostly piano works with some exceptions such as creating MIDI-based orchestral accompaniments to works such as this relatively rare work (myself playing the piano and orchestral instrument parts):


Dave, I was waiting for your midi input to kick in. I misread your post, thinking that was you playing at first and thought wow as it progressed. Such a beautiful performance of a gorgeous piece of music.


----------



## HansZimmer

Ethereality said:


> Film music can eventually be classical, music of classical study ie:
> 
> 
> 
> If you study soundtracks, you may realize that this is one of the most iconic pieces:


Video not available.


----------



## HansZimmer

Luchesi said:


> Can you look at the scores and tell what's symphonies, opera, ballet and film music?


If you have the full score, of course you can. Symphonies are orchestral with four movements. Opera has arias alternated with recitatives, and almost the entire work is vocal. It might be more difficult to see the difference between a ballet and film music because they are both orchestral suites. If there are some very short movements, it's probably film music.

However, these are differences in form, not in style.


----------



## HansZimmer

SanAntone said:


> Really? I would guess that comedy movies do not have music in a style of classical music, but light pop music, often actual pop songs. And many movies have what I would describe as orchestral pop (the Henry Mancini, Michel Legrand, John Berry style), or action movies have a kind of music which I would not describe as classical style.
> 
> The majority of film scores are forgettable fluff.


Maybe I was thinking about films with memorable scores, where the music is not only used to fill the silence. I might be wrong about that.


----------



## HansZimmer

mikeh375 said:


> I believe my post is in the correct thread as it gives several reasons why professional composers (who believe it or not are actually 'people'), might not consider the end result of their film score labours classical, especially if they also write concert work. I'd say the post answers the thread question head on if obviously from a perspective you are not privy to. Unless of course you think they don't know what they are writing.


What I'm saying is that someone who is extremely competent about music composition might be confused about the definitions. Being a composer doesn't make you a philosopher.

From the philolosophical perspective, there is the set A (= film music), the set B (= classical music) and AB (= X).

You can give all the names you want to X. Do you want to call it "porridge"? Ok, let's call it porridge. The names, however, don't change the logical essence, namely that X is an intersection between A and B, and the elements inside AB also belong to the set B.

Finally, since Classic FM has been attacked for it's legitimate choice to promote X, the people who attack should demostrate that the official definition of classical music say that it can not be written for cinema. If there are not such restrictions in the offical definition, no one can attack Classic FM.


----------



## HansZimmer

mmsbls said:


> The thought of a composer writing classical music and being constrained by any of those issues simply makes no sense. The constraints are too large.


The constraints make sense, because you are composing incidental music, not concert music. In incidental music you can't compose everything you want if you are not the librettist: the librettist decides what happens in the scene X and your music must be subservient to the scene. Beethoven had to change his music for Ruins of Athens because the lyrics were changed by someone else. He didn't have the full control of the artistic product.

Furthermore I don't know if the librettists sometimes rejected the music ("I expect something else for my scene"), but John Williams says that it has never happened that his music has been rejected, so he has been quite free in his career.

Does the offical definition of classical music say that it can not be subservient? If yes, then every kind of subservient composition must be expelled from the category.


----------



## HansZimmer

mikeh375 said:


> Some things stay the same Dave even if the tools change. Btw, you can join in the lovefest too if you wish, seeing that you have also written music. We are all part of a continuum ...
> Here's something that's fun and may be of interest for the veterans of this thread.
> (@mmsbls I'll give your post some thought.)


How many awards have they won with this composition? If you ask me, it's not what I would call a memorable film score. It's basically noise. There isn't any clever melody. Has Hans Zimmer produced a lot of music of questionable quality? It might be. In the occasions in which he has created good music, he got what he deserved.

However, the video was surely prepared before the shooting. They already knew what they had to do and the guy at the right is trained in this kind of composition. They are not random sounds. They know what they do.

Don't take the video seriously. It's a comedy. The title is clickbait, the content is pure entertainment.


----------



## mikeh375

HansZimmer said:


> What I'm saying is that someone who is extremely competent about music composition might be confused about the definitions......


LOL....a lot.
Happy Xmas HansZ.


----------



## mmsbls

mikeh375 said:


> Yes I agree that the sound alone is the foremost reason for classifications and I do seem to have been in hot water at times in this thread for merely pointing out what is patently obvious to those at the coalface about process. You're right, that it disagrees to a certain extent with the populous view is not surprising I guess.
> 
> I actually anticipated a question like yours early on in the thread and referenced the William's Violin Concerto as an example of how different the thought processes are. He clearly has a weight taken away from his creativity when composing CHM (concert hall music). This is evident in all musical and expressive aspects, just ask your wife and daughter to have a listen to 5 minutes of his first Violin Concerto (you can hear it on YT with score) and then play them the theme from 'Raiders' and see what they say regarding emotional depth and for example, the more expansive and unlimited phrasing and line. There you will hear Williams unbounded and imv closer to my definition of art music. He clearly wears different composing hats for the two genres.
> 
> In my experience writing for film and media the furthest thing from my mind was the concert hall. Instead I replaced the unlimited and exciting possibilities of exploration in music with known parameters and cliches with which to work and utilise them instead. Most of my successes where down to pieces that utilised very narrow techniques such as a few common chords- not too complex at all - obvious 'uplifting' key changes, corny standardised orchestral 'tricks' and so on - techniques that produced expected results. Occassionally I got the chance to go musically further than the accepted norm and delve into a bigger bag of tricks but for the most part, I could if I needed rattle off a few minutes of synchronised music a day and still get a beer or two in at the boozer because the musical limitations and expectations where small. There was of course immense pressure to earn the money and keep deadlines so perhaps its just as well that I didn't have to work too hard to actually find the tunes.
> 
> Of the colleagues I knew who where also academically trained to the extent that they could if they wished write CHM , they too did not consider their day job as having anything to do with the concert hall. We used musical guiding principles we learnt in our formative years of course and even directly used classical techniques when required. None of which came from a more profound place within or tbh really pushed us musically, this was music by rote more often than not and that was/is the weakness compared to the depth displayed by much in the canon...imo of course..  I'll say again though that there is also excellence in film work, it's not all cliche and formulas imo and some of it does not feel out of place in the concert hall to my ears.


The history of classical music includes remarkable change in aspects of the music. We are stunned by how Beethoven, Wagner, Debussy, Schoenberg, and others made enormous changes in musical sound. My knowledge of film music is slight, but I'm guessing that such changes would never occur in film music. Film composers could take changes from classical compositions and apply them to film, but going the other way seems harder (close to impossible?) to imagine.


----------



## HansZimmer

mikeh375 said:


> LOL....a lot.
> Happy Xmas HansZ.


Happy Christmas!


----------



## Luchesi

HansZimmer said:


> If you have the full score, of course you can. Symphonies are orchestral with four movements. Opera has arias alternated with recitatives, and almost the entire work is vocal. It might be more difficult to see the difference between a ballet and film music because they are both orchestral suites. If there are some very short movements, it's probably film music.
> 
> However, these are differences in form, not in style.


I wonder how many 'styles' you think there are in CM.


----------



## HansZimmer

mmsbls said:


> The history of classical music includes remarkable change in aspects of the music. We are stunned by how Beethoven, Wagner, Debussy, Schoenberg, and others made enormous changes in musical sound. My knowledge of film music is slight, but I'm guessing that such changes would never occur in film music. Film composers could take changes from classical compositions and apply them to film, but going the other way seems harder (close to impossible?) to imagine.


Are you sure that there have been no internal evolutions inside cinematic classical?


----------



## HansZimmer

Luchesi said:


> I wonder how many 'styles' you think there are in CM.


Medieval, baroque, classical, romantique, modern? It might be a bit simplified but I guess that the categories work quite well.

You might want to add the regional features, like for example Italian vs German.


----------



## SanAntone

HansZimmer said:


> Maybe I was thinking about films with memorable scores, where the music is not only used to fill the silence. I might be wrong about that.


This is why I think you are elevating a minority of film scores and ignoring the majority of movies which have serviceable music that is unmemorable and has a limited function of use in the movie.

Sure there are movie scores which have music which I enjoy listening to, and I might place in the same general category as classicalesque. But even those composers who write these kinds of scores, e.g. Jóhann Jóhannsson, also wrote music not for a film which was stylistically different, more ambient and experimental, and to my ears more substantial.

I think the composers themselves have a different mindset when writing for films than when they are writing music for an album release or concert.


----------



## mmsbls

HansZimmer said:


> Are you sure that there have been no internal evolutions inside cinematic classical?


I am not sure. Do you know of any significant changes?


----------



## Aries

mmsbls said:


> The history of classical music includes remarkable change in aspects of the music. We are stunned by how Beethoven, Wagner, Debussy, Schoenberg, and others made enormous changes in musical sound. My knowledge of film music is slight, but I'm guessing that such changes would never occur in film music. Film composers could take changes from classical compositions and apply them to film, but going the other way seems harder (close to impossible?) to imagine.


What about Conjurer by John Corigliano. The usage of strings seems heavily influenced by film music: 




Or what about Serenada Schizophrana by Danny Elfman. It sounds overall much like film music:


----------



## hammeredklavier

mmsbls said:


> The history of classical music includes remarkable change in aspects of the music. We are stunned by how Beethoven, Wagner, Debussy, Schoenberg, and others made enormous changes in musical sound.


I think that, in a lot of cases, the image has been created in the minds of many through education.
For example, <What Makes Debussy Sound French? (By the famous youtuber 'Inside the Score'>, a typical portrayal of the "so-called greats" in general public, says
"In the 1700s, Johann Sebastian Bach, had defined the system of Western classical tonality" (a claim that is highly debatable) and then goes onto discuss Beethoven, and then jumps to Wagner - as if Weber and Spohr never existed in the history of Romantic harmonic practice.





I think what you're saying also implies that, there are styles (even in "Western historical music") that are either "conventional" or "innovative", and because or not because of this, there are subdivisions; "timeless music" and "non-timeless music". The former gets to be called "classical", but the latter does not.
But there are now-neglected composers in music history whose stylish uniqueness and its influence (in their historical context) can be thought or debated to be just as remarkable as the well-known ones depending on perspective.

Btw, I thought you believed "music (composition) appreciation is subjective", but in the recent posts, I have the impression you don't hold the belief anymore.
Of course, "the notes" are there, but each of us can interpret the "achievement" differently. Even the "new sounds" of Wagner or Stravinsky can be thought to be "negative influence" depending on perspective. Negative Influences
Take for example, the inclusion of vocal parts in Beethoven's 9th. Say, if you don't value the practice of using voices in symphonies yourself, why would you rate its "influence" highly yourself?

(Btw, I have argued the HIP approach (and the subjectivity & objectivity) in Bach in another thread, but all I was saying - if we were to call a Bach performance as something Bach truly would have intended, we have to follow Bach's intentions based on historical facts to the best of our abilities and resources available. Otherwise, we must add the note; "Bach performance_ with modern modifications_".
I still maintain that "music (composition) appreciation is subjective".)



mmsbls said:


> My knowledge of film music is slight, but I'm guessing that such changes would never occur in film music. Film composers could take changes from classical compositions and apply them to film, but going the other way seems harder (close to impossible?) to imagine.


"Cinema" has existed only for a century. I think it depends on whether you view "film music" as the heir of "dramatic(theater)/incidental music".

From <"What applications did distant modulations typically have in the 18th century?" (Stack Exchange)> https://music.stackexchange.com/que...odulations-typically-have-in-the-18th-century:


> The place where distant modulations are most readily encountered in the 18th century is probably in recitative. This is an example of musical conventions being stretched in the service of drama: many musical innovations can be seen in dramatic music, or at least in program music, before becoming routine elements of musical style.


----------



## DaveM

mikeh375 said:


> Dave, I was waiting for your midi input to kick in. I misread your post, thinking that was you playing at first and thought wow as it progressed. Such a beautiful performance of a gorgeous piece of music.


Yes, when I play I look and sound surprisingly like Emil Gilels!


----------



## mmsbls

Aries said:


> What about Conjurer by John Corigliano. The usage of strings seems heavily influenced by film music:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or what about Serenada Schizophrana by Danny Elfman. It sounds overall much like film music:


I don't think I was clear enough. I didn't mean that film composers could borrow from classical and not the other way around. I meant that in classical music there are composers who broke the mold and created music that was significantly different than any music of the past. We moved from Baroque to Classical to Romantic to a wide range of new musical types such as minimalism, serial, atonal, spectral, etc. Are there examples of where a film composer wrote film music that was considered a wholly new style - something not heard before anywhere?


----------



## mmsbls

hammeredklavier said:


> ...I think what you're saying also implies that, there are styles (even in "Western historical music") that are either "conventional" or "innovative", and because or not because of this, there are subdivisions; "timeless music" and "non-timeless music". The former gets to be called "classical", but the latter does not.


I don't think there are styles that are conventional or innovative. All styles were new at one point and afterwards were more conventional. I do believe some composers innovated by creating what was considered new music. I don't think conventional or innovative has much to do with timeless or non-timeless music. I'm not sure what it would mean to say that non-timeless music cannot be called or considered classical.



> But there are now-neglected composers in music history whose stylish uniqueness and its influence (in their historical context) can be thought or debated to be just as remarkable as the well-known ones depending on perspective.


I wouldn't be surprised at this.



> Btw, I thought you believed "music (composition) appreciation is subjective", but in the recent posts, I have the impression you don't hold the belief anymore.


I do believe music appreciation is subjective.


----------



## Aries

mmsbls said:


> I don't think I was clear enough. I didn't mean that film composers could borrow from classical and not the other way around. I meant that in classical music there are composers who broke the mold and created music that was significantly different than any music of the past. We moved from Baroque to Classical to Romantic to a wide range of new musical types such as minimalism, serial, atonal, spectral, etc. Are there examples of where a film composer wrote film music that was considered a wholly new style - something not heard before anywhere?


Isn't Hans Zimmers film music style something completely new? John Williams is imo closer to old school romanticism of Wagner for example, but Hans Zimmer is a bit different, and many modern film music appears similar to Zimmers.

Then there is Epic music what is definitivly something completely new, but maybe it doesn't count as film music anymore, because it can be used for trailors but it is not really for a particular film.

But there is some development in the area, and it doesn't make sense to deny that there is something new when you say at the same time that it is not classical anymore.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Is the ballad opera from the 18th century classical music or not?



SanAntone said:


> This is why I think you are elevating a minority of film scores and ignoring the majority of movies which have serviceable music that is unmemorable and has a limited function of use in the movie. I think the composers themselves have a different mindset when writing for films than when they are writing music for an album release or concert.


Isn't it still subjective? Correct me if I'm wrong, I remember you saying on various occasions that "some pop music artists" of the 20th century had "artistic integrity" that will be remembered forever, (or something to the effect).
What do such artists have that John Williams doesn't? They all write or perform to achieve commercial success, don't they?


----------



## mmsbls

Aries said:


> Isn't Hans Zimmers film music style something completely new? John Williams is imo closer to old school romanticism of Wagner for example, but Hans Zimmer is a bit different, and many modern film music appears similar to Zimmers.


I don't know enough about Zimmer's music. The stuff I have heard sounds quite distinctly Romantic to me. How is it different?



> Then there is Epic music what is definitivly something completely new, but maybe it doesn't count as film music anymore, because it can be used for trailors but it is not really for a particular film.


What is Epic music, and how is it completely different from past music?



> But there is some development in the area, and it doesn't make sense to deny that there is something new when you say at the same time that it is not classical anymore.


I'm sorry. I don't understand what you mean here. I think you may be confusing why we consider film music different from classical (the process, not the music) with something actually new in the music.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

mmsbls said:


> The history of classical music includes remarkable change in aspects of the music. We are stunned by how Beethoven, Wagner, Debussy, Schoenberg, and others made enormous changes in musical sound. My knowledge of film music is slight, but I'm guessing that such changes would never occur in film music. Film composers could take changes from classical compositions and apply them to film, but going the other way seems harder (close to impossible?) to imagine.


What "other way"?


----------



## mmsbls

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> What "other way"?


Sorry, I don't think I was clear. Someone else asked about that, and I wrote:



mmsbls said:


> I don't think I was clear enough. I didn't mean that film composers could borrow from classical and not the other way around. I meant that in classical music there are composers who broke the mold and created music that was significantly different than any music of the past. We moved from Baroque to Classical to Romantic to a wide range of new musical types such as minimalism, serial, atonal, spectral, etc. Are there examples of where a film composer wrote film music that was considered a wholly new style - something not heard before anywhere?


So I meant that classical music has instances of composers creating very new styles. I am assuming that film music does not have examples similar to those significant changes in musical style.


----------



## SanAntone

hammeredklavier said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, I remember you saying on various occasions that "some pop music artists" of the 20th century had "artistic integrity" that will be remembered forever, (or something to the effect).
> What do such artists have that John Williams doesn't? They all write or perform to achieve commercial success, don't they?


My argument is not that music used for film cannot be written with artistic integrity but that the genre of film scores is distinct from classical music, just as the genre of pop music is distinct, and is a taxonomic issue not one of artistic quality. 

As is true for all genres there are examples which rise to a high artistic level and other examples which are mediocre and unremarkable.


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> This is why I think you are elevating a minority of film scores and ignoring the majority of movies which have serviceable music that is unmemorable and has a limited function of use in the movie.
> I think the composers themselves have a different mindset when writing for films than when they are writing music for an album release or concert.


Mozart was no different. I think we tend to have "fantasies" in our mind to glorify what he did, -writing for the masses, (although there are elements in his music, like the strongly characteristic Germanic-style harmony and orchestration that can be mistaken for "proto-Romanticism")

“We cannot be sure if ‘composing freely’ is a concept that Mozart would have understood or desired: all the evidence is that he yearned to be needed and appreciated—to be asked to write music because people wanted it, to show off the skills of his singers and players as well as possible, to make the most of whatever practical performing circumstances he was faced with. Yes, he wanted his audiences to enjoy his music, and to show by their attention that they were enjoying it. Yes, he wanted his music to be better, cleverer, more passionate, and more memorable than everyone else’s, and probably believed it to be so, but there is not a shred of support for the idea that he ever consciously wrote for some far-distant future.” —Nicholas Kenyon (Faber Pocket Guide to Mozart)


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

mmsbls said:


> Sorry, I don't think I was clear. Someone else asked about that, and I wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> So I meant that classical music has instances of composers creating very new styles. I am assuming that film music does not have examples similar to those significant changes in musical style.


Ah, yeah I should read the thread to the end before asking questions lol


Well myself I've no idea atm - however more generally speaking, the previous centuries were quite restrictive in terms of what was "acceptable", so coming up with something new back then was of course a very different thing than what it means now.

Film has been around for about the same amount of time as the experiment-friendly 20th century, so it having contributed some of that innovation shouldn't be implausible at least;
don't know either way though.


----------



## SanAntone

hammeredklavier said:


> Mozart was no different. I think we tend to have "fantasies" in our mind to glorify what he did,


I have no fantasies glorifying what Mozart did. During Mozart's lifetime he was writing for the aristocracy, not "the masses." Even his operas were attended by the upper classes. Also there did not exist the plethora of genres we have today, basically there were court, church, and folk music, with clear boundaries among these three genres. 

And I do not equate opera with film music. Operas are a musical genre, and are identified by their composer, not the director, or librettist. Films are a director's art form, and the composer is one of a number of subsidiary collaborators contibuting a contracted service.


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> During Mozart's lifetime he was writing for the aristocracy, not "the masses." Even his operas were attended by the upper classes.


"Singspiele were considered middle-to-lower class entertainment" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singspiel#History



SanAntone said:


> And I do not equate opera with *film music*.


It is however, "incidental music".


----------



## SanAntone

hammeredklavier said:


> "Singspiele were considered middle-to-lower class entertainment"


But what Mozart is know nfor are his other larger scale works.



> It is however, "incidental music".


Again, the incidental works of great classical composers are of interest, not because of their inherent quality as music, but because every utterance of these great composers is of interest to us.

I would not equate the incidental music of Mozart or Beethoven with the film scores of John Williams. Mainly because the greatness of Mozart and Beethoven is well established, whereas we don't know how long after Williams's death his music will still be performed or what the critical opinion of it will end up being. Plenty of Mozart's peers who were very popular during their lifetimes have disappeared from our awareness. Most film composers will probably suffer the same fate.

The primary quality of classical music is its longevity, remaining important to us from century to century. Conductors, musicians, and scholars, continue to discover new avenues of expression and to mine aspects of these great works keeping them current and renewing them for succeeding generations.


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> But what Mozart is know nfor are his other larger scale works.


Mozart in his letters said something to the effect about his large scale works like K.450, K.451 - that they would appeal even to the ignorant.



SanAntone said:


> Plenty of Mozart's peers who were very popular during their lifetimes have disappeared from our awareness. Most film composers will probably suffer the same fate.
> The primary quality of classical music is its longevity, remaining important to us from century to century. Conductors, musicians, and scholars, continue to discover new avenues of expression and to mine aspects of these great works keeping them current and renewing them for succeeding generations.


Plenty of Mozart's peers who were very popular during their lifetimes and have disappeared from our awareness. - so you're saying they weren't writing "classical music"?


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> Mainly because the greatness of Mozart and Beethoven is well established, whereas we don't know how long after Williams's death his music will still be performed or what the critical opinion of it will end up being.
> The primary quality of classical music is its longevity, remaining important to us from century to century. Conductors, musicians, and scholars, continue to discover new avenues of expression and to mine aspects of these great works keeping them current and renewing them for succeeding generations.


I mean, let's face it. Certain aspects of the past do tend to get "glorified".




(typical portrayal of Mozart in the media and public (BBC Genius of Mozart), trying to attribute _"Why do I have to go now? When I'm no longer enslaved to fashion, no longer chained by speculators, [...]"_ as something Mozart actually said himself.)


----------



## SanAntone

hammeredklavier said:


> I mean, let's face it. Certain aspects of the past do tend to get "glorified".


And for you this is why Mozart's music has survived? What does this have to do with the subject of this thread?


----------



## Luchesi

hammeredklavier said:


> I mean, let's face it. Certain aspects of the past do tend to get "glorified".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (typical portrayal of Mozart in the media and public (BBC Genius of Mozart), trying to attribute _"Why do I have to go now? When I'm no longer enslaved to fashion, no longer chained by speculators, [...]"_ as something Mozart actually said himself.)


He's great, his notoriety increases, more interested people hear of him, they increase his greatness, and even more interested people hear of him. Feed backs.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

SanAntone said:


> And I do not equate opera with film music. Operas are a musical genre, and are identified by their composer, not the director, or librettist.


I've increasingly seen Figaro, Don etc. being referred to as "by Mozart and da Ponte" or even the other way around over the years;

and if it wasn't for Schikaneder, his fairytale program and his theater machinery, there'd be no "Magic Flute" at all - Mozart didn't come along and go "let someone write a script for an epic supernatural comedy to channel my talents", it was the other way around.


And then of course Wagner is always getting the credit for doing his own story designs and librettos and doing everything himself - but when others do those crucial parts, they're not supposed to get much credit since it's "the composer's work"?


Who said that it's _justified_ that operas are "identified by the composer and not the librettist", as opposed to both? Maybe it's in fact just a collective bad habit.






> Films are a director's art form, and the composer is one of a number of subsidiary collaborators contibuting a contracted service.


But when the director is also the composer (John Carpenter) then it suddenly becomes something entirely different, and we're supposed to give his scores 100 times more weight than to those by non-director composers?


In movies, the director is typically seen as "the creator";
in TV on the other hand, it's usually the showrunners and writers, while the directors are less known and seen as "subsidiary".

Is this justified, or more like arbitrary?
Especially given how who-contributes-what-and-how-much varies from production to production - i.e. auteur directors vs. those that just organize the craftsmen's work?





SanAntone said:


> But what Mozart is know nfor are his other larger scale works.


The Magic Flute is one of those.




> Again, the incidental works of great classical composers are of interest, not because of their inherent quality as music, but because every utterance of these great composers is of interest to us.


I'm not that familiar with incidental music for plays, however Grieg's "Mountain King" is a success due to its own merits and not because "he also wrote the sonatas and concerto etc." - either that, or most of the CM community are just mass consumers and wrong for thinking this incidental trash piece has any merits / deserves to get spammed all over concert halls all the time;

in which case the question becomes: "of interest" to whom? These masses who're wrong, or the few smart ones who would've never given it as much attention (but clearly lacked the numbers or influence to prevent it from becoming a superhit)?



> I would not equate the incidental music of Mozart or Beethoven with the film scores of John Williams. Mainly because the greatness of Mozart and Beethoven is well established, whereas we don't know how long after Williams's death his music will still be performed or what the critical opinion of it will end up being.


Ok then everybody just stop posting and let the God of Time Test decide all of this (centuries after we're all dead of course).




> Plenty of Mozart's peers who were very popular during their lifetimes have disappeared from our awareness. Most film composers will probably suffer the same fate.


And again who said it's justified that those all got forgotten?
Maybe it isn't; maybe no one's just gotten around to dealing with them yet.


----------



## SanAntone

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> I've increasingly seen Figaro, Don etc. being referred to as "by Mozart and da Ponte" or even the other way around over the years


HIs operas are referred to as the "Da Ponte operas" is order to easily describe these three works among his operas. No one has much interest in any of Da Ponte's other operas. Can you even name one?



> Who said that it's _justified_ that operas are "identified by the composer and not the librettist", as opposed to both? Maybe it's in fact just a collective bad habit.


Who cares if it is "justified"? That's just the way it is.

This thread is about whether film music should be considered classical music. It is not about whether Mozart's greatness is deserved, or just, or whether the test of time is a meaningful gauge of greatness.

I happen to think that some film music is as good as some classical music I've heard. But certainly most film music is not. It is functional music for a movie with a short shelf life.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

SanAntone said:


> HIs operas are referred to as the "Da Ponte operas" is order to easily describe these three works among his operas.


Also when either is just mentioned in isolation.




> No one has much interest in any of Da Ponte's other operas. Can you even name one?


Nah but I can't name a lot of things lol

The question remains how much he did contribute to these - doubly so to the Italian speakers.




> Who cares if it is "justified"? That's just the way it is.


Well it was being used as a reason why the things that were forgotten were unworthy, and the things that weren't were worthy - i.e. rolling with the assumption that it is justified.




> This thread is about whether film music should be considered classical music. It is not about whether Mozart's greatness is deserved, or just, or whether the test of time is a meaningful gauge of greatness.


Well lots of people here directly associate the term "classical" with precisely these things - being great, having a deserving position in the canon, having proven themselves worthy over centuries etc.;
so they start talking about these things in order to address the thread's topic, from their pov.



> I happen to think that some film music is as good as some classical music I've heard. But certainly most film music is not. It is functional music for a movie with a short shelf life.


Possibly? I've seen way fewer movies than I haven't lol

Maybe this could be expanded by bringing up concrete examples of mediocre vs. good soundtracks and going into detail there. (And then comparing it to various non-FM etc.)


----------



## SanAntone

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> Also when either is just mentioned in isolation.


I'm sorry, but I cannot continue a discussion with someone who is unable to simply acknowledge that Mozart's operas are known because of his music, no matter who the librettist was.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

SanAntone said:


> I'm sorry, but I cannot continue a discussion with someone who is unable to simply acknowledge that Mozart's operas are known because of his music, no matter who the librettist was.


Not exclusively, the plot and lines play a huge role in how those operas are perceived and what they mean to audiences;
to someone listening on CD and not knowing the language, maybe no, but otherwise absolutely.

And the way the text is written, and how it interacts with the music, is all due to the librettist and his collaboration with the composer.
If all that was either 1) such a piece of cake, or 2) irrelevant, then no librettist would be needed at all.



I'm not sure what the debate or disagreement is even about?
Sure, if you collect Mozart works, you'll be doing this regardless of who the librettists are - however if you're binging the Figaro franchise or tracking Don Juan adaptations, you'll do that regardless of who the composer was; etc.

And if you just went to the theater or turned the TV on, then all the aspects of the work are gonna be playing a role, music plot lyrics visuals actors staging camerawork etc. - which (if any) of them more than others would depend on the specifics.


----------



## hammeredklavier

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> Not exclusively, the plot and lines play a huge role in how those operas are perceived and what they mean to audiences;
> to someone listening on CD and not knowing the language, maybe no, but otherwise absolutely.
> 
> And the way the text is written, and how it interacts with the music, is all due to the librettist and his collaboration with the composer.
> If all that was either 1) such a piece of cake, or 2) irrelevant, then no librettist would be needed at all.


"The best thing of all is when a good composer, who understands the stage and is talented enough to make *sound suggestions*, meets an able poet, that true phoenix; in that case, no fears need be entertained as to the applause – even of the ignorant." -an excerpt from Mozart's letter to his father (13 October 1781).
Here, Mozart sounds like he only makes "sound suggestions" to his librettist, and is not in a position to dictate what should or should not go on in the opera in terms of overall plot.


----------



## jojoju2000

SanAntone said:


> But what Mozart is know nfor are his other larger scale works.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the incidental works of great classical composers are of interest, not because of their inherent quality as music, but because every utterance of these great composers is of interest to us.
> 
> I would not equate the incidental music of Mozart or Beethoven with the film scores of John Williams. Mainly because the greatness of Mozart and Beethoven is well established, whereas we don't know how long after Williams's death his music will still be performed or what the critical opinion of it will end up being. Plenty of Mozart's peers who were very popular during their lifetimes have disappeared from our awareness. Most film composers will probably suffer the same fate.
> 
> The primary quality of classical music is its longevity, remaining important to us from century to century. Conductors, musicians, and scholars, continue to discover new avenues of expression and to mine aspects of these great works keeping them current and renewing them for succeeding generations.


It's impossible to measure the long term impact of Williams's music because he has operated and worked in a increasingly fractured culture. There's no.... unified culture anymore that can perpetuate his music ala Mozart or Beethoven. 

We as a society are polarized, divided, and split off into so many different facets of " culture". It's rare, for a modern composer Classical or Film, to have that kind of Brownie points today, that Beethoven or Mozart used to have. We don't have a dominant Western culture anymore. Actually, one would rightfully ask if Western culture itself is at risk of failing. 

Sure John Williams could or might fade away into nothing, after he dies. But so will John Coolidge Adams. There used to be a time in Western culture and history where the music gets perpetuated by the unified cultural elite, and it seeps to the middle and lower classes. This doesn't happen anymore.

Just 60 years ago, we had people like Leonard Bernstein who was able to occupy a central place in American cultural life, HIgh Brow and Middle Brow at the same time. 





Imagine this today. NO ONE would attend.

By the way, Who's the Leonard Bernstein of the US now ? Gustavo Dudamel ? Really ?


----------



## jojoju2000

SanAntone said:


> I have no fantasies glorifying what Mozart did. During Mozart's lifetime he was writing for the aristocracy, not "the masses." Even his operas were attended by the upper classes. Also there did not exist the plethora of genres we have today, basically there were court, church, and folk music, with clear boundaries among these three genres.
> 
> *And I do not equate opera with film music. Operas are a musical genre, and are identified by their composer, not the director, or librettist. Films are a director's art form, and the composer is one of a number of subsidiary collaborators contibuting a contracted service.*


I don't think that's a fair assessment. There are cases ( getting increasingly rare however ) of true equal partnership between Director and Film Composer.

This however does bring into question the artistic merit of films today ( in which case you do have a point ). What do I mean ? Thanks to the monopolization of Hollywood and the increasingly restrictive measures, Film Composing is increasingly turning into what you describe; a contracted service. Of course. You don't see the level of collaboration between Director and Composer anymore, that type of simpatico relationship. Because of this, there's a reason why Williams went into Semi Retirement after 2005, only choosing to work with Spielberg, Star Wars, Indiana Jones, and a few choice projects, like the Book Thief.

The rise of electronic scoring has also accelerated the trend towards " contract film music ", because you can quickly produce music for 5 films in a year using computers and stuff. Williams on the other hand is old fashioned, require a sit down with the Director and a few others to watch the film, discuss it, the whole deal. He then goes to his piano and begins to write.









John Williams: From 'Jaws' to 'Star Wars' to 'War Horse' and 'Tintin'


A look at the last great movie maestro, as younger, cheaper and edgier musicians are changing the score.




www.wsj.com





There's also the decline of UNIONS. Yes. The Big Orchestra Musicians in LA are all Unionized, and in the past, they were the ones who would literally play and record the film scores. John Williams himself was a Union Musician. That doesn't happen anymore. Commercially, there has been a shift towards Overseas Orchestras like the one In Prague, because they're cheaper, non unionized, and are able to produce music faster.

There was a part in the WSJ article which shows me how Williams is different than so called " contracted " film score producers.

"
Unlike some of his peers who service multiple film projects at a time, Mr. Williams doesn't farm out any piecework to underlings. "I'm still writing every note. And it's labor intensive. Six and a half days a week. That's been my life," the composer says. Yet at age 79, he works more swiftly than many in his field, his collaborators say, crediting his singleminded approach to each project.
"There are some composers who are lucky to record five or six minutes of music in a six hour day with an orchestra. John can completely do 20 to 25 minutes, no problem, of complex difficult music with good takes that he doesn't have to revisit," says Mr. Graham, who organizes and distributes the printed music at all the sessions Mr. Williams conducts."




" Kathleen Kennedy, Mr. Spielberg's longtime producer, says she's never denied Mr. Williams any resources. Soprano Renée Fleming was recruited to sing an aria from Charles Gounod's "Romeo and Juliet" for a climactic scene in "Tintin." But in other ways Mr. Williams's process is "very tight and efficient," Ms. Kennedy says. He works with the same core team of about four people, including Ms. De Crescent (whom he met in the early 1960s) and doesn't employ an assistant or other intermediary staff. His biggest time saver: because of Mr. Spielberg's trust in the composer and the preliminary piano sketches he presents, Mr. Williams doesn't spend time mocking up "demo" recordings, an essential step for composers seeking a director's approval to move forward."


Edit : I forgot about this. "Before pop, rock and folk music stormed into soundtracks in the late 1960s and '70s, "there was an era that harked back to the old studio system when the composer was king," says Doreen Ringer Ross, who oversees the film and TV music division of BMI, the performing rights organization. "John is pretty much the last one standing" from that time.".

If you want to compare and critque Williams, do so with People like Max Steiner, Bernard Herrman, Ennio Morricone, 

And NOT, people like Hans Zimmer, Danny Elfman, because the latter generation is not the same as Williams's.


----------



## Aries

mmsbls said:


> I don't know enough about Zimmer's music. The stuff I have heard sounds quite distinctly Romantic to me. How is it different?


I don't see the complex structure and thematic development of romanticism in Zimmers music. The aesthetic is rather romantic and conventional, but the composing approch seems rather impressionistic. Imo there is a focuses on a straight forward expression of athmosphere and mood to make the music more accessible for unexperienced listeners compared to romantic music.



mmsbls said:


> What is Epic music, and how is it completely different from past music?


It shares the superficial impressionistic approch of Zimmers music but the expression is more aligned to heroism, greatness, drama and epicness and exceeds romantic music in bombast, at least the bombast is more ubiquitous. There is a characteristic melodious usage of strings and a characteristic usage of percussion. It appears to me that the sound engeneering plays a very important role in epic music. Here an example of epic music: Link



mmsbls said:


> I'm sorry. I don't understand what you mean here. I think you may be confusing why we consider film music different from classical (the process, not the music) with something actually new in the music.


So you say something belongs to the romantic style of classical music but not to classical music. It simply doesn't seem senseful to me and shows imo that music should not be classified by its composing process but by itself.


----------



## hammeredklavier

The Grudge (2004) Stairs Scene.

Film composers also employ experimental techniques when they need to. One could argue that contemporary music, since the advent of atonality, has been "stationary" in terms of "advancements" too; at least there haven't been any "major breakthroughs" since then. Why obsess over finding new ways of expression continuously? One could argue that simply writing "the kind of music people of our time want, music that has demand in our time" seems less "pretentious" and more "natural". Yusufe has a good point, —only time will tell, what film music will end up being _timeless_ like Vivaldi's Four Seasons, Mozart's Requiem, 40th, Pachelbel's Canon in D, Beethoven's 5th, 9th, Tchaikovsky's Nutcracker.





^There's a ton of analysis like this done on Williams' score by "academics".

_"Every man or woman in charge of the music of moving picture theater is, consciously or unconsciously, a disciple or follower of Richard Wagner"_ – Stephen Bush, film critic, 1911

_"Please write music like Wagner, only louder"_ – Sam Goldwyn to a film composer

_"If my grandfather were alive today, he would undoubtedly be working in Hollywood"_ —Wolfgang Wagner


----------



## HansZimmer

mmsbls said:


> I don't know enough about Zimmer's music. The stuff I have heard sounds quite distinctly Romantic to me. How is it different?


The suite for The Gladiator is romantic.







The suite for Dune is an other kind of music.







I don't know if Hans Zimmer is still composing cinematic classical. Maybe @Forster knows if Hans Zimmer has completely quitted that style to embrace the style you hear in Dune.
However I suspect that some users here hate Hans Zimmer because, as all artists who try to create something new, he's not understood by many people, myself included, despite my nickname. I much preferred the Zimmer of the nineties and I hope that this new style doesn't become a standard for the cinema. John Williams should be the the reference point.


----------



## Nawdry

EvaBaron said:


> Whether a piece is classical or not has nothing to do with the forces involved, but with the way in which it is intended to be listened to. Classical music is designed to be considered, contemplated and - being the most abstract of all the art forms - to provoke a truly subjective response in each of its listeners. Film music, on the other hand, is meant to accompany moving pictures, to provide an objective commentary to the on-screen action. Robbed of that on-screen imagery, it loses much of its meaning.


This expresses pretty much the difficulty I have in considering film-score music as classical. Of course there are rare examples that are clearly classical in quality as originally rendered (I think of a couple of compositions by Walton for example). Prokofiev's music for the film _Lieutenant Kijé_ is superb, but the composer had to rework it into a suite. But for the most part film music consists of motifs, melodic fragments, and various sections designed to supplement or reinforce the dramatic action of the film. The bits aren't really designed to be complete on their own, or to integrate properly as a whole. With most truly good film music, my sense of it is that it's like a storeroom of great sketches, probably not quite finished and complete as they are, but an assortment of excellent film-music-genre resources for classical compositions.


----------



## jojoju2000

HansZimmer said:


> The suite for The Gladiator is romantic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The suite for Dune is an other kind of music.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if Hans Zimmer is still composing cinematic classical. Maybe @Forster knows if Hans Zimmer has completely quitted that style to embrace the style you hear in Dune.
> However I suspect that some users here hate Hans Zimmer because, as all artists who try to create something new, he's not understood by many people, myself included, despite my nickname. I much preferred the Zimmer of the nineties and I hope that this new style doesn't become a standard for the cinema. *John Williams should be the the reference* point.


Right John Williams should be the reference point. Not Hans Zimmer. Or any of the modern day FIlm score " assemblers ". 

Talk about Williams, Ennio Morricone, Max Steiner, John Barry, Jerry Goldsmith, Bernard Herrman, if we want to talk about the Merits of composing for Film.


----------



## jojoju2000

Nawdry said:


> This expresses pretty much the difficulty I have in considering film-score music as classical. Of course there are rare examples that are clearly classical in quality as originally rendered (I think of a couple of compositions by Walton for example). Prokofiev's music for the film _Lieutenant Kijé_ is superb, but the composer had to rework it into a suite. But for the most part film music consists of motifs, melodic fragments, and various sections designed to supplement or reinforce the dramatic action of the film. The bits aren't really designed to be complete on their own, or to integrate properly as a whole. With most truly good film music, my sense of it is that it's like a storeroom of great sketches, probably not quite finished and complete as they are, but an assortment of excellent film-music-genre resources for classical compositions.


Edit : You could say the same thing about Incidental Music for Plays. Are they a lesser form of Classical Music because they don't hold on to a unified structure like Opera ?






hammeredklavier said:


> The Grudge (2004) Stairs Scene.
> 
> Film composers also employ experimental techniques when they need to. One could argue that contemporary music, since the advent of atonality, has been "stationary" in terms of "advancements" too; at least there haven't been any "major breakthroughs" since then. Why obsess over finding new ways of expression continuously? One could argue that simply writing "the kind of music people of our time want, music that has demand in our time" seems less "pretentious" and more "natural". Yusufe has a good point, —only time will tell, what film music will end up being _timeless_ like Vivaldi's Four Seasons, Mozart's Requiem, 40th, Pachelbel's Canon in D, Beethoven's 5th, 9th, Tchaikovsky's Nutcracker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^There's a ton of analysis like this done on Williams' score by "academics".
> 
> _"Every man or woman in charge of the music of moving picture theater is, consciously or unconsciously, a disciple or follower of Richard Wagner"_ – Stephen Bush, film critic, 1911
> 
> _"Please write music like Wagner, only louder"_ – Sam Goldwyn to a film composer
> 
> _"If my grandfather were alive today, he would undoubtedly be working in Hollywood"_ —Wolfgang Wagner


Didn't John Williams say something about if Wagner would have a Giant W on a Water Tank, if he worked in Hollywood ?


----------



## mmsbls

HansZimmer said:


> The suite for The Gladiator is romantic.
> 
> The suite for Dune is an other kind of music.
> 
> I don't know if Hans Zimmer is still composing cinematic classical. Maybe @Forster knows if Hans Zimmer has completely quitted that style to embrace the style you hear in Dune.
> However I suspect that some users here hate Hans Zimmer because, as all artists who try to create something new, he's not understood by many people, myself included, despite my nickname. I much preferred the Zimmer of the nineties and I hope that this new style doesn't become a standard for the cinema. John Williams should be the the reference point.


I agree that the suite for Dune is distinctly different from the Romantic sounding suite from Gladiator. I saw a video of Zimmer talking about creating the Dune soundtrack. It reminded me very much of what composers like Stockhausen had done in his WDR electronic studio in the 1950s and 1960s. Though Zimmer's music is more conventional. So not all film music sounds the same, but I doubt film composers have the mindset to create something really different like modern composers did with electronic, aleatoric, minimalism, or spectralism. Their goal is to create sounds that work closely with the movie rather than to expand music as we know it. They produce music driven by the movie scenes rather by the pure music.


----------



## mmsbls

hammeredklavier said:


> ...Film composers also employ experimental techniques when they need to. One could argue that contemporary music, since the advent of atonality, has been "stationary" in terms of "advancements" too; at least there haven't been any "major breakthroughs" since then.


I'm not sure what you mean by stationary. I consider modern music to have more variation than all music from Medieval through late Romantic. Styles such as serial, aleatoric, electronic, spectral, minimalism have enormously changed classical music from early atonal music. 



> Why obsess over finding new ways of expression continuously?


Interesting. I'm not an artist, but I have thought this is one of the things driving artists. 



> One could argue that simply writing "the kind of music people of our time want, music that has demand in our time" seems less "pretentious" and more "natural".


Sure one can argue that, and many do. It might seem less pretentious and more natural to some people, but I don't think artists work that way. Are you suggesting that it was the musical audience that wanted classical music to change from Renaissance to Baroque to Classical to Romantic to Modern rather than the composers pushing the boundaries of music? I'm guessing that if composers wrote what people wanted, music would not have changed very much over the past hundreds of years.


----------



## mmsbls

Aries said:


> So you say something belongs to the romantic style of classical music but not to classical music. It simply doesn't seem senseful to me and shows imo that music should not be classified by its composing process but by itself.


Yes, you and HansZimmer have repeatedly made this point. I agree that many would listen to much film music, hear that it sounds similar to romantic classical music, and therefore, conclude that it is romantic classical music. I have said that view is certainly reasonable. It also does not surprise me that composers intimately familiar with the process of creating music might see significant differences in that creation process and conclude that film music should be categorized differently. Both views seem quite sensible to me. I just prefer to side with the composer view.


----------



## Forster

jojoju2000 said:


> Right John Williams should be the reference point. Not Hans Zimmer. Or any of the modern day FIlm score " assemblers ".
> 
> Talk about Williams, Ennio Morricone, Max Steiner, John Barry, Jerry Goldsmith, Bernard Herrman, if we want to talk about the Merits of composing for Film.


No, talk about the films first, and then whichever composer did the score. Otherwise, you get a lopsided impression based mostly on movies at least 20 years old and older, rather than considering current moviemaking and scoring.

Regardless of the question of the thread title, this is about film music, not about the work of a narrow selection of film composers.


----------



## Forster

mmsbls said:


> I agree that the suite for Dune is distinctly different from the Romantic sounding suite from Gladiator. I saw a video of Zimmer talking about creating the Dune soundtrack. It reminded me very much of what composers like Stockhausen had done in his WDR electronic studio in the 1950s and 1960s. Though Zimmer's music is more conventional. So not all film music sounds the same, but I doubt film composers have the mindset to create something really different like modern composers did with electronic, aleatoric, minimalism, or spectralism. Their goal is to create sounds that work closely with the movie rather than to expand music as we know it. They produce music driven by the movie scenes rather by the pure music.


Which is why we should try to consider the full range of movies made globally, not just those made for popular global audiences.


----------



## hammeredklavier

mmsbls said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by stationary. I consider modern music to have more variation than all music from Medieval through late Romantic. Styles such as serial, aleatoric, electronic, spectral, minimalism have enormously changed classical music from early atonal music.


Sure, there are subdivisions branched off from it. But when you look at things like minimalism for instance, -isn't it still doubtful if it's strictly "contemporary music's invention". Would you view its progenitor as a strictly "contemporary music composer"? Does Glass view himself as strictly a "contemporary music composer", not a "film music composer"? It seems to be a controversial topic even for contemporary music composers themselves-

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


----------



## SanAntone

Forster said:


> Regardless of the question of the thread title, this is about film music, not about the work of a narrow selection of film composers.


I agree. IMO most films have forgettable, superficial music, more closely related to pop than classical music. Or they have treacly, superficial , Romantic sounding orchestral music which loses most of its power divorced from the film scene it accompanied. (Those two examples posted of Hans Zimmer music are good examples of what I am talking about.)

The OP wishes to make the sample size so small and self-defined to include only those composers and scores which fit his conception of "classical music composed for film scores."


----------



## jojoju2000

mmsbls said:


> I agree that the suite for Dune is distinctly different from the Romantic sounding suite from Gladiator. I saw a video of Zimmer talking about creating the Dune soundtrack. It reminded me very much of what composers like Stockhausen had done in his WDR electronic studio in the 1950s and 1960s. Though Zimmer's music is more conventional. So not all film music sounds the same, but I doubt film composers have the mindset to create something really different like modern composers did with electronic, aleatoric, minimalism, or spectralism. Their goal is to create sounds that work closely with the movie rather than to expand music as we know it. They produce music driven by the movie scenes rather by the pure music.


1. Aren’t all composers inspired by an exterior influence though ?

If a composer is inspired by a scene jn the film, then what’s the problem with it ?

If your deeper argument is that Hollywood commercialism restricts the Artistic Freedom of such composers then….. you might have some merit IF you’re talking about the latter day film score assemblists like Zimmer.

But John Williams is totally unique in this regard in that often times, Spielberg for example would edit the film to fit the Music, not the other way around. Granted this type of collaboration and trust is rare these days.

He comes out of that Golden Age Hollywood tradition where the Composer was King. For example, Alfred Hitchcock and Bernard Herrman battled each other for the mere direction of the films they worked on. The Studio System. Where the musicians were unionized and highly paid ( this is important in the Film Classical Music discourse ). 

2. Expanding the Field Forward I feel in my view is kind of restrictive. No Academic definition of Classical Music would include this phrase. And it would bastardize major Orchestras in their efforts to include Williams in their main concert set.

What do I mean ?

For decades, the Boston Symphony Orchestra under the direction of Seiji Ozawa performed Williams’s works. In the Classical Framework. No Film association.






3. Why do I mention John Williams? Because unlike Zimmer, he has been able to cross over to the Classical Music world no other film composer has.

While we have been arguing amongst ourselves, Williams has been conducting concerts with the Berlin Philharmonic, the Vienna Philharmonic, and Milan Philharmonic. His Gold Medal from the Royal Philharmonic society. His new collaboration with Anne Sophie Mutter.

Either they see something in him, or they’re desperate. One or the other.

What are they seeing in him, that we are not ? They’re not inviting Zimmer !


----------



## jojoju2000

hammeredklavier said:


> Sure, there are subsets branched off from it. But when you look at things like minimalism for instance, -isn't it still doubtful if it's strictly "contemporary music's invention". Would you view its progenitor as a strictly "contemporary music composer"? Does Glass view himself as strictly a "contemporary music composer", not a "film music composer"? It seems to be a controversial topic even for contemporary music composers themselves-
> 
> "Philip Glass: *Today film is what opera was formerly*, it’s the popular art form of our time. Now John and I are both film composers and opera composers, and it may be easier for people who are experienced in theatre to work in films than for people who only work in concert music, because both theatre and films are about subject matter." Debate: When is film music ‘classical’?


You have to make the distinction between the Big Marvel Movies or other commercial low brow movies and more high art films too.


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> IMO most films have forgettable, superficial music, more closely related to pop than classical music. Or they have treacly, superficial , Romantic sounding orchestral music which loses most of its power divorced from the film scene it accompanied. (Those two examples posted of Hans Zimmer music are good examples of what I am talking about.)


It's still subjective in the end though. By that logic, music churned out (for daily use in court and church) by 18th century "kapellmeisters", for instance — can be thought to be not "classical". But there will always be people who can't live without them.


----------



## jojoju2000

Forster said:


> No, talk about the films first, and then whichever composer did the score. Otherwise, you get a lopsided impression based mostly on movies at least 20 years old and older, rather than considering current moviemaking and scoring.
> 
> Regardless of the question of the thread title, this is about film music, not about the work of a narrow selection of film composers.


Modern Movie Making however has been bastardized in my view.


Martin Scorsese said once, that Marvel Movies are not Film. And he got a lot of pushback for that comment. But he’s right.

The 1920s-1980s, were in many ways the Classical Music Era of film. And the film composers were right there along for the ride. It was a symbiotic relationship. And they would write for a full orchestra.

Now ? The rise of electronic scoring, the decline of Union Musicians, the monopolization of Films thanks to Disney, and the inability of high art films to gain box office success, and streaming as well. It has all changed how film and in essence Film music has worked, and that’s a bad thing.

If Williams for example were a young man today, his style of writing and composition would fly out the window. Writing by hand. The deep discussions with directors.


----------



## Luchesi

mmsbls said:


> Yes, you and HansZimmer have repeatedly made this point. I agree that many would listen to much film music, hear that it sounds similar to romantic classical music, and therefore, conclude that it is romantic classical music. I have said that view is certainly reasonable. It also does not surprise me that composers intimately familiar with the process of creating music might see significant differences in that creation process and conclude that film music should be categorized differently. Both views seem quite sensible to me. I just prefer to side with the composer view.


I think just look at the scores. A musician wouldn't be confused. A musician has to know enough to perform it. 

Of course, there are always rare examples which people try to use to prove the rule or form an unhelpful category, but that just seems to me to be a waste of time. 
...Because we have helpful categories for the purpose of clarity and education, but well-informed and self-satisfied adults can categorize anything they want in their own categories, in any of the arts (or sports, or foods, or fashion, or wine?). An expert will say you're going to be misguided.


----------



## SanAntone

hammeredklavier said:


> It's still subjective in the end though. By that logic, music churned out (for daily use in court and church) by 18th century "kapellmeisters", for instance — can be thought to be not "classical". But there will always be people who can't live without them.


If you do not value the court and church music by Haydn, Mozart, or Bach, any more than film music, by Zimmer, Williams, or Goldsmith, that is your subjective opinion. I happen to discern a fairly large qualitative difference.


----------



## jojoju2000

SanAntone said:


> If you do not value the court and church music by Haydn, Mozart, or Bach, any more than film music, by Zimmer, Williams, or Goldsmith, that is your subjective opinion. I happen to discern a fairly large qualitative difference.


I think a more important question to ask is: is the Film a viable vehicle for Classical Music ?

Is Cinema itself a high brow art?
Film was only invented in the early 1900s. The first film school was started in 1965, NYU. John Williams only catapulted to fame in 1977.

Even in the film world today, you have the divide between popular commercial movies like Marvel vs. Scorsese,Spielberg.


----------



## mmsbls

hammeredklavier said:


> Sure, there are subdivisions branched off from it. But when you look at things like minimalism for instance, -isn't it still doubtful if it's strictly "contemporary music's invention".


I've never heard that people doubt it's a style originating in contemporary classical music around the 1960s.



> Would you view its progenitor as a strictly "contemporary music composer"? Does Glass view himself as strictly a "contemporary music composer", not a "film music composer"? It seems to be a controversial topic even for contemporary music composers themselves-


Well Young, Riley, and Reich are thought of as early creators of minimalist music, and they certainly are viewed as modern/contemporary classical composers.


----------



## mmsbls

jojoju2000 said:


> 1. Aren’t all composers inspired by an exterior influence though ?


I assume so.



> If a composer is inspired by a scene jn the film, then what’s the problem with it ?


Nothing. 



> If your deeper argument is that Hollywood commercialism restricts the Artistic Freedom of such composers then….. you might have some merit IF you’re talking about the latter day film score assemblists like Zimmer.


The argument in this thread against viewing film music as classical has to do with the process of creating film music compared to a different process creating classical music. Several composers in this thread have described the significant differences.



> Why do I mention John Williams? Because unlike Zimmer, he has been able to cross over to the Classical Music world no other film composer has.
> 
> While we have been arguing amongst ourselves, Williams has been conducting concerts with the Berlin Philharmonic, the Vienna Philharmonic, and Milan Philharmonic. His Gold Medal from the Royal Philharmonic society. His new collaboration with Anne Sophie Mutter.
> 
> Either they see something in him, or they’re desperate. One or the other.
> 
> What are they seeing in him, that we are not ? They’re not inviting Zimmer !


I assume everyone in this thread knows that Williams has written concert works not intended for film. He's capable of writing good film music and good classical music. "They" see in him the same things we do.


----------



## SanAntone

jojoju2000 said:


> I think a more important question to ask is: is the Film a viable vehicle for Classical Music ?


Only in a small number of art films, where the director, screenwriters, and composer work closely together much like they do on contemporary opera. Also, of the three collaborators the composer's voice should be predominant.



> Is Cinema itself a high brow art?


It can be, but in the majority of the time, movies/films, are popular entertaiment for the mass audience. The visual version of pop music.



> Even in the film world today, you have the divide between popular commercial movies like Marvel vs. Scorsese,Spielberg.


I have been aware for a long time of the usage of the terms movie and film to indicate how the work is perceived by fans as well as critics.


----------



## mmsbls

Luchesi said:


> I think just look at the scores. A musician wouldn't be confused. A musician has to know enough to perform it.
> 
> Of course, there are always rare examples which people try to use to prove the rule or form an unhelpful category, but that just seems to me to be a waste of time.
> ...Because we have helpful categories for the purpose of clarity and education, but well-informed and self-satisfied adults can categorize anything they want in their own categories, in any of the arts (or sports, or foods, or fashion, or wine?). An expert will say you're going to be misguided.


I agree. Experts are not always correct, but they have a much better understanding of their field than lay people, not just through studying the field but also in interacting with other experts. If my view differed with an expert outside of my field, my first assumption would be that I'm missing something.


----------



## Forster

jojoju2000 said:


> Modern Movie Making however has been bastardized in my view.


Irrelevant to the question in hand. (And Scorsese allegedly resiled from that opinion).


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> I happen to discern a fairly large qualitative difference.


Well, how familiar are you with them (one by one) yourself?


----------



## SanAntone

hammeredklavier said:


> Well, how familiar are you with them (one by one) yourself?


I am most familiar with Haydn, and very familiar with Mozart and Beethoven. Less so with Zimmer, Williams, and Goldsmith - although I've heard enough to have an idea of the quality of their music.

You seem heavily invested in proving that Mozart and/or Haydn, and Beethoven are over-rated. That is not a discussion I find interesting nor worth discussing.


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> You seem heavily invested in proving that Mozart and/or Haydn, and Beethoven are over-rated.


Not at all. I'm just using them as famous examples of "kapellmeisters".


----------



## SanAntone

hammeredklavier said:


> Not at all. I'm just using them as famous examples of "kapellmeisters".


Why? Their significance today is much greater than what that job title from the 18th century may connotate.


----------



## Nawdry

jojoju2000 said:


> You could say the same thing about Incidental Music for Plays. Are they a lesser form of Classical Music because they don't hold on to a unified structure like Opera ?


I've heard overtures, preludes, intermezzos, etc. for plays that can indeed work well as classical compositions independent of the dramatic work itself. They make sense when played independently in performance. But fragmentary motifs, ostinatos, pedal notes, etc. really don't work detached from the dramatic action. They sound like incomplete fragments of theatre music. Because they are.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

109


hammeredklavier said:


> "The best thing of all is when a good composer, who understands the stage and is talented enough to make *sound suggestions*, meets an able poet, that true phoenix; in that case, no fears need be entertained as to the applause – even of the ignorant." -an excerpt from Mozart's letter to his father (13 October 1781).
> Here, Mozart sounds like he only makes "sound suggestions" to his librettist, and is not in a position to dictate what should or should not go on in the opera in terms of overall plot.


Yeah, they've been having "debates" about whether the music or plot/text are more important since forever - the subject got satirized in an opera by Salieri and a guy whose name I only memorized just now but looks like he was an integral component of this called Giovanni Battista Casti:


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



Not seen it yet, looks fun though.


With Seraglio of course, one could say that Mozart _did_ take a leadership position in that particular case, and he did claim that the "plot was important but the lyrics should serve the music", however the details and nuances of what that precisely means that clear without some analysis - and to what extent the same applies to other works is of course very arguable.
Patter songs are certainly up there as far as countercases go:


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

109


Aries said:


> I don't see the complex structure and thematic development of romanticism in Zimmers music. The aesthetic is rather romantic and conventional, but the composing approch seems rather impressionistic. Imo there is a focuses on a straight forward expression of athmosphere and mood to make the music more accessible for unexperienced listeners compared to romantic music.


Pretty sure romantic music is about as accessible as it gets?
Maybe not in terms of being the easiest to transcribe for anyone, but in terms of impact that is.
If it was in SW or Chaplin it's accessible lol




> It shares the superficial impressionistic approch of Zimmers music but the expression is more aligned to heroism, greatness, drama and epicness and exceeds romantic music in bombast, at least the bombast is more ubiquitous. There is a characteristic melodious usage of strings and a characteristic usage of percussion. It appears to me that the sound engeneering plays a very important role in epic music. Here an example of epic music: Link


Ah so that's pretty much symph metal without the metal isn't it?

Here even that typical 3'-2'-1'-7-5 Nightwish phrase starting at 0:54/1:58:


----------



## Forster

HansZimmer said:


> I don't know if Hans Zimmer is still composing cinematic classical. Maybe @Forster knows if Hans Zimmer has completely quitted that style to embrace the style you hear in Dune.


Earlier, I posted this:



> I'd say that Alexandre Desplat (_Little Women_), Dario Marianelli (_Atonement_) and Howard Shore (_Lord of the Rings_ is the most obvious) sometimes write in those styles - but they are versatile and can compose with a less "classic" approach.











Why do many people think that classical music composed...


No, temp tracks usually are actual classical music, specifically meant as a 'model' for the film composer to imitate. Sort of like when you were a child and you saw a Porsche and then made your own version out of a cardboard box and crayons. LOL, what can I do but laugh at such a ridiculous...




www.talkclassical.com





Film composers - if they want to keep working - tend to versatility, while at the same time being selected for "doing their thing". I don't know about Zimmer, though it's difficult to avoid his work now he does British TV as well as big mainstream movies. Given his penchant for collaboration (for example, see _Top Gun: Maverick_) it's also difficult to be sure who you're crediting, but I'd say that in his case, he's not completely quit any style.


----------



## Aries

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> Pretty sure romantic music is about as accessible as it gets?


As accessible as Ravels Bolero? I don't think so. The strictness and complexity of 19th century romantic structure and form is an obstacle for unexperienced listeners imo as well as what could be perceived as a "nerdy development fetish". A focus on an appealing and intersseting instrumentation instead with simple structure and melodies can make it more accessible for unexperienced listeners. This is a trend I also see in neoromantic music, and a lot of Zimmers music can maybe count as neoromantic, but that would still mean that it is something new compared to 19th century romantic music. 

But neoromantic concert music often incorporates a moderate level of dissonance, what is also a very big obstacle for accessability for unexpereienced listeners. Zimmer gets also rid of such dissonance in Lion King for example. Regardless whether classified within or outside the romantic style I find Hans Zimmers style (he applied in Lion King) different to 19th century romanticism. It is not a development I like but it is something new and has success.



YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> Ah so that's pretty much symph metal without the metal isn't it?


Maybe, there seem to be similarities, but I have no knowledge about metal.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

(Was gonna edit this in, but there's only a max of 5 embeds possible)


1:58




=




+






Wonder if there's some other way of pinpointing this style/genre?
That beat starting at 0:22 is essentially a rock beat, just with a changed character (a "clang" kind of drum instead of snare on the backbeat - barely different from the "base drum" on the 1) - or do both rather share some kind of common origin?


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

Aries said:


> As accessible as Ravels Bolero? I don't think so. The strictness and complexity of 19th century romantic structure and form is an obstacle for unexperienced listeners imo as well as what could be perceived as a "nerdy development fetish". A focus on an appealing and intersseting instrumentation instead with simple structure and melodies can make it more accessible for unexperienced listeners. This is a trend I also see in neoromantic music, and a lot of Zimmers music can maybe count as neoromantic, but that would still mean that it is something new compared to 19th century romantic music.
> 
> But neoromantic concert music often incorporates a moderate level of dissonance, what is also a very big obstacle for accessability for unexpereienced listeners. Zimmer gets also rid of such dissonance in Lion King for example. Regardless whether classified within or outside the romantic style I find Hans Zimmers style (he applied in Lion King) different to 19th century romanticism. It is not a development I like but it is something new and has success.


Star Wars and Mad Max got mentioned here, both have lots of neo-romantic & dissonant stylistics and were clearly perceived as highly accessible:
the former is also mostly romantic, and it's one of the most popular soundtracks in one of the mainstreamest film series one can think of. 

So I don't quite understand what you mean by it being inaccessible to pleb listeners? Are you talking about some other kind of inaccessible?




> As accessible as Ravels Bolero?


That snake ritual orgy sequence from Conan the Barbarian had a track similar to the Bolero (wait let me fish the links), but did that make everyone go "woah now _that _I can finally relate to!"? Did it become the most popular soundtrack because of that?
Though it's up there of course - but it still got outcompeted by the Wagner/Stravinsky one.




> I don't think so. The strictness and complexity of 19th century romantic structure and form is an obstacle for unexperienced listeners imo


You mean early romanticism? It got less and less strict over time, as I understand it.

Also no complex "forms" here, we're talking short pieces and moment-to-moment style here.





> as well as what could be perceived as a "nerdy development fetish".


By whom, contrarian Star Wars haters lol? Don't think those matter all that much (not counting the stans arguing over the sequels/etc. of course)


----------



## HansZimmer

SanAntone said:


> I have no fantasies glorifying what Mozart did. During Mozart's lifetime he was writing for the aristocracy, not "the masses." Even his operas were attended by the upper classes.


The masses of the aristocracy. The aristocrats were only people unfairly privileged who have fortunately lose their privileges thanks to the liberal revolutions. "Unfairly privileged" doesn't mean "intellectually superior", since you were an aristocrat by birth and not by merit. So, there were probably many idiots in the concerts of Mozart.


----------



## HansZimmer

SanAntone said:


> Again, the incidental works of great classical composers are of interest, not because of their inherent quality as music, but because every utterance of these great composers is of interest to us.


I don't agree. I'm listening to every single work of the most relevant composers, but I only save the memorable works. Speaking of incidental music, in my collection at the moment there are:

Beethoven, Ruins of Athen
Beethoven, Egmont
Mozart, Thamos, König in Agipten
Tchaikoivsky, The Snow Maiden

It's not that they are interesting for me only because they have been written from relevant composers, but because they contain nice music.

Along with suites of incidental music for theatre, I also have suites of incidental music for films or videogames. I don't know who is the "us" about who you are speaking: evidently "us" means "me". You are simply saying what you like and what you don't like.



> I would not equate the incidental music of Mozart or Beethoven with the film scores of John Williams. Mainly because the greatness of Mozart and Beethoven is well established, whereas we don't know how long after Williams's death his music will still be performed or what the critical opinion of it will end up being.


This is an Argumentum ad populum. Mozart and Beethoven were not good composers because the people have decided that they are, but because I can argument my position.
I'm also able to explain why John Williams, as well as many other major composers of film music, are good composers in my point of view. I don't need the approval of the society.

If the society is wise, then we must conclude that the DEMOCRATIC election of Hitler was the right thing, but it was not, because I can give my ethical arguments. The society does good things and bad things. The popularity of Mozart, Beethoven and John Williams for me are good things.
On the other hand, the popularity of artists like Rihanna, Drake or Justin Bieber is a bad thing, because their music is what I call "pop for supermarkets".



> Most film composers will probably suffer the same fate.


Who would you bet on? On the music of John Williams, or on the many irrelevant concert works of contemporary classical music that no one knows?

My opinion is that in the past the concert works were the most relevant, but in the society of today the incidental music for cinema is more relevant for the society than the last concert works.


----------



## HansZimmer

SanAntone said:


> This thread is about whether film music should be considered classical music. It is not about whether Mozart's greatness is deserved, or just, or whether the test of time is a meaningful gauge of greatness.


You used the "test of time" to argument your position. I think that it's a form of Argumentum ad populum.



> I happen to think that some film music is as good as some classical music I've heard. But certainly most film music is not.


I agree, but maybe we should speak about the subcategory of film scores that are performed in concerts and/or have won musical awards. If you apply this filter, the probabily to find very good works in my personal experience is high.

An other good filter might be the one based on composers: "only the scores of John Williams", "only the scores of James Horner", "only the scores of Ennio Morricone" and so on...


----------



## HansZimmer

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> Maybe this could be expanded by bringing up concrete examples of mediocre vs. good soundtracks and going into detail there. (And then comparing it to various non-FM etc.)


I'm watching the movies whose scores have won musical awards.


----------



## HansZimmer

SanAntone said:


> I'm sorry, but I cannot continue a discussion with someone who is unable to simply acknowledge that Mozart's operas are known because of his music, no matter who the librettist was.


If you ask me, the most memorable component of the Disney animated films of the nineties is the music. The animated films in itself are forgettable. However, thanks to the music, I have good remembrances of the products. So, are there cases in which the soundtracks is most memorable artistic part of a cinematic work and in which the film would look "naked" and "sterile" without the music? My answer is: yes!


----------



## hammeredklavier

It's about how you frame things. You know the famous saying, "play music from Wagner's Ring as soundtrack to modern film, and it won't sound out of place." People have even opined that the "Romantic period of music" is not over yet, and maybe never will; it maybe is the "final stage" of evolution of Western music. What we identify as the "Romantic period/idiom" may actually be the "Modern period/idiom", with some composers in the 20th/21th centuries doing some experimental things as subdivisions branched off from that.


----------



## Aries

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> Star Wars and Mad Max got mentioned here, both have lots of neo-romantic & dissonant stylistics and were clearly perceived as highly accessible:
> the former is also mostly romantic, and it's one of the most popular soundtracks in one of the mainstreamest film series one can think of.
> 
> So I don't quite understand what you mean by it being inaccessible to pleb listeners? Are you talking about some other kind of inaccessible?


My point is not that the new form of accessibility is not romantic, but that it is newer than late romantic music, and that Hans Zimmer's music is quite extreme in this regard even for neo-romantic music. I would say that John Williams' music is much more sophisticated than Hans Zimmer's or Thomas Bergersen's. However, this additional sophistication does not seem to be necessary for pleb listeners.

19th century romantic music is not inaccessible overall, especially compared to avant-garde music. However, in younger non-avant-garde works I often find a more modern sound language that immediately takes you along without resistance. It is not easy for me to say what makes this style fundamentally, but it seems to me that a simple musical structure and less motivic-harmonic playfulness contribute to this. Everything seems to be oriented towards an effective expression of a mood or atmosphere, and there are more instrumentation tools now.



YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> You mean early romanticism? It got less and less strict over time, as I understand it.


In late romanticism, rules of form were increasingly relaxed. However, forms were expanded and more personalized, which actually enhanced ideas of form and structure. Late romantic music has large arcs of tension and contrasts that require the listener to have patience, attention, understanding, and therefore experience. Short random sections of maybe 30 seconds sound more incomplete without context or at least feed the curiosity for other sections more. This seems to be different in neo-romantic music and a lot of young film music. Short sections of music are tend to be complete in and of themselves.

In late romanticism the complex structure serves to completely disassemble, examine from all sides, and fully handle themes. In neo-romantic music, on the other hand, the focus is more on the ornate but simple communication of a main idea. The approach seems more impressionistic, but without blurriness of historical french impressionism.



YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> Also no complex "forms" here, we're talking short pieces and moment-to-moment style here.


Hmm, I think the tripartition of the famous beginning of Strauss' Also sprach Zarathustra (the first number), the three run-ups are already too much structure and playfulness for the modern style like Zimmers.


----------



## hammeredklavier

There are also instances of now-famous composers "borrowing" things from now-neglected composers, but the now-famous composers get credit (given by the classical music community and academia) for "popularizing" them. Doesn't Williams also deserve credit (for "popularizing Stravinsky") in a similar fashion? Take for example, J.H. Knecht's pastoral symphony (1784), in terms of "programmatic" cyclic content it stands out from its time and became the basis for Beethoven's.

Btw, let's not get into arguments like "But Beethoven still wrote a better symphony". The evaluation (whether it's really better, or just different, or even just too much popular-music-like in comparison, etc) could depend on how one views the sequential repeats or www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdsbzkXxosI&t=3m18s, for instance.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

Aries said:


> My point is not that the new form of accessibility is not romantic, but that it is newer than late romantic music, and that Hans Zimmer's music is quite extreme in this regard even for neo-romantic music. I would say that John Williams' music is much more sophisticated than Hans Zimmer's or Thomas Bergersen's. However, this additional sophistication does not seem to be necessary for pleb listeners.


Well, doesn't stand in the way either - seems like sound and impact are the key factor here.



> 19th century romantic music is not inaccessible overall, especially compared to avant-garde music. However, in younger non-avant-garde works I often find a more modern sound language that immediately takes you along without resistance. It is not easy for me to say what makes this style fundamentally, but it seems to me that a simple musical structure and less motivic-harmonic playfulness contribute to this. Everything seems to be oriented towards an effective expression of a mood or atmosphere, and there are more instrumentation tools now.
> 
> 
> In late romanticism, rules of form were increasingly relaxed. However, forms were expanded and more personalized, which actually enhanced ideas of form and structure. Late romantic music has large arcs of tension and contrasts that require the listener to have patience, attention, understanding, and therefore experience. Short random sections of maybe 30 seconds sound more incomplete without context or at least feed the curiosity for other sections more. This seems to be different in neo-romantic music and a lot of young film music. Short sections of music are tend to be complete in and of themselves.
> 
> In late romanticism the complex structure serves to completely disassemble, examine from all sides, and fully handle themes. In neo-romantic music, on the other hand, the focus is more on the ornate but simple communication of a main idea. The approach seems more impressionistic, but without blurriness of historical french impressionism.


Hm well ok the problem is I can't quite follow what precisely you're talking about at all times - first I thought it was about what FM style is accessible/not, but turns out it was concert music? Or both?

And regarding the late 19th, are you referring to like large sweeping 1 hour movements and 2 hour long continuous operas? Well they had short pieces too - and following the transformations of basic themes / leitmotifs doesn't seem like a challenge to common listeners/filmgoers, again see JW/SW.
People like themes and tunes, those are as natural as "mood and atmosphere".

And then by "impressionist blurriness" are you referring to the surreal harmonies, or sth else?for filmgoers either.
Well those aren't a problem for filmgoers either.

Maybe I got the main gist lol, but some examples etc. would probably still be useful.




> Hmm, I think the tripartition of the famous beginning of Strauss' Also sprach Zarathustra (the first number), the three run-ups are already too much structure and playfulness for the modern style like Zimmers.


Hm for those typical aural wallpapers, sure, maybe - still a cultural icon though (just in case your point was that this much structure/etc. would scare audiences off lol? Not sure)


----------



## Luchesi

mmsbls said:


> I agree. Experts are not always correct, but they have a much better understanding of their field than lay people, not just through studying the field but also in interacting with other experts. If my view differed with an expert outside of my field, my first assumption would be that I'm missing something.


I wonder what percentage of people can analyze a work and put it into words and music theory terms, for another musician to follow.

What's the percentage of people today who can read music at an effortless level. My guess is 5 percent. I hope it's that high.


----------



## hammeredklavier

jojoju2000 said:


> You have to make the distinction between the Big Marvel Movies or other commercial *low brow* movies and more *high art* films too.


Speaking of "high art", there has been a debate on the forum that Mozart's Cosi fan tutte is a "misogynistic mince" (that there are issues of morality and sexism, not just "silliness", in its content) masquerading as "high art", implying that the whole opera as a work of art reflects the "low culture" of the time. But people have been advocating it with arguments to the effect of "Mozart only wrote the music, not caring enough to exert any significant influence on the plot or the libretti" (like how a film composer is asked to do in the course of a film production). It's still considered Mozart's greatest opera in some quarters (even in the academia, or "academic fans").

Btw, I'm not trying to argue anything is "overrated", in this thread. Even if something is not "high art", it doesn't mean people shouldn't "enjoy" it.


----------



## SanAntone

HansZimmer said:


> The masses of the aristocracy. The aristocrats were only people unfairly privileged who have fortunately lose their privileges thanks to the liberal revolutions. "Unfairly privileged" doesn't mean "intellectually superior", since you were an aristocrat by birth and not by merit. So, there were probably many idiots in the concerts of Mozart.
> You wrote: 'the popularity of artists like Rihanna, Drake or Justin Bieber is a bad thing, because their music is what I call "pop for supermarkets"'.


So you think that people who enjoy pop music, i.e. the mass audience, are mostly idiots? The classical music audience has consistently remained the music of a small class of people who are drawn to music written by composers reaching for a higher artistic level. But there is also quality pop, rock, rap, and movie music which transcends the worst of those genres. Often the same people who listen to classical music also listen to other genres - as long as the music has some exceptional artistic aspect in their opinion.

But this question is subjective. One classical music listener may find those artists you find 'pop for supermarkets' enjoyable and worthwhile and has a different opinion than you.



HansZimmer said:


> I don't agree. I'm listening to every single work of the most relevant composers, but I only save the memorable works. Speaking of incidental music, in my collection at the moment there are:
> 
> Beethoven, Ruins of Athen
> Beethoven, Egmont
> Mozart, Thamos, König in Agipten
> Tchaikoivsky, The Snow Maiden
> 
> It's not that they are interesting for me only because they have been written from relevant composers, but because they contain nice music.


What you think is of importance only to you. What you think doesn't define any music other than as the music you enjoy.

Those works you listed could be removed from the catalogs of their composers and the reputation of these composers would not suffer any damage. My impression is that you are using your personal taste as the basis for making a claim about movie music which I don't think is supported by any less subjective test.



> This is an Argumentum ad populum. Mozart and Beethoven were not good composers because the people have decided that they are, but because I can argument my position. I'm also able to explain why John Williams, as well as many other major composers of film music, are good composers in my point of view. I don't need the approval of the society.


The test of time is more than merely saying these composers are good because they are popular. In fact, they are good precisely because their music has survived despite not being embraced by a mass audience. And it has remained consistently performed by classical music musicians and institutions over hundreds of years.



> My opinion is that in the past the concert works were the most relevant, but in the society of today the incidental music for cinema is more relevant for the society than the last concert works.


There you go again applying your personal opinion to everybody. I certainly don't agree with you. The new music you dismiss I find more exciting and engaging than anything John Williams has written.



> [I agree, but maybe we should speak about the subcategory of film scores that are performed in concerts and/or have won musical awards. If you apply this filter, the probabily to find very good works in my personal experience is high.
> 
> An other good filter might be the one based on composers: "only the scores of John Williams", "only the scores of James Horner", "only the scores of Ennio Morricone" and so on...


You can move the goalposts anywhere you like, but it doesn't change the inherent problem with your claim.

You have put forward the claim, in the title of this thread, that there is "classical" music composed for movies. I reject that idea entirely. Even the music composed for movies by legitimate classical composers such as Shostakovich or Prokofiev is not classical music. The reason why it is programmed in classical music concerts is because the vast majority of their compositions are classical music concert works. When a composer writes a classical work his entire process is different from when he writes music for a movie. Even if the music "sounds" the same, its purpose defines its categorization. Movie soundtracks have to be re-arranged for concert use, and in effect become different in kind not just degree from their use in a movie.

John Williams has written over 450 film and television scores and fewer than 30 concert works. He is and will always be a film music composer who has dabbled in classical concert music. There is no comparison between his career and that of Shostakovich or Prokofiev, and I doubt his music will outlive his lifetime, and will not survive along with other 20th century classical music composers.

Enjoy what music you find worthwhile. But don't try to define it in a way that doesn't fit reality.


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> And it has remained consistently performed by classical music musicians and institutions over hundreds of years.


Apparently, Mozart also began to be "popular" only a few decades ago according to statistics of number of newspaper mentions per period, Browse Newspapers - Newspapers.com— Mozart is mentioned often since the 1980s. Before that composers of the Romantic period are dominating compared to those of the Classical and earlier periods. For example, "Richard Wagner" has 18,222 mentions in the 1910s, while "Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart" has 224. Wagner has 30,323 mentions in the 1950s, while Mozart has 2,739. Wagner has 28,540 mentions in the 1990s while Mozart has 22,409.


----------



## hammeredklavier

--------------------------------------


----------



## jojoju2000

mmsbls said:


> I assume so.
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> The argument in this thread against viewing film music as classical has to do with the process of creating film music compared to a different process creating classical music. Several composers in this thread have described the significant differences.
> 
> 
> 
> I assume everyone in this thread knows that Williams has written concert works not intended for film. He's capable of writing good film music and good classical music. "They" see in him the same things we do.


 in


Nawdry said:


> I've heard overtures, preludes, intermezzos, etc. for plays that can indeed work well as classical compositions independent of the dramatic work itself. They make sense when played independently in performance. But fragmentary motifs, ostinatos, pedal notes, etc. really don't work detached from the dramatic action. They sound like incomplete fragments of theatre music. Because they are.


Can you give me any examples ?


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> Movie soundtracks have to be re-arranged for concert use, and in effect become different in kind not just degree from their use in a movie.
> John Williams has written over 450 film and television scores and fewer than 30 concert works. He is and will always be a film music composer who has dabbled in classical concert music.


The Last Jedi: "The Battle of Crait”




This can be performed in concert, in its entirety,

just like




The Deutsche Grammophone recording of "Harry's Wondrous World"


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

SanAntone said:


> I agree. IMO most films have forgettable, superficial music, more closely related to pop than classical music. Or they have treacly, superficial , Romantic sounding orchestral music which loses most of its power divorced from the film scene it accompanied. (Those two examples posted of Hans Zimmer music are good examples of what I am talking about.)





HansZimmer said:


> The suite for The Gladiator is romantic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The suite for Dune is an other kind of music.


Just listened to both - sounded extremely powerful to me divorced from the film scenes (I've not watched Dune yet, and Gladiator's been years ago), and they worked well autonomously in general - does it get even more powerful in combination with the movie?

(And reasonably sure the heaviest Gladiator scenes weren't in there? There was the uplifting opening, then fast-paced action fireworks, and a melancholy number at the end.)






jojoju2000 said:


> Modern Movie Making however has been bastardized in my view.
> 
> 
> Martin Scorsese said once, that Marvel Movies are not Film. And he got a lot of pushback for that comment. But he’s right.


Depends what "Film(é)" means - lots of productions and genres going back centuries wouldn't fit his particular criteria for Cinema, not just the Marvel movies.
Think he didn't really go into detail in those comments did he?




> The 1920s-1980s, were in many ways the Classical Music Era of film. And the film composers were right there along for the ride. It was a symbiotic relationship. And they would write for a full orchestra.
> 
> Now ? The rise of electronic scoring,


Electronics were obviously introduced into CM / NM / avant-garde in the early 20th century - there's obviously a crucial difference between (or rather cognitive dissonance, it seems) CM and _unplugged_ CM:
i.e. the branch mainly using 19th century instruments and tech, except for recording - unamplified voices, and no e-instruments.

So maybe the latter ended in the 1980 - but the former? As a result of electronics?
Electronics had been used for film music & sound for a lot longer as well, at least since the 50s I think (creepy alien/horror/nightmare type stuff most memorably).
(ACHTUNG blurry statement and recollection though - can't name a single example by name right now; if they weren't b&w though then I'm obviously getting radio-Mandela'd by aliens myself.)



> the decline of Union Musicians, the monopolization of Films thanks to Disney, and the inability of high art films to gain box office success, and streaming as well. It has all changed how film and in essence Film music has worked, and that’s a bad thing.
> 
> If Williams for example were a young man today, his style of writing and composition would fly out the window. Writing by hand. The deep discussions with directors.


Well all these factors make a lot more sense - hadn't known much about this development, based on the articles linked here seems to be the case though.

Question is how universally though? Is Ramin Djawadi also affected by this kind of thing? Never made that impression in the interviews I've seen; neither did Zimmer for that matter.
Isn't Zimmer's whole gang powerful enough to arrange better conditions for themselves?


----------



## jojoju2000

SanAntone said:


> So you think that people who enjoy pop music, i.e. the mass audience, are mostly idiots? The classical music audience has consistently remained the music of a small class of people who are drawn to music written by composers reaching for a higher artistic level. But there is also quality pop, rock, rap, and movie music which transcends the worst of those genres. Often the same people who listen to classical music also listen to other genres - as long as the music has some exceptional artistic aspect in their opinion.
> 
> But this question is subjective. One classical music listener may find those artists you find 'pop for supermarkets' enjoyable and worthwhile and has a different opinion than you.
> 
> 
> 
> What you think is of importance only to you. What you think doesn't define any music other than as the music you enjoy.
> 
> Those works you listed could be removed from the catalogs of their composers and the reputation of these composers would not suffer any damage. My impression is that you are using your personal taste as the basis for making a claim about movie music which I don't think is supported by any less subjective test.
> 
> 
> 
> The test of time is more than merely saying these composers are good because they are popular. In fact, they are good precisely because their music has survived despite not being embraced by a mass audience. And it has remained consistently performed by classical music musicians and institutions over hundreds of years.
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again applying your personal opinion to everybody. I certainly don't agree with you. The new music you dismiss I find more exciting and engaging than anything John Williams has written.
> 
> 
> 
> You can move the goalposts anywhere you like, but it doesn't change the inherent problem with your claim.
> 
> You have put forward the claim, in the title of this thread, that there is "classical" music composed for movies. I reject that idea entirely. Even the music composed for movies by legitimate classical composers such as Shostakovich or Prokofiev is not classical music. The reason why it is programmed in classical music concerts is because the vast majority of their compositions are classical music concert works. When a composer writes a classical work his entire process is different from when he writes music for a movie. Even if the music "sounds" the same, its purpose defines its categorization. Movie soundtracks have to be re-arranged for concert use, and in effect become different in kind not just degree from their use in a movie.
> 
> John Williams has written over 450 film and television scores and fewer than 30 concert works. He is and will always be a film music composer who has dabbled in classical concert music. *There is no comparison between his career and that of Shostakovich or Prokofiev, and I doubt his music will outlive his lifetime, and will not survive along with other 20th century classical music composers.*
> 
> Enjoy what music you find worthwhile. But don't try to define it in a way that doesn't fit reality.


Problem with the bolded statement is that you're assuming John Williams and let's face it, any modern film or classical composer is operating in the same unified enviroment that our culture used to grow in. 

As I said before, we live in a polarized, fractured, and increasingly diverse society now. We don't have a general consensus on culture anymore. When Prokofiev and Shostakovich were alive, Western Culture was still for the most part...... gelled together. This allowed the perpetuation of such "elitist " composers like for example Mozart to the lower and middle classes.

Of course, John Williams might not have long term viability. But you know what ? So will Tania Leon and John Coolidge Adams. Because the fine arts do not hold the same status as they did just 40 years ago. 

So what does it say about Classical Music as a whole ? Is it becoming a Dying Art ?

I mean you're never. Never. Going to have Something like this again.


----------



## jojoju2000

hammeredklavier said:


> The Last Jedi: "The Battle of Crait”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This can be performed in concert, in its entirety,
> 
> just like
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Deutsche Grammophone recording of "Harry's Wondrous World"


1. While we've been arguing amongst ourselves, John Williams has been conquering the Classical Music World outside of our Talk Classical forum bubble it seems.

The Vienna Philharmonic, The Berlin Philharmonic, and just a week or so ago, the Milan Orchestra. 

Perhaps, they're seeing something in John Williams that we have not ? I mean, they're not inviting Zimmer.

2. Also regarding the Last Jedi Battle of Crait, the Question becomes why hasn't John Williams programmed the music then ?

The guy is known to be increasingly self deprecating and somewhat of a musical recluse if that makes sense ? To the point of hiding his own music from people like Gustavo Dudamel, and Brett Mitchell, Stephanie Deneve, who have tried to get Williams to release more of his music without much success.


----------



## jojoju2000

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> Just listened to both - sounded extremely powerful to me divorced from the film scenes (I've not watched Dune yet, and Gladiator's been years ago), and they worked well autonomously in general - does it get even more powerful in combination with the movie?
> 
> 1. (And reasonably sure the heaviest Gladiator scenes weren't in there? There was the uplifting opening, then fast-paced action fireworks, and a melancholy number at the end.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Depends what "Film(é)" means - lots of productions and genres going back centuries wouldn't fit his particular criteria for Cinema, not just the Marvel movies.
> Think he didn't really go into detail in those comments did he?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Electronics were obviously introduced into CM / NM / avant-garde in the early 20th century - there's obviously a crucial difference between (or rather cognitive dissonance, it seems) CM and _unplugged_ CM:
> i.e. the branch mainly using 19th century instruments and tech, except for recording - unamplified voices, and no e-instruments.
> 
> So maybe the latter ended in the 1980 - but the former? As a result of electronics?
> Electronics had been used for film music & sound for a lot longer as well, at least since the 50s I think (creepy alien/horror/nightmare type stuff most memorably).
> (ACHTUNG blurry statement and recollection though - can't name a single example by name right now; if they weren't b&w though then I'm obviously getting radio-Mandela'd by aliens myself.)
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Well all these factors make a lot more sense - hadn't known much about this development, based on the articles linked here seems to be the case though.
> 
> Question is how universally though? Is Ramin Djawadi also affected by this kind of thing? Never made that impression in the interviews I've seen; neither did Zimmer for that matter.
> Isn't Zimmer's whole gang powerful enough to arrange better conditions for themselves?


" Zimmer's whole gang " adapted by switching over completely to what I call the Bastardization of Film Music. 




It's cheaper, faster. And you don't have to rely on a whole orchestra anymore. And if you have to use orchesteral real music, you can just hire a few NON UNIONIZED Musicians from Eastern Europe. 

John Williams doesn't work that way. He is one of the few, actually the last Film Composer in Hollywood, who writes completely by hand for a full orchestra, and using UNION musicians ( This is very very important in the discourse of the relationship between Film and Classical Music in my view ).


----------



## mmsbls

jojoju2000 said:


> in
> 
> Can you give me any examples ?


You quoted two people in your post so I'm not sure what specific examples you wish to see.


----------



## jojoju2000

mmsbls said:


> You quoted two people in your post so I'm not sure what specific examples you wish to see.


Like comparing music for a play back then with say a film score today.


----------



## mmsbls

jojoju2000 said:


> Like comparing music for a play back then with say a film score today.


Perhaps Nawdry has examples.


----------



## jojoju2000

SanAntone said:


> So you think that people who enjoy pop music, i.e. the mass audience, are mostly idiots? The classical music audience has consistently remained the music of a small class of people who are drawn to music written by composers reaching for a higher artistic level. But there is also quality pop, rock, rap, and movie music which transcends the worst of those genres. Often the same people who listen to classical music also listen to other genres - as long as the music has some exceptional artistic aspect in their opinion.
> 
> But this question is subjective. One classical music listener may find those artists you find 'pop for supermarkets' enjoyable and worthwhile and has a different opinion than you.
> 
> 
> 
> What you think is of importance only to you. What you think doesn't define any music other than as the music you enjoy.
> 
> Those works you listed could be removed from the catalogs of their composers and the reputation of these composers would not suffer any damage. My impression is that you are using your personal taste as the basis for making a claim about movie music which I don't think is supported by any less subjective test.
> 
> 
> 
> *The test of time is more than merely saying these composers are good because they are popular. In fact, they are good precisely because their music has survived despite not being embraced by a mass audience. And it has remained consistently performed by classical music musicians and institutions over hundreds of years.*
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again applying your personal opinion to everybody. I certainly don't agree with you. The new music you dismiss I find more exciting and engaging than anything John Williams has written.
> 
> 
> 
> You can move the goalposts anywhere you like, but it doesn't change the inherent problem with your claim.
> 
> You have put forward the claim, in the title of this thread, that there is "classical" music composed for movies. I reject that idea entirely. Even the music composed for movies by legitimate classical composers such as Shostakovich or Prokofiev is not classical music. The reason why it is programmed in classical music concerts is because the vast majority of their compositions are classical music concert works. When a composer writes a classical work his entire process is different from when he writes music for a movie. Even if the music "sounds" the same, its purpose defines its categorization. Movie soundtracks have to be re-arranged for concert use, and in effect become different in kind not just degree from their use in a movie.
> 
> John Williams has written over 450 film and television scores and fewer than 30 concert works. He is and will always be a film music composer who has dabbled in classical concert music. There is no comparison between his career and that of Shostakovich or Prokofiev, and I doubt his music will outlive his lifetime, and will not survive along with other 20th century classical music composers.
> 
> Enjoy what music you find worthwhile. But don't try to define it in a way that doesn't fit reality.


Also, the other bolded statement, I find it to be contradicting. The only reason why Mozart has been able to " live on " to today, is because the cultural enviroment he lived in allowed his music overtime, to seep down to the lower and the increasingly larger middle classes who demanded music that was more " easy to understand " than the Church Music like Gregorian Chant, that occupied the Aristocracy.

It's not because he didn't write for a " Popular audience". That has no historical backing. In fact, many historians of music and sociologists have pointed out that it was the MIDDLE class and not the aristocracy who funded and perpetuated the Classical Music of Mozart, Bach, and later on, Wagner, and so on.


It was actually quite taboo for the aristocracy to go into music as a career.


----------



## Aries

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> Well, doesn't stand in the way either - seems like sound and impact are the key factor here.
> 
> Hm well ok the problem is I can't quite follow what precisely you're talking about at all times - first I thought it was about what FM style is accessible/not, but turns out it was concert music? Or both?
> 
> And regarding the late 19th, are you referring to like large sweeping 1 hour movements and 2 hour long continuous operas? Well they had short pieces too - and following the transformations of basic themes / leitmotifs doesn't seem like a challenge to common listeners/filmgoers, again see JW/SW.
> People like themes and tunes, those are as natural as "mood and atmosphere".
> 
> And then by "impressionist blurriness" are you referring to the surreal harmonies, or sth else?for filmgoers either.
> Well those aren't a problem for filmgoers either.
> 
> Maybe I got the main gist lol, but some examples etc. would probably still be useful.
> 
> Hm for those typical aural wallpapers, sure, maybe - still a cultural icon though (just in case your point was that this much structure/etc. would scare audiences off lol? Not sure)


Neither John Williams nor Richard Strauss scare audiences off, but their styles is also not the trend, so I assume for pleb listeners there is something else more effective at least with less effort.

The question was whether film music composers are able to create new styles or developments, or if only concert composers can do that. Imo there are new things in neo-romantic music and film composers contribute to this and embody it maybe even in the most extrem form. The trend is roughly more accessability (except the addition of dissonance) + less depth. This is a trend I see in both film and concert music. There is not really a split in this regard.

Now examples for such neo-romantic music:

Samuel Barber: Symphony No. 1: Link (rather dissonant but despite that very urgent music, much shorter than late romantic symphonies)
Bernard Herrman: Symphony: Link (Interessting first 2:30 minutes - the first 30 seconds are rather brusquely dismissive what would fit the 19th century more; than the music gets extremly rousing with masterful instrumentation. I think Herrmann found out soon afterwards that his situational style fits film music more than concert music.
Dimitri Shostakovich: The song of the forests - We will clothe our homelands with forests: Link (Bad example regarding structure, because there is much structure, but the appealing, engaging vitality is remarkable and would not really fit in the 19th century imo)
Georgy Sviridov: Music for chamber orchestra: Presto: Link (very characterful, intersseting mood picture, but simple structure)
Janis Ivanovs: Symphony No. 17: Link (pleasant and agreeable music even when somewhat tenacious at times. It seems to me that tenaciousness in 19th century music has a greater tendency to bore instead of pleasing.)
Shunsuke Kikuchi: DBZ BGM Collection: Link (remarkable how highly concentrated, self-contained and effective these short expressions are.)
Jeremy Soule: Harry Potter: Link (very good example, Soule is maybe also one of the best example composers for this like Zimmer, but Soule is less kitschy)
Alma Deutscher: Violin Concerto: Link (not really neo-romantic, but it shows that the same kind of changes can be applyed to the classical style too, compare this too a violin concerto of Beethoven or Mozart, I found that Beethoven and Mozart systematically do thing Deutscher doesn't do and vice versa.)

Maybe the overall point is that the neo-romantic style is more engaging, while 19th century music is more cerebral.


----------



## SanAntone

jojoju2000 said:


> Problem with the bolded statement is that you're assuming John Williams and let's face it, any modern film or classical composer is operating in the same unified enviroment that our culture used to grow in.
> 
> As I said before, we live in a polarized, fractured, and increasingly diverse society now. We don't have a general consensus on culture anymore. When Prokofiev and Shostakovich were alive, Western Culture was still for the most part...... gelled together. This allowed the perpetuation of such "elitist " composers like for example Mozart to the lower and middle classes.


I don't accept your analysis, it does not jibe with my own (and a number of my friends') experience. Yes we live in a more polyglot society, with hundreds of genres of music available globally and instantaneously to anyone with access to the Internet. This is good, and it does not destroy a person's ability to perceive Mozart as classical music and John Williams as a composer of film music. Nor does it make it impossible for people to know why they like the music they listen to, across several genres.



> Of course, John Williams might not have long term viability. But you know what ? So will Tania Leon and John Coolidge Adams. Because the fine arts do not hold the same status as they did just 40 years ago.
> 
> So what does it say about Classical Music as a whole ? Is it becoming a Dying Art ?


I don't think classical music is dying. If anything streaming has increased the access to classical music to people who never gave it a thought. As far the long term viability of classical music composers writing today, we can't say for sure whose music will survive. But we do know which composers are the most performed and enjoy the best reputations among the professional classical music community. This is no different that what was true during the lifetimes of Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, and right up to today's composers.

From the 20th century I would expect the music of Stravinsky, Shostakovich, Boulez, Bartok, Britten, and maybe even John Luther Adams as well as the other John Adams to survive long after their deaths. But they write serious music with more in it than any film score by John Williams (no matter how popular his music is) or the derivative works he has produced. 

As far as avant-garde composers. Except for a few names who have written landmark works (Cage, Riley, Glass, Reich) I think most of their music is as ephemeral as pop. But I could be wrong. There are some young compsers writing very exciting music, and stylistically there are composers whose music is not off-putting to an average listener.. Someone in the under 40 group of composers might establish themselves for the long term. Someone like Nico Muhly, maybe.


----------



## jojoju2000

SanAntone said:


> I don't accept your analysis, it does not jibe with my own (and a number of my friends') experience. Yes we live in a more polyglot society, with hundreds of genres of music available globally and instantaneously to anyone with access to the Internet. This is good, and it does not destroy a person's ability to perceive Mozart as classical music and John Williams as a composer of film music. Nor does it make it impossible for people to know why they like the music they listen to, across several genres.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think classical music is dying. If anything streaming has increased the access to classical music to people who never gave it a thought. As far the long term viability of classical music composers writing today, we can't say for sure whose music will survive. But we do know which composers are the most performed and enjoy the best reputations among the professional classical music community. This is no different that what was true during the lifetimes of Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, and right up to today's composers.
> 
> From the 20th century I would expect the music of Stravinsky, Shostakovich, Boulez, Bartok, Britten, and maybe even John Luther Adams as well as the other John Adams to survive long after their deaths. But they write serious music with more in it than any film score by John Williams (no matter how popular his music is) or the derivative works he has produced.
> 
> As far as avant-garde composers. Except for a few names who have written landmark works (Cage, Riley, Glass, Reich) I think most of their music is as ephemeral as pop. But I could be wrong. There are some young compsers writing very exciting music, and stylistically there are composers whose music is not off-putting to an average listener.. Someone in the under 40 group of composers might establish themselves for the long term. Someone like Nico Muhly, maybe.


Stravinsky, Shostakovich, Boulez, Bartok, all of these composers you listed, worked and lived in a time when there was still a UNIFIED WESTERN CULTURE. Where the cultural fabric of society was such that their music was able to live on in time in both the high brow and low brow worlds. Where the Middle Classes were able to enjoy such music along with well...... everyone else.

That should be the hallmark of longevity in Western Culture, or global culture as a whole. 

I mean, look at this. 




You're never going to have this today. Tell me if Nico Muhly can do this, or any modern composer like Tania Leon for example, and have the widest viewing audience possible.

And that's exactly my point ! We don't live in a unified cultural fabric which allows for modern composers to be perpetuated outside the Ivory towers to the general public, like what happened with Mozart, or Beethoven. It actually should be noted that Beethoven was a incredibly famous superstar in his own right, during his lifetime with the burgeoning growing middle class ( which is incredibly important I think in our discourse. Economics, and Politics play a role in the development of music. ). It was the middle classes in the late 1800s who began to fund many of the so called conservatories, not exactly the Aristocracy, who by this time were less wealthy than the Industrialists like Carnigie and Rockefeller. 

That doesn't happen anymore. Economic inequality, the decline of Union musicians, the fracturing of Music as a whole, have all accelerated Classical Music's status as a niche product.

Some might point to China as a counter example, but it just proves my point in the long run. China has a growing middle class, with money and resources to spend. 

So all in all, if Nico Muhly can recevie the Kennedy Center Honors, have sold out concerts around the world, and have a literal school named after him, that I will consider his legacy to be long lasting, outside and inside the academic sphere.


Popularity and High art are not mutually exclusive by the way, it's only in the last 60 years thanks to the fracturing of culture that we've seen this dichtomy. But Beethoven most historians would admit was a superstar during his time. 

And even up until the 1980s, we had the Boston Symphony Orchestra, and conductors such as Leonard Bernstein, and John Williams by the way, touring around the world, performing Music.


----------



## mikeh375

jojoju2000 said:


> " Zimmer's whole gang " adapted by switching over completely to what I call the Bastardization of Film Music.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *It's cheaper, faster. And you don't have to rely on a whole orchestra anymore.* And if you have to use orchesteral real music, you can just hire a few NON UNIONIZED Musicians from Eastern Europe.
> 
> John Williams doesn't work that way. He is one of the few, actually the last Film Composer in Hollywood, who writes completely by hand for a full orchestra, and using UNION musicians ( This is very very important in the discourse of the relationship between Film and Classical Music in my view ).


----------



## bargolus

I asked ChatGPT what it thought about film music and classical music and it was pretty adamant 










I then asked it to provide an example and it compared Star Wars to Beethoven 5th, saying that Star Wars had more "epic grandeur"


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

so the sw theme doesn't have clear melodies

but it uses epic snare drums which makes it film music


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

hammeredklavier said:


> The Last Jedi: "The Battle of Crait”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This can be performed in concert, in its entirety,
> 
> just like
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Deutsche Grammophone recording of "Harry's Wondrous World"


The latter HP is from the end credits / the album's title track, so it's an autonomous piece that works on its own / as absolute music.

The TLJ example is the polar opposite - had it been written as a concert piece, in this exact form, it'd be effectively program music - clearly depicting some sort of fight, with the battle tides turning, mood swings / character leitmotifs appearing, and all this stuff going on;
the audience would immediately understand that that's the kind of composition they're dealing with, and (esp. if the music is successful) their brains would start conjuring up images of what might be happening in that plot conveyed by the music.


By contrast, here's another action piece from SW which works a lot better on its own (at least up to 0:37, arguably) - because it was written as part of a very focused and aesthetically structured sequence that doesn't switch between several perspectives, features twists and surprise appearances etc., and is evidently supposed to make a musical impression by itself:





That of course after setting it up with the no-music half of the sequence, which can almost be said to work as a percussion solo:







It'd probably come off as an "image piece" or idk what that tends to be called - still clearly portraying sth going on, but having a clear drive of its own.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

jojoju2000 said:


> " Zimmer's whole gang " adapted by switching over completely to what I call the Bastardization of Film Music.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's cheaper, faster. And you don't have to rely on a whole orchestra anymore. And if you have to use orchesteral real music, you can just hire a few NON UNIONIZED Musicians from Eastern Europe.
> 
> John Williams doesn't work that way. He is one of the few, actually the last Film Composer in Hollywood, who writes completely by hand for a full orchestra, and using UNION musicians ( This is very very important in the discourse of the relationship between Film and Classical Music in my view ).


I'm not really getting your point lol?

Are you saying a hand and a piece of paper are more expensive than state-of-the-art computers and synthesizers, or an orchestra?
Are you saying if Williams writes it with a pen, it's better than Zimmer in his head / on a MIDI app?
Or that real instruments = better than synths?
Even though those synths sound great, and he also uses real instruments like zose 2 horns way above the orchestra? And Williams has used electronic sounds as well?

The Union thing well yes, that's sociopolitical and workers' rights stuff, that's a different matter entirely - even though I don't fully understand it either.

But the other points I don't even get lol
Let's say "it's cheaper and faster", how exactly, and in what ways, does that make his products worse?

He's got less autonomy?
The Prague musicians don't play as well?
Sth else?
What's getting "bastardized"?


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

Aries said:


> Neither John Williams nor Richard Strauss scare audiences off, but their styles is also not the trend, so I assume for pleb listeners there is something else more effective at least with less effort.
> 
> The question was whether film music composers are able to create new styles or developments, or if only concert composers can do that. Imo there are new things in neo-romantic music and film composers contribute to this and embody it maybe even in the most extrem form. The trend is roughly more accessability (except the addition of dissonance) + less depth. This is a trend I see in both film and concert music. There is not really a split in this regard.
> 
> Now examples for such neo-romantic music:
> 
> Samuel Barber: Symphony No. 1: Link (rather dissonant but despite that very urgent music, much shorter than late romantic symphonies)
> Bernard Herrman: Symphony: Link (Interessting first 2:30 minutes - the first 30 seconds are rather brusquely dismissive what would fit the 19th century more; than the music gets extremly rousing with masterful instrumentation. I think Herrmann found out soon afterwards that his situational style fits film music more than concert music.
> Dimitri Shostakovich: The song of the forests - We will clothe our homelands with forests: Link (Bad example regarding structure, because there is much structure, but the appealing, engaging vitality is remarkable and would not really fit in the 19th century imo)
> Georgy Sviridov: Music for chamber orchestra: Presto: Link (very characterful, intersseting mood picture, but simple structure)
> Janis Ivanovs: Symphony No. 17: Link (pleasant and agreeable music even when somewhat tenacious at times. It seems to me that tenaciousness in 19th century music has a greater tendency to bore instead of pleasing.)
> Shunsuke Kikuchi: DBZ BGM Collection: Link (remarkable how highly concentrated, self-contained and effective these short expressions are.)
> Jeremy Soule: Harry Potter: Link (very good example, Soule is maybe also one of the best example composers for this like Zimmer, but Soule is less kitschy)
> Alma Deutscher: Violin Concerto: Link (not really neo-romantic, but it shows that the same kind of changes can be applyed to the classical style too, compare this too a violin concerto of Beethoven or Mozart, I found that Beethoven and Mozart systematically do thing Deutscher doesn't do and vice versa.)
> 
> Maybe the overall point is that the neo-romantic style is more engaging, while 19th century music is more cerebral.


Hm, while I'm going through all of those and more, just one thing ahead:



> Neither *John Williams *nor Richard Strauss scare audiences off, *but their styles is also not the trend*, so I assume for pleb listeners there is something else more effective at least with less effort.


In what way not, isn't Williams like at the very top of popular big franchise soundtracks? Or at least was as late as 2019?


----------



## mikeh375

Aries said:


> Neither John Williams nor Richard Strauss scare audiences off, but their styles is also not the trend.....





YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> In what way not, isn't Williams like at the very top of popular big franchise soundtracks? Or at least was as late as 2019?


I think @Aries is possibly referring to the fact that JW's style of scoring (or perhaps that should read musical know-how) is not as in demand these days as it might have been 20-30 or more years ago when links to a more traditional way of writing and scoring where more prevalent. Whether I've read @Aries correctly or not, the rise of the DAW (which can justifiably be seen as the polar opposite to William's compositional approach), has tended to democratise the business of film scoring, affecting what one might see as any mastery of craft by enabling a lower compositional standard or bar (in terms of orchestral writing that is), to become acceptable - not just aesthetically and technically, but also in a practical way because of the DAW's convenience during composing, presenting ideas and post-production. The DAW has in other words, contributed much to the demise of an older school, traditional orchestral approach and has enabled newer approaches to scoring to become popular.

For me, the now ubiquitous use of the DAW and its impact is not neccessarily bad because the movement away from the purely orchestral over the years has also opened up much expressive and dramatic potential in filmic terms with sound - a potential the DAW partly instigated and can maximise to the fullest.(The soundtrack to 'Gravity' for example was composed with spatialisation incorporated as a technique, utilising surround sound so that music moved in the audio field to mimic how it would be if the characters heard the sound. This was only possible thanks to the DAW and general technology available and was as much sound design as score.

The DAW's impact however bears heavily on the OP's question as I see it because clearly orchestral music is still in demand for film, but is not always being written to the highest standards of orchestral writing other than what orchestral samples used in a DAW can playback convincingly enough (they have limitations at present). This is yet another reason why a place alongside the canon for much in the way of filmscore can be problematical for me because scoring for a real orchestra and with a good technique vastly expands expressive potential. Some of the more creative and idiomatic orchestral effects and timbres are difficult to achieve with current samples, if not impossible, although samples are getting better and better. 
Here is an example of the samples used in media music today.
Spitfire Audio — Spitfire Appassionata Strings


----------



## HansZimmer

SanAntone said:


> If you do not value the court and church music by Haydn, Mozart, or Bach, any more than film music, by Zimmer, Williams, or Goldsmith, that is your subjective opinion. * I happen to discern a fairly large qualitative difference.*


I don't, so your opinion is also a subjective opinion. I give a 10/10 to some film scores, which means that a piece of concert music can only be as good as them, but not better than them. Infact, above 10/10 there is nothing.
Maybe I should add that you can't use any technical argument to put down the film scores about which I speak: I like them because they have a lot of expressivity, which requires an elaborate sound and therefore a clever technique.
I don't know which objective argument do you want to use against John Williams: you can only say that you don't enjoy his music. He is a well formed composer and his technical knowledge comes out in the film scores.


----------



## Aries

mikeh375 said:


> I think @Aries is possibly referring to the fact that JW's style of scoring (or perhaps that should read musical know-how) is not as in demand these days as it might have been 20-30 or more years ago when links to a more traditional way of writing and scoring where more prevalent.


Yes. Having John Williams at the top is nice, but he is old and I don't see young successors in his style.

Russian composer Alexey Rybnikov said:


> "It's very important in cinema for the music to provide a unique and different perspective, something that modern directors don't appreciate. They just want background music that doesn't distract from and supports the plot: illustrative music that is uninteresting to the composer."











Алексей Рыбников: «Я вообще в жизни ни одной песни не писал, чтобы вы знали» | Colta.ru


Председатель Союза композиторов — об уроках Арама Хачатуряна, советах Марка Захарова, премьере оперы-драмы «Князь Андрей» и своем magnum opus «Секвенция Ультима»




www.colta.ru





John Williams is a composer who wrote music with its own independent character, and the films benefit from the independent greatness of the music. For me it seems like the trend is that music gets more illustrative and subordinated to films and other things. The results are not all bad, but art including independent music is the higher art form imo.


----------



## HansZimmer

mmsbls said:


> The argument in this thread against viewing film music as classical has to do with the process of creating film music compared to a different process creating classical music. Several composers in this thread have described the significant differences.


False. They have described the differences between composing concert works and film music, not between composing classical music and film music.


----------



## HansZimmer

mmsbls said:


> I agree. Experts are not always correct, but they have a much better understanding of their field than lay people, not just through studying the field but also in interacting with other experts. If my view differed with an expert outside of my field, my first assumption would be that I'm missing something.


Here you have only read the opinions of some experts WHO DON'T LIKE FILM MUSIC. Do you really think that a so little and biased sample is the word of god? Furthermore you are probably forgetting that there are also musical experts in the faction of this forum who believes that classical music composed for film scores is classical music.


----------



## mikeh375

HansZimmer said:


> False. They have described the differences between composing concert works and film music, not between composing classical music and film music.


...same difference. Some musical paradigms and techniques remain constant.



HansZimmer said:


> Here you have only read the opinions of *some experts WHO DON'T LIKE FILM MUSIC.* Do you really think that a so little and biased sample is the word of god? Furthermore you are probably forgetting that there are also *musical experts in the faction of this forum who believes that classical music composed for film scores is classical music.*


Well for the record again, I like some, no actually, lots of film music. Perhaps then you should consider the answer to the OP question a draw if it's so important to you, because you aint changing any minds from what I can see, least of all mine.


----------



## mikeh375

Here's an interesting quote from Thomas Newman. Irrespective of the quip at the end, the bolded (mine), is not what you might expect as a default starting position from a composer contemplating writing purely for the concert hall....(and that's to include 'classical' music btw, Hans). Of course the bolded is a an approach to film scoring that should always be in the back of a film composer's mind. This hints at one of the constraints one needs to be cognizant of in film composing that is imo, anathema to absolute CCHM ( classical and/or concert hall music) composing.

_Regarding his primary occupation, Newman said, "Music has to be involving. I just like to underline subtext in my film work and make you involved in the story." He said that, *for film, he preferred creating music that was "rich in its color but static in its harmony," finding that "more harmonic movement" can be distracting and "you never want to upstage an actor," a line that drew laughter from the crowd.*_

FMS FEATURE [LA Phil Offers Concert Works by Film Composers - by Jon Burlingame]


----------



## mmsbls

HansZimmer said:


> False. They have described the differences between composing concert works and film music, not between composing classical music and film music.


As MikeH says, the argument refers to all classical music.


----------



## mmsbls

HansZimmer said:


> Here you have only read the opinions of some experts WHO DON'T LIKE FILM MUSIC. Do you really think that a so little and biased sample is the word of god? Furthermore you are probably forgetting that there are also musical experts in the faction of this forum who believes that classical music composed for film scores is classical music.


My view of film music did not come from people on TC. When I first encountered the question, I searched for the views of film composers on whether they viewed film music as classical music. I could not find many direct quotes about the issue, but the few I found agree very closely with MikeH's view. The process is different. Philip Glass and John Corigliano talk about the differences in this Gramophone interview. I found a few other discussions then which I can't find now, but they basically all said similar things. 

MikeH mentions that he enjoys lots of film music, and he made that clear earlier in the thread as well. Were there any TC composers who stated that they don't like film music? Are there composers on TC who believe film music is classical music? I don't know everyone's background on TC so I may not have realized that someone here is a professional composer with that view. 

Can I ask why it's so important to you that any and every argument against your view is attacked? I have said it's reasonable for people to believe that film music is classical music. After hearing the process argument, why don't you think it's also reasonable to think film music is not classical? They are different viewpoints.


----------



## hammeredklavier

mmsbls said:


> Philip Glass and John Corigliano talk about the differences in this Gramophone interview. I found a few other discussions then which I can't find now, but they basically all said similar things.


Philip Glass does explicitly say "Today film is what opera was formerly" in that interview though. And dictionaries officially define "incidental music" as
"background music for a film, television programme, etc music intended primarily to point up or accompany parts of the action of a play or to serve as transitional material between scenes." (Dictionary.com [link]) / "music used in a film or play as a background to create or enhance a particular atmosphere." (Colins Dictionary [link]) / "Music composed to accompany the action or dialogue of a play, film, television program, or other entertainment or to fill intervals between scenes or acts." (Macmillan Dictionary [link]) / "Music composed to accompany the action or dialogue of a play, film, television program, or other entertainment or to fill intervals between scenes or acts." (The Free Dictionary [link]) / "Music used to enhance plays and dramatizations, on stage, radio, TV, or film." (The Canadian Encyclopedia [link]) 

I have to agree with YusufeVirdayyLmao that, in the end, only time will tell.



mmsbls said:


> Were there any TC composers who stated that they don't like film music? Are there composers on TC who believe film music is classical music? I don't know everyone's background on TC so I may not have realized that someone here is a professional composer with that view.


I won't mention the name specifically, but one of those 'composers' on the forum sounded like he was jealous he had never made as much money or gained as much fame as Williams professionally. I mean, the member who talked like "anyone can replace Williams". I tend to take with a grain of salt what they say about composers who are more commercially successful than them.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

hammeredklavier said:


> I have to agree with YusufeVirdayyLmao that, in the end, only time will tell.


Little nitpick there, I said more or less the opposite of that - i.e. that thinking about what some future consensus might end up looking like is pointless, and that that future consensus could end up being a case of arbitrary herd mentality as well as possibly some sort of time-acquired wisdom;
so really just being agnostic and indifferent about it - trying to figure things out in the now etc.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

mikeh375 said:


> _Regarding his primary occupation, Newman said, "Music has to be involving. I just like to underline subtext in my film work and make you involved in the story." He said that, *for film, he preferred creating music that was "rich in its color but static in its harmony," finding that "more harmonic movement" can be distracting and "you never want to upstage an actor," a line that drew laughter from the crowd.*_
> 
> FMS FEATURE [LA Phil Offers Concert Works by Film Composers - by Jon Burlingame]


Ok, so, evidently and obviously it's sometimes easier to ask questions than quickly process all the replies and answers lol, but I guess I'll add another question here:

What exactly is meant by "static harmony" vs. "more harmonic movement" - is it about harmony changes per second/minute/etc., or something else?


----------



## Forster

Aries said:


> Yes. Having John Williams at the top is nice, but he is old and I don't see young successors in his style.


Didn't we already establish that your knowledge of current film composers is somewhat limited, so you wouldn't "see young successors" in his style anyway, not that they aren't there.

It seems that those who wish to argue either or both of "film music that sounds classical is classical" and "film score composition has been in decline since the good old days and only John Williams is left" are either incapable of following anyone else's argument, or they just ignore it and continue to repeat their assertions.

I'm also reminded of the "greatest ever" lists of films which, depending on the audience surveyed, usually pick out the films with which the audience was most familiar in their formative years. Here's an example, from 2001:

Star Wars named all-time favourite film | UK news | The Guardian

No wonder Williams is so popular, given he wrote the soundtrack to some hugely successful movies across 5 or 6 decades. I don't object to such bias. I'm doubtless guilty of it myself. But it needs to be recognised.


----------



## mikeh375

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> Ok, so, evidently and obviously it's sometimes easier to ask questions than quickly process all the replies and answers lol, but I guess I'll add another question here:
> 
> What exactly is meant by "static harmony" vs. "more harmonic movement" - is it about harmony changes per second/minute/etc., or something else?


Yes it's pretty much what you described. Too much movement can impinge on a scene, drawing attention to the music and away from the main focus, that of the dialogue. The same problems of musical attention seeking can arise if the orchestration is too heavy or diverse in timbre - i.e. less consistent in sound - when used in a quieter scene. Melody and/or top line register - as in pitch range - can be an issue too as it might also clash with the dialogue. Music can be too busy for a scene. Dynamics need to be carefully regulated and manipulated, crescendos for example can add greatly to the drama and not necessarily just loud ones for big moments. More subtle, gentler crescendos can also enhance moments on screen, infusing some added emotive emphasis if required.

Film composers understand these concepts and any potential pitfalls so they work with them or around them. There are always incidences where these approaches can be disregarded as there is no 'correct' way to score a scene other than what the collaborators involved agree upon. But understanding when to 'push' the music takes experience and good instincts...and the director's say so and/ or approval.
What really helps gauge the effectiveness of any music a composer writes against the dialogue and sfx is that they will have a stem of the dialogue and can run that along with the mock-up of the score within the DAW, all in sync to the picture. The composer and director can then hear how well the music is working and can even create a mock-up of what the final dubb may sound like and fine tune the music from there.


----------



## Aries

Forster said:


> Didn't we already establish that your knowledge of current film composers is somewhat limited, so you wouldn't "see young successors" in his style anyway, not that they aren't there.


I have an impression and this impression gets not just fed by films I watch but also by film music I hear without film, by non-film soundtracks, by trailer music and by informations from others. That I don't see them doesn't necessarily mean that they aren't there. But if they are there, then simply show me the young John Williamses who are about to take over the film music buisness. Do you really want to pretend that the style of John Williams is the trend?


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

Aries said:


> I have an impression and this impression gets not just fed by films I watch but also by film music I hear without film, by non-film soundtracks, by trailer music and by informations from others. That I don't see them doesn't necessarily mean that they aren't there. But if they are there, then simply show me the young John Williamses who are about to take over the film music buisness. Do you really want to pretend that the style of John Williams is the trend?


Michael Giacchino, John Powell, Don Davis and everyone else who's emulated the same style in the various SW / JP / etc. productions would be a start I think.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

mikeh375 said:


> Yes it's pretty much what you described. Too much movement can impinge on a scene, drawing attention to the music and away from the main focus, that of the dialogue. The same problems of musical attention seeking can arise if the orchestration is too diverse in timbre - less consistent in sound - when used in a quieter scene. Melody and/or top line register - as in pitch range - can be an issue too as it might also clash with the dialogue. Dynamics need to be carefully regulated and manipulated, crescendos for example can add greatly to the drama and not necessarily just loud ones for big moments. More subtle, gentler crescendos can also enhance moments on screen, infusing some added emotive emphasis if required.
> 
> Film composers understand these concepts and any potential pitfalls so they work with them or around them. There are always incidences where these approaches can be disregarded as there is no 'correct' way to score a scene other than what the collaborators involved agree upon. But understanding when to 'push' the music takes experience and good instincts...and the director's say so and/ or approval.
> What really helps gauge the effectiveness of any music a composer writes against the dialogue and sfx is that they will have a stem of the dialogue and can run that along with the mock-up of the score within the DAW, all in sync to the picture. The composer and director can then hear how well the music is working and can even create a mock-up of what the final dubb may sound like and fine tune the music from there.


Ah, ok then; guess the general question is, what's the difference between a dialogue score session sounding poor/lacking in isolation vs. it having been created under those restrictions (by the director, as well as the general nature of it);

another thing to look at there, would be the degree to which the score is supposed to not draw attention to itself / "away from the actors" vs. play a prominent role, and the way that can vary between different productions.

Different kinds of "dialogue scenes" as well, of course.

Probably'll post some examples if I find some good comparisons (can't think of a concrete scene with poor unmemorable music rn, for obvious reasons lol - there ought to be a lot though).


----------



## fbjim

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> Ah, ok then; guess the general question is, what's the difference between a dialogue score session sounding poor/lacking in isolation vs. it having been created under those restrictions (by the director, as well as the general nature of it);
> 
> another thing to look at there, would be the degree to which the score is supposed to not draw attention to itself / "away from the actors" vs. play a prominent role, and the way that can vary between different productions.
> 
> Different kinds of "dialogue scenes" as well, of course.
> 
> Probably'll post some examples if I find some good comparisons (can't think of a concrete scene with poor unmemorable music rn, for obvious reasons lol - there ought to be a lot though).


I think this is a fundamental difference with how people evaluate film music. If you're evaluating film music as an aficionado who likes listening to soundtracks on their own, you aren't going to care so much about things like this, but the "professional" evaluation of film music (and likely how film producers view it) rests on how well it plays in the context of the production as a whole. A lot of great film music isn't going to play well in the concert hall for this reason - it was never designed or written to do so, and in some sense, there's something of a bias towards music that "sounds good in the hall" when it comes to listing great film composers that classical music listeners might be interested in - that, and an obvious preference towards music written for classical-style ensembles/instruments.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

fbjim said:


> I think this is a fundamental difference with how people evaluate film music. If you're evaluating film music as an aficionado who likes listening to soundtracks on their own, you aren't going to care so much about things like this, but the "professional" evaluation of film music (and likely how film producers view it) rests on how well it plays in the context of the production as a whole.


How it sounds independently / within the production is kind of the topic here, and it's interesting esp. in the context of translating musical elements in either direction - making film/stage music that "doesn't work on its own" into, well, something that does, and moulding absolute music that doesn't work in conjunction with something going on on screen / on stage into something that does work in that context.




> A lot of great film music isn't going to play well in the concert hall for this reason - it was never designed or written to do so, and in some sense, there's something of a bias towards music that "sounds good in the hall" when it comes to listing great film composers that classical music listeners might be interested in - that, and an obvious preference towards music written for classical-style ensembles/instruments.


Concert/audio listeners can absolutely have problems with film/stage/program music that they find to not be working as independent music (usually because it either jumps around too much, or sounds too empty/static in other cases; or lacks build-ups/structures, is incomplete i.e. has no proper beginning or end etc.), don't think anyone's denied that at any point.

The nuances and gradations of all those are best looked at on a case-by-case basis though.


----------



## Forster

Aries said:


> I have an impression and this impression gets not just fed by films I watch but also by film music I hear without film, by non-film soundtracks, by trailer music and by informations from others. That I don't see them doesn't necessarily mean that they aren't there. But if they are there, then simply show me the young John Williamses who are about to take over the film music buisness. Do you really want to pretend that the style of John Williams is the trend?


Your impression is ill-informed. 

I already gave the names of three film composers who have written "romantic" scores.

I don't understand your last question. Why would I want to pretend anything? And about John Williams? He's an extremely successful composer with a long history in the business that started long before Jaws, Star Wars, Indy and Harry Potter. Other composers for such movies have picked up the baton: JW doesn't compose much now (except for SS).

Unless you actually watch a range of movies, you'll get a narrow view of any trends.


----------



## Aries

Forster said:


> Your impression is ill-informed.
> 
> I already gave the names of three film composers who have written "romantic" scores.


Romantic is a wide term. Currently the context is the John Williams style. When you gave me the three names the context was the style of Steiner, Korngold and Herrmann.

You gave me the names Alexandre Desplat (_Little Women_), Dario Marianelli (_Atonement_) and Howard Shore (_Lord of the Rings_). I remember a scene in the Lord of the rings, and I was told it was a important scene, where I found the music underwhelming. It is romantic music fore sure, but very different to Herrmanns style for example and also to John Williams style. I actually have a CD with music of Alexandre Desplat, someone gifted it to me. It is solid music but not as special as John Williams music and very different to Herrmanns music. My first impression of the music of Dario Marianelli is that it also goes somewhat into the illustrative, sentimental and episodic direction.



Forster said:


> Unless you actually watch a range of movies, you'll get a narrow view of any trends.


The Atonement score makes me rather think that I have a good sense of the trend. The trend is illustrative instead of formative film music. When I think about Star Wars I think about the music first of all. I don't even know the story and I don't care for it. I'm sorry if I do injustice to Dario Marianelli but I don't think his music can do it in the same way for me. The music is nice with good emotions, but I think I miss compositional refinement, that would make me think that I need to hear it again.


----------



## HansZimmer

I've just launched a new poll for my competition in the Movie Corner. You simply have to vote your favourite film score between the five that were nominated for the Academy Award "Best original musical or comedy score" in 1996.

Best Original Musical or Comedy Score - 1996


----------



## Aries

Comparing Dario Marianellis Atonement soundtrack and John Williams Star wars A New Hope soundtrack I come to the conclusion that the appeal is actually extremly different. The attraction in the Atonement score lies in reveling themes. The attraction in the Star wars score lies in characteristic motifs and very pronounced development sections.

See The Battle of Javin section. Listen to the remarkable free procession, dissection and recombination of themes and motifs in this 9 minute long development section: 




There is a lot of uncertainty in the music about what is actually going on. Such developing music is more independent and not just illustrative like some unalternated, intact full themes. John Williams music has symphonic characteristics. I wish more actual symphonies had 9 minute development sections.


----------



## AaronSF

mmsbls said:


> My view of film music did not come from people on TC. When I first encountered the question, I searched for the views of film composers on whether they viewed film music as classical music. I could not find many direct quotes about the issue, but the few I found agree very closely with MikeH's view. The process is different. Philip Glass and John Corigliano talk about the differences in this Gramophone interview. I found a few other discussions then which I can't find now, but they basically all said similar things.


This interview with Glass and Corigliano is brilliant. They are both very clear that film music and concert music are quite different from each other and they explain why and how. If the opinions of two contemporary composers--who have composed both film and concert music--can't convince you that film music and concert music are two very different things, then I think nothing can.


----------



## Alfacharger

AaronSF said:


> This interview with Glass and Corigliano is brilliant. They are both very clear that film music and concert music are quite different from each other and they explain why and how. If the opinions of two contemporary composers--who have composed both film and concert music--can't convince you that film music and concert music are two very different things, then I think nothing can.


I write a quote by Ralph Vaughan Williams that kind of supports Glass and Corigliano on the difference between the two.

"Film composing is a splendid discipline, and I recommend a course of it to all composition teachers whose pupils are apt to be dawdling in their ideas, or whose every bar is sacred and must not be cut or altered."

Lucas sliced and diced one of my favorite Williams tracks from the score to. Star Wars. The Attack of the Clones..


----------



## Ethereality

Aries said:


> See The Battle of Javin section. Listen to the remarkable free procession, dissection and recombination of themes and motifs in this 9 minute long development section:
> 
> There is a lot of uncertainty in the music about what is actually going on. Such developing music is more independent and not just illustrative like some unalternated, intact full themes. John Williams music has symphonic characteristics. I wish more actual symphonies had 9 minute development sections.


Some conventional cartoonish melodies in contemporary pieces can make more sense in a film. I call the Da-duh (IV) duh (II). Da-duh (IV) duh (II) theme the Jedi Theme, because it sounds like the kind of badass gunner-glasses squad theme where these heroes just go full-in with Matrix moves. That's how it sounds. But Williams at one point turns it into a cartoon meme, in the track Battle of Yavin. At the end, it may seem to the viewer that no character of the musical story so far makes a Williams-ish cameo, but that's because Williams novelly scores the psychological undertone of the Jedi's pronouncement, but-- from who's psychology? None other than the big cheese. Darth Vader himself, was known to be the most skilled pilot of his time, his stress raising ever since apprehending the arrival of this new hooligan to the force and his rebel friends, and throughout this whole encounter you can hear the pure tension, utter frustration and eventual blood boiling in Vader until bang! The big reveal blows up in a stirring double-time as the Jedi from the mind of Vader, are now laughing at him. "Ha-hah () hah! Ha-hah () hah!" the trumpets call, as the _king_ of the skies spirals out of control and to defeat. It was just his ego that lost this battle.


----------



## hammeredklavier

AaronSF said:


> This interview with Glass and Corigliano is brilliant. They are both very clear that film music and concert music are quite different from each other and they explain why and how. If the opinions of two contemporary composers--who have composed both film and concert music--can't convince you that film music and concert music are two very different things, then I think nothing can.


----------



## Aries

AaronSF said:


> This interview with Glass and Corigliano is brilliant. They are both very clear that film music and concert music are quite different from each other and they explain why and how. If the opinions of two contemporary composers--who have composed both film and concert music--can't convince you that film music and concert music are two very different things, then I think nothing can.


Who denies that film music and concert music are different things, that there are considerable differences? However there are other differences within classical music like common practise type music and avantgarde.

There is no official definition of classical music, but there seems to be an agreement about what the core of classical music is, or at least about some unquestionable parts of the core. And then there are things that don't belong to the core of classical music and the question is: is it still classical? But film music and avantgarde music for example have both developed from the tradition of the unquestionably classical music. They are both a development of classical music, if someone likes it or not. So I don't think it is sensful to exclude them from classical music. But opinions that they don't belong are still understandable and not completely outlandish, because it is also clear that these things are not the core of classical music like Beethovens or Mozarts music.


----------



## Forster

hammeredklavier said:


>


Misunderstanding of argumentum ad auctoritatem. Provided that a substantive argument is put forward, the fallacy doesn't apply.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Forster said:


> Misunderstanding of argumentum ad auctoritatem. Provided that a substantive argument is put forward, the fallacy doesn't apply.


They haven't properly defined what "classical music" is to begin with. I asked "Is The Beggar's Opera, an English ballad opera from the 18th century, "classical music"?" No one has given a satisfactory answer. Some people on the thread are just resorting to the argument "film music isn't classical music because some 'composers' today think it is not." If this is not "argumentum ad auctoritatem", I don't know what is.


----------



## hammeredklavier

There are plenty of examples of 18th century composers employing techniques from the 16th century. If there was need from the society to compose that way, how can we simply dismiss it as pastiche?
As for the argument, "there are portions of film music appropriate for concert performance and portions that are not", I want to ask - is every section of Wagner's musikdrama appropriate for pure concert performance?
I still think 'what composers say' is a non-argument.
I'm reminded of the fable by Aesop "The Fox and the Grapes". Here's what I want to tell those "composers" —Just cause you can't be the best in an area no matter how hard you try, or just cause you're jealous of the success of the best minority, you shouldn't dismiss the whole area as lowly.


----------



## hammeredklavier

-------------------


----------



## mikehewer

.......ooops


----------



## mikeh375

hammeredklavier said:


> As for the argument, "there are portions of film music appropriate for concert performance and portions that are not", I want to ask - is every section of Wagner's musikdrama appropriate for pure concert performance?
> *I still think 'what composers say' is a non-argument.*
> I'm reminded of the fable by Aesop "The Fox and the Grapes". Here's what I want to tell those "composers" —Just cause you can't be the best in an area no matter how hard you try, or just cause you're jealous of the success of the best minority, you shouldn't dismiss the whole area as lowly.


LOL. So far in this thread, poor composers have been accused of not knowing what kind of music they write and now they have a non-argument apparently when they say that there is a difference between writing for film and the concert hall. I'll stick with the thoughts of those who know what they are talking about thanks.


----------



## fbjim

John Carpenter scores are amazing and I'd happily give them as much "weight" as they want, because of how cool they are. 

I mean come on.


----------



## fbjim

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> Who said that it's _justified_ that operas are "identified by the composer and not the librettist", as opposed to both? Maybe it's in fact just a collective bad habit.


It's arbitrary to an extent, but it's just how we view creators as a society. 

Classical music is credited to the composer _in general_. This does not discount other ways we can "credit" classical music - for instance, we might say we like listening to Ashkenazy recordings, or Concertgebouw recordings, but _in general_ the composer is considered the creative force behind the music. 

In rock music, we credit the ensemble, which is why we consider the Concertgebouw and the Berlin Philharmonic playing Mahler 2 to be two different interpretations of the _same work_, while Bob Dylan and The Byrds doing "Mr. Tambourine Man" are generally considered two separate works - yes, we call it a "cover version" but our view of who gets credited with the recording fundamentally changes. 

In capital-P Pop music, we typically credit the main vocalist, and frequently don't credit the ensemble at all, let alone the songwriter. In hip-hop, the rapper/MC tends to get credited, with some attention paid to the producer (excepting instrumental hip-hop, which is all about the producer). 

If this sounds arbitrary, it kind of is, but that's the deal with the social aspects of music. We just sort of decided upon this because our view of art loves having a specific artist to credit.


----------



## mmsbls

hammeredklavier said:


> They haven't properly defined what "classical music" is to begin with. I asked "Is The Beggar's Opera, an English ballad opera from the 18th century, "classical music"?" No one has given a satisfactory answer. Some people on the thread are just resorting to the argument "film music isn't classical music because some 'composers' today think it is not." If this is not "argumentum ad auctoritatem", I don't know what is.


It's possible I have missed people simply saying that some composers don't think film music is classical music, therefore, film music is not classical music. Could you show me where that has been done?

I have seen a reasoned argument based on the process of composing. Then I have seen people give examples of composers with expertise in the field who agree with that argument. Basically, those people are saying, "Here's our reasoning, and it's not just some people without musical knowledge. Here are examples of experts giving that same reasoning." People should be somewhat skeptical when I say "Pluto is not a planet for reason X." When the International Astronomical Union defines the term planet and gives the same reason X for not classifying Pluto as a planet, people should be less skeptical of the reasoning.


----------



## Forster

hammeredklavier said:


> Some people on the thread are just resorting to the argument "film music isn't classical music because some 'composers' today think it is not." If this is not "argumentum ad auctoritatem", I don't know what is.


Who? As far as I've been keeping up, no-one has said only that, and since you posted in response to a particular member who has, AFAIK, been diligent in their argument, I can't agree with your assertion.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

The only two kinds of music that matter to me are music that I like and music that I don't like. Having said that, it is mildly interesting to see the different schools of thought on film music. My local symphony orchestra - the TSO - plays some film music every year, usually Star Wars but with the film playing on the big screen, not just the music. So is this an admission by the TSO that the music alone is not sufficient to hold the attention of the concert goer? The TSO also plays the music of ABBA and Queen. Does that make ABBA and Queen classical music when played by a symphony orchestra?


----------



## HansZimmer

Nawdry said:


> I've heard overtures, preludes, intermezzos, etc. for plays that can indeed work well as classical compositions independent of the dramatic work itself. They make sense when played independently in performance. But fragmentary motifs, ostinatos, pedal notes, etc. really don't work detached from the dramatic action. They sound like incomplete fragments of theatre music. Because they are.


It's basically the same thing in film music. Some parts of the suite can stand on their own, others don't make so much sense if extracted.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> The only two kinds of music that matter to me are music that I like and music that I don't like. Having said that, it is mildly interesting to see the different schools of thought on film music. My local symphony orchestra - the TSO - plays some film music every year, usually Star Wars but with the film playing on the big screen, not just the music. So is this an admission by the TSO that the music alone is not sufficient to hold the attention of the concert goer? The TSO also plays the music of ABBA and Queen. Does that make ABBA and Queen classical music when played by a symphony orchestra?


I've always found that kind of thing a bit cheap - maybe just due to the particular way it was done (in the few cases I saw it), but it tends to have a circlejerky sort of vibe to it.

The "worst" I may have seen was a GoT concert, where they mostly played some 1 minute themes/snippets with film excerpts on a screen;
a few times it did get creative and better, such as when they lit up some kinda exotic looking construction with lights/candles on them and started playing a more abstract sounding, ambient Essos-type track - not sure if it was from the show at all, but that was 1 example of how a concert like this could be done without the cheese:

the original soundtrack altered, made into something less concrete and more abstract, and enhanced with imagery that's also much more opaque then literally playing shots from the show, and mainly there to create a general atmosphere.
Other ways of doing it too of course - expanding/prolonging the themes/cues, developing or putting them together in some new sensible way etc.

Mostly it was like described above though.


Maybe I'll manage to find that video or a similar one later, but yeah that's an example of when it doesn't work as well / feels particularly march tuba Torey - esp. given how reasonably long and semi-autonomous sounding pieces are more of a rarity in that show (due to some of its particular traits - the "realism" calling for prolonged sections without music, the events-and-unpredictability-driven plot designed to jerk the viewer around a lot, etc.; not all the time though).


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

Oh, and another pet peeve while I'm at it - don't call it "symphony" or even "suite" when you just play a series of (mostly not at all independent/autonomous sounding) tracks from the OST ok?!

Seen that around a few times.


----------



## Forster

Aries said:


> Romantic is a wide term. Currently the context is the John Williams style. When you gave me the three names the context was the style of Steiner, Korngold and Herrmann.


I was using 'romantic' as a shorthand for the style of music for which those composers of yore are best known.



Aries said:


> You gave me the names Alexandre Desplat (_Little Women_), Dario Marianelli (_Atonement_) and Howard Shore (_Lord of the Rings_). I remember a scene in the Lord of the rings, and I was told it was a important scene, where I found the music underwhelming. It is romantic music fore sure, but very different to Herrmanns style for example and also to John Williams style. I actually have a CD with music of Alexandre Desplat, someone gifted it to me. It is solid music but not as special as John Williams music and very different to Herrmanns music. My first impression of the music of Dario Marianelli is that it also goes somewhat into the illustrative, sentimental and episodic direction.


You previously asked me "_you mentioned previously that there are still film composers who write "in the same style as Steiner, Korngold and Herrmann". Who are they? _"

I simply gave you examples of three currently working composers who, I think, have written scores in the same style. By all means disagree with me that they have written like Steiner et al, but your liking or disliking of the scores, and your liking and disliking of the movies is not relevant.



Aries said:


> [...]The trend is *illustrative instead of formative film* music. [...] The music is nice with good emotions, but I think *I miss compositional refinement,* that would make me think that I need to hear it again.


I don't understand these points I've posted in bold.


----------



## Aries

Forster said:


> You previously asked me "_you mentioned previously that there are still film composers who write "in the same style as Steiner, Korngold and Herrmann". Who are they? _"
> 
> I simply gave you examples of three currently working composers who, I think, have written scores in the same style. By all means disagree with me that they have written like Steiner et al, but your liking or disliking of the scores, and your liking and disliking of the movies is not relevant.


What I don't like is basically the difference in the style. There is a big difference in the style. You can sum it up under the umbrella term "romantic", but that's it. Dario Marianelli music is about reveling themes regarding Atonement. John Williams music is about characteristic leit motifs and development. Herrmann is also different to Marianelli, but the current context is Williams.

I say that there is a trend in film music roughly in the direction of the Zimmers and Marianellis styles when you take the Williams and Herrmann styles as reference point, just the direction. You can subsummize all these composers as romantic, so the term is rather useless to describe this. Though the new composing paradim seems more impressionistic to me. But I didn't saw someone else descirbe it like that yet.



Forster said:


> I don't understand these points I've posted in bold.


Illustrative film music is music that just underlies the plot and just supports it. Formative means roughly that the music enriches the film with an indpendent characteristic and value and that is more rememberable.

When I said that I miss composital refinement, I meant missing development in particular. Motivically playful music and development is less likely to correspond directly with the plot, directors probably don't want to give up control. But you can express more with development and creativity of course.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

Alfacharger said:


> I write a quote by Ralph Vaughan Williams that kind of supports Glass and Corigliano on the difference between the two.
> 
> "Film composing is a splendid discipline, and I recommend a course of it to all composition teachers whose pupils are apt to be dawdling in their ideas, or whose every bar is sacred and must not be cut or altered."
> 
> Lucas sliced and diced one of my favorite Williams tracks from the score to. Star Wars. The Attack of the Clones..


Video's not working, but was it the Conveyor Belt?
If so, that's probably an example of a _movie sequence_ in which the chopped soundtrack is too choppy to really work - although arguably more for content reasons, since the relatively mundane obstacle-course events in the factory sequence don't support the romantic/dark/mystical themes played over them - they fit to some extent, and technically they are in danger lol, but there's still the strong sense that the soundtrack's being way too dramatic there.


----------



## Forster

Aries said:


> What I don't like is basically the difference in the style. There is a big difference in the style. You can sum it up under the umbrella term "romantic", but that's it. Dario Marianelli music is about reveling themes regarding Atonement. John Williams music is about characteristic leit motifs and development. Herrmann is also different to Marianelli, but the current context is Williams.
> 
> I say that there is a trend in film music roughly in the direction of the Zimmers and Marianellis styles when you take the Williams and Herrmann styles as reference point, just the direction. You can subsummize all these composers as romantic, so the term is rather useless to describe this. Though the new composing paradim seems more impressionistic to me. But I didn't saw someone else descirbe it like that yet.
> 
> 
> Illustrative film music is music that just underlies the plot and just supports it. Formative means roughly that the music enriches the film with an indpendent characteristic and value and that is more rememberable.
> 
> When I said that I miss composital refinement, I meant missing development in particular. Motivically playful music and development is less likely to correspond directly with the plot, directors probably don't want to give up control. But you can express more with development and creativity of course.


Sorry, but none of this makes any sense to me. As I already said, what you like or don't like is irrelevant to whether there are (or are not) present-day composers who to some extent write music similar to (not the same as) some of the best-known composers of yesteryear. End of.


----------



## Aries

Forster said:


> Sorry, but none of this makes any sense to me. As I already said, what you like or don't like is irrelevant to whether there are (or are not) present-day composers who to some extent write music similar to (not the same as) some of the best-known composers of yesteryear. End of.


Your way of communicating makes no sense. My primary point is not what I like, my primary point is that there are stylistic differences. When you have a conversation with someone else, the statements of both participants are relavant for the conversation. So either you can decide not to communicate with me, or you can decide to respond to what I say with arguments.

Remember, you decided to answered to this:


Aries said:


> Yes. Having John Williams at the top is nice, but he is old and I don't see young successors in his style.


----------



## Aries

Most avantgarde advocats are still able to detect differences in non-avantgarde music, aren't they?


----------



## cybernaut

One word answer: snobbery


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

^ I don't think so, at least not for me and I suspect not for many who posted here. I don't care what genre music is as long as I like it. There is a lot of core classical music I don't like, there is some film music that I like but cannot think of any that I would rather listen to on its own without the film, the way I would listen to a symphony, which to me is the absolute apex of music genres. 

To me, it feels more that people who want film music to be accepted as classical music want their musical tastes validated; they would feel better if the film music they liked was acknowledged as classical music because they consider classical music a superior genre.


----------



## cybernaut

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> ^ I don't think so, at least not for me and I suspect not for many who posted here. I don't care what genre music is as long as I like it. There is a lot of core classical music I don't like, there is some film music that I like but cannot think of any that I would rather listen to on its own without the film, the way I would listen to a symphony, which to me is the absolute apex of music genres.
> 
> To me, it feels more that people who want film music to be accepted as classical music want their musical tastes validated; they would feel better if the film music they liked was acknowledged as classical music because they consider classical music a superior genre.


It's snobbery.


----------



## mikeh375

cybernaut said:


> It's snobbery.


...it's not for some of us.


----------



## cybernaut

mikeh375 said:


> ...it's not for some of us.


So you say.


----------



## mikeh375

cybernaut said:


> So you say.


I do.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

fbjim said:


> It's arbitrary to an extent, but it's just how we view creators as a society.
> 
> Classical music is credited to the composer _in general_. This does not discount other ways we can "credit" classical music - for instance, we might say we like listening to Ashkenazy recordings, or Concertgebouw recordings, but _in general_ the composer is considered the creative force behind the music.
> 
> In rock music, we credit the ensemble, which is why we consider the Concertgebouw and the Berlin Philharmonic playing Mahler 2 to be two different interpretations of the _same work_, while Bob Dylan and The Byrds doing "Mr. Tambourine Man" are generally considered two separate works - yes, we call it a "cover version" but our view of who gets credited with the recording fundamentally changes.
> 
> In capital-P Pop music, we typically credit the main vocalist, and frequently don't credit the ensemble at all, let alone the songwriter. In hip-hop, the rapper/MC tends to get credited, with some attention paid to the producer (excepting instrumental hip-hop, which is all about the producer).
> 
> If this sounds arbitrary, it kind of is, but that's the deal with the social aspects of music. We just sort of decided upon this because our view of art loves having a specific artist to credit.


As a "natural" social convention, when said during casual conversation, that's all fine, but in this case the notion that "we credit Mozart, not da Ponte" was used as an argument to support an assertion - namely that "Prima La Musica", and there's no debate to be had there;

in contexts like this, these ultimately inaccurate social conventions obviously can't be cited or relied upon for much of anything.





> In rock music, we credit the ensemble, which is why we consider the Concertgebouw and the Berlin Philharmonic playing Mahler 2 to be two different interpretations of the _same work_, while Bob Dylan and The Byrds doing "Mr. Tambourine Man" are generally considered two separate works - yes, we call it a "cover version" but our view of who gets credited with the recording fundamentally changes.


Not quite sure whether that's the case - I think people can sometimes be unaware that sth is a cover, but when they are, the original is typically acknowledged as the, well, original real thing, while the cover is the cover.

Similar thing with "Adaptation Displacement" when people are unaware of a particular movie being an adaptation of a novel (or a movie, or other type of release).


"Tainted Love" for instance - originally written by Ed Cobb and performed by Gloria Jones in the 60s, it was further popularized by Soft Cell in the 80s:




/
















cont.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

And then when it's covered by Marilyn Manson or sampled by Rihanna, I think it's still mostly known as "originally by Soft Cell" (at the very least) - even though in the latter's case it's a new song with a new title, it's pretty much a semi-cover:












However, "cover versions" are of course significantly changed from their original, as this as well as the Tambourine Man examples show:











Are there any total 1:1 covers out there at all, that aren't 
-by tribute acts
-YTers and/or low-levels/amateurs?

Maybe a closer comparison would be transcriptions/arrangements/etc. such as Chopin-Godowsky, all the Liszt transcriptions, and so on - with those, the original composer is loudly acknowledged along with the one providing the new version.




> In capital-P Pop music, we typically credit the main vocalist, and frequently don't credit the ensemble at all, let alone the songwriter.


This of course becomes relevant in rock vs. pop discussions where the rock fans start emphasizing how the other team's favorite stars "didn't even write their own stuff lololol" - although as far I'm aware they do about as often as they don't.


----------



## Forster

cybernaut said:


> One word answer: snobbery


And it's a form of snobbery to insist that film music must be classed as classical music.


----------



## DaveM

(Assume IMO for all of this.)
So much of this thread has devolved into arguments against the premise of film music as classical music, some of them dismissive and disparaging. I’d like to return to some of the reasons that anyone would bring this subject up to begin with. Also, I am tiring of hearing the same 3-4 film composers (especially John Williams) or those from half a century ago being the subject of discussion when there are several other notable film composers from the last 30 years. One of them, practically never mentioned, except by me, is Randy Edelman who I’ll use as an example below. He is, by any measure, an upper tier if not tier 1, film composer.

Classical music underwent major changes in the 20th century and they continue in the 21st. Common to these changes is a move away from accessible melody and harmony. While I find there to be semblances of melody and harmony in atonal works, it is not as obvious or accessible as in music of the CP era. Sometimes a melody is more discernible, but is what I would call a wandering melody. Then there are the avant-garde works which dispense with melody, harmony and structure altogether.

And so, in this background, in the latter 20th century came a period of highly orchestrated film music with soaring melodie’s and harmony. This period was roughly 1980 to 2015 when producers and directors were looking for soundtracks to make a major contribution to the movie rather than just as background music. Melodic themes opened the movie, were associated with things such as the love interest and closed (sometimes) with end-title standalone works. For some of us, certainly me, this became a source of some of the characteristics that originally drew us to classical music and were now either less apparent or missing in contemporary music.

These are some examples from Randy Edelman, each one quite different from the other and each one highly original and melodic:

*From the 1993 Gettysburg:




*
From the* 2000 Passion of Mind:*





From the *1996 Dragonheart:*





This is a concert where the above work is played. Looks very much like a full orchestra similar to what would play classical music and my guess is that this work would be far more accessible to audiences, even if they had never heard it before, than many modern, contemporary classical music works:





This is not an argument to put works such as this in a classical music classification. There are reasons why the music and the way it is composed has important differences from CM. But it is an attempt to explain why some film music provides some characteristics of accessible melody and harmony that some of us have missed as classical music has changed so drastically.


----------



## cybernaut

Forster said:


> And it's a form of snobbery to insist that film music must be classed as classical music.


Wrong.


----------



## Forster

cybernaut said:


> Wrong.


OMG, I'm so sorry, if only I'd known. 🤣


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Cybernaut is adding extremely well-thought out, unassailable arguments in support of his point of view.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> there is some film music that I like but cannot think of any that I would rather listen to on its own without the film,


Even if the film is really bad?

-1:20


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> Even if the film is really bad?
> 
> -1:20


There's only a handful of pieces from the Star Wars movies that I like and the are all from the original 3 movies, which are good.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

DaveM said:


> From the *1996 Dragonheart:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a concert where the above work is played. Looks very much like a full orchestra similar to what would play classical music and my guess is that this work would be far more accessible to audiences, even if they had never heard it before, than many modern, contemporary classical music works:


Yet to listen to the 1st 2 examples, but that stretch from 3:50 in the live performance version was particularly convincing / well done, incl. dynamic details like the melody in the lower registers disappearing under the string 8ths above and then resurfacing towards the climax again.


Also on a somewhat unrelated note, but probably of interest considering this other thread here John Williams stole Harry Potter Theme from Faure? - possible influence on that main Dragonheart theme from the middle section of Alkan's "Le Vent":





(Btw those deleting pigs I swear - there's a better recording of this by Hamelin but couldn't find it right now. This one gets a bit janky at times. Oh well

There's a sample on this link though: www.prestonmusic.com/classical/products/7929246--alkan-symphony-for-solo-piano)


Edit: Ah found this, why not:




-1:44


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> There's only a handful of pieces from the Star Wars movies that I like and the are all from the original 3 movies, which are good.


k


----------



## Forster

Aries said:


> My primary point is not what I like, my primary point is that there are stylistic differences.


Except you repeatedly state "what I like is". For example, in various posts:

_What I don't like is basically the difference in the style...
I find Hans Zimmers style (he applied in Lion King) different to 19th century romanticism. It is not a development I like...
They are both a development of classical music, if someone likes it or not..._

You also choose what you see as attributes of the music you're assessing and make broad statements that don't seem to me to tell us anything of significance. For example:

_Comparing Dario Marianellis Atonement soundtrack and John Williams Star wars A New Hope soundtrack I come to the conclusion that the appeal is actually extremly different. _

I'm not sure what the relevance of 'appeal' is to the question of whether Marianelli composes music similar to the music of the greats of the past. Setting that aside, of course the two scores are different: they're for two entirely different stories and genres of films.



Aries said:


> When you have a conversation with someone else, the statements of both participants are relavant for the conversation.


When you have a casual conversation, perhaps (though there aren't any rules about this). When you're setting out an argument, it's perfectly reasonable to point out the flaws in your opponent's argument.



Aries said:


> So either you can decide not to communicate with me


Of course. But I can also challenge you to communicate in way that I understand. More than once I've asked for a further explanation, rather than simply dismissed what you've said. However, I have found some of your explanations have not helped. For example:

_Formative means roughly that the music enriches the film with an indpendent characteristic and value and that is more rememberable_.

Is formative a widely used musical term? Or just one you use? And I fail to see the distinction you've made, basd as it is on your personal opinion of what is "memorable" and that "memorable" is a superior criterion for film composition than "supporting the plot".


----------



## Forster

DaveM said:


> a period of highly orchestrated film music with soaring melodie’s and harmony. This period was roughly 1980 to 2015


So, what's been happening since 2015?


----------



## Aries

Forster said:


> Except you repeatedly state "what I like is". For example, in various posts:
> 
> _What I don't like is basically the difference in the style...
> I find Hans Zimmers style (he applied in Lion King) different to 19th century romanticism. It is not a development I like...
> They are both a development of classical music, if someone likes it or not..._


Are you kidding me? When I said "if someone likes it or not" this obviously demotes the importance of likement. And you use it as an example, that this is an important point of me?

It is true that I expressed here and there what I like in film music, and there is nothing wrong about it. But it would be rather sensless, if would not have stated reasons for my likement. But I did.



Forster said:


> You also choose what you see as attributes of the music you're assessing and make broad statements that don't seem to me to tell us anything of significance. For example:
> 
> _Comparing Dario Marianellis Atonement soundtrack and John Williams Star wars A New Hope soundtrack I come to the conclusion that the appeal is actually extremly different. _
> 
> I'm not sure what the relevance of 'appeal' is to the question of whether Marianelli composes music similar to the music of the greats of the past.


Music is about appeal. A different style of music means it has a different appeal. Differences in style that do not effect the appeal kinda irrelevant for the listener, if such differences are even possible.



Forster said:


> Setting that aside, of course the two scores are different: they're for two entirely different stories and genres of films.


And the styles of the composers are also a factor.



Forster said:


> Of course. But I can also challenge you to communicate in way that I understand. More than once I've asked for a further explanation, rather than simply dismissed what you've said. However, I have found some of your explanations have not helped. For example:
> 
> _Formative means roughly that the music enriches the film with an indpendent characteristic and value and that is more rememberable_.
> 
> Is formative a widely used musical term? Or just one you use? And I fail to see the distinction you've made, basd as it is on your personal opinion of what is "memorable" and that "memorable" is a superior criterion for film composition than "supporting the plot".


I can't remember to have heard the term formative in the context of music before, and I never used it before myself. My translators give me this term as translation to the german "prägend". Terms often have connotiations, that aren't obvious, what can make translating very difficult. It is possible that, what I had in mind, is not really exactly expressable in english. But I think I have approximated it as much as possible. This might be insufficient though.

Beethovens 5th symphony has a very remarkable, impressive, distinktive, "einprägsames" motiv. I think I don't even have to explain further which motive I mean because of its strong character. Williams is using this kind of motives as leit motifs like Wagner. I don't see this style applied in Atonement. The way Dario Marianelli writes themes seems to me more similar to Debussy than Wagner. His themes rather represent an athmospheric impression than a formative expression. This is my perception, it is possible that you have just a different perception and that we can't get any further.


----------



## HansZimmer

SanAntone said:


> So you think that people who enjoy pop music, i.e. the mass audience, are mostly idiots?


No, I'm simply concerned with the contemporary music in general, both popular and classical.

I think that the contemporary pop stars are offensive not only if compared to classical music, but also if compared with more serious pop songwriters like Eltohn John.
For different reasons, I also think that classical music is going in wrong directions: the contemporary pop music is ignorant, the contemporary classical music is snob.

Cinematic classical music is a refugee for people with my views, because it keeps alive the good, old music. It's the third way.



> What you think is of importance only to you. What you think doesn't define any music other than as the music you enjoy.
> 
> Those works you listed could be removed from the catalogs of their composers and the reputation of these composers would not suffer any damage.


You could remove them from catalogs simply because they are drops in the sea. You might say the same thing about one of the 50 symphonies of Mozart, or one of the many chamber works of Beethoven.
So yes, if you would delete "Thamos" from my hard disk, it wouldn't be a tragedy, because I would still have many other works of Mozart, but I don't see how exactly this observation would cancel the artistic merits of the works.

The point is that Thamos is as good as many concert works of Mozart (it's not only my opinion, different users gave good feedback when I posted it), so it's not true that incidental music is inferior.
In the case of "The Snow Maiden", I think that it's better than the first three symphonies of Tchaikovsky.
The discrimination between concert music and incidental music doesn't make sense: the category doesn't say nothing about the quality of the music.



> My impression is that you are using your personal taste as the basis for making a claim about movie music which I don't think is supported by any less subjective test.


My impression is that you like the Argumentum ad populum, because you are basically saying that the tastes of the many are more relevant than my personal tastes.

It's strange that in this case you don't see that the argument is against you.

John Williams, live concert of the main theme from Schindler's List ----> 53 millions views, 573'312 likes. Do you have examples of contemporary classical music composers who attract so many people? If not, then it means that John Williams is the most relevant composer of our time. I quote your own words: most contemporary classical music composers could be removed without creating any social damage to music, but if you would remove John Williams many people would suffer the loss.








> The test of time is more than merely saying these composers are good because they are popular. In fact, they are good precisely because their music has survived despite not being embraced by a mass audience. And it has remained consistently performed by classical music musicians and institutions over hundreds of years.


Classical music in this poll in a forum about politics seems to be one of the most popular genres, only rock music has more listeners: I vostri generi musicali preferiti tra questi

However many users in that forum are not so young: I think that in new generations the interest for classical music is very low. By the way, it might be more popular than you think in older generations. So your argument is not valid: if the music of many classical music compsoers has survived is precisely because there are many people who like their music and therefore many people who upload the music in Youtube, who play the music, who speak about the music and so on...




> There you go again applying your personal opinion to everybody. I certainly don't agree with you. The new music you dismiss I find more exciting and engaging than anything John Williams has written.


In this case, you are saying that your personal tastes are more relevant than the tastes of many, but when it comes to my personal tastes, I'm wrong and the many are right.



> Even the music composed for movies by legitimate classical composers such as Shostakovich or Prokofiev is not classical music.


False. It is if they mantained their usual musical language when writing music for films.



> Enjoy what music you find worthwhile. But don't try to define it in a way that doesn't fit reality.


Which reality? The official definition of classical music doesn't exclude that it can be composed for films, many soundtracks albums are categorized as "cinematic classical" or as "classical soundtrack", Classic FM accept film scores in the Classic FM Hall of Fame, many people in this forum have opened discussions about the intersection between film music and classical music (I'm not the only one) and some pieces of film music are played in concerts of classical music (the theme of Schindler's List is one of them).

So, which reality? The real world is doing different things in respect to your personal opinions.


----------



## Forster

Aries said:


> I can't remember to have heard the term formative in the context of music before, and I never used it before myself. My translators give me this term as translation to the german "prägend".


I think it refers to the idea of imprinting or impressing - as in the idea that music heard in one's "formative" years leaves a deep impression.

Is that what you meant?


----------



## Aries

Forster said:


> I think it refers to the idea of imprinting or impressing - as in the idea that music heard in one's "formative" years leaves a deep impression.
> 
> Is that what you meant?


I think imprinting is much associated with literally imprinting blank coins or books.
I think impressing shares a bit of the meaning of asthonishing and amazing, what I don't meant.

I think what I wanted to express with "prägend" means

"imprinting" in the abstract sense regarding the listeners mind but also
"shaping" in regard of the overall character of the film.
Then there is the german term "prägnant", and it was somewhat included in the meaning, it means concise and incisive.

The Atonement soundtrack has left a deep-ish impression for me too. But I don't remember a single melody or motive. I remember the overall feeling. In the case of Williams instead it is very easy for me to remember motives because they are so concise and incisive.

Lets compare films to coins. There is a coin that already has a form. What you can do is imprint a additional motive on the coin. Or you can leave the coin in its form but let it glow and shine and colorize it maybe. You can do corresponding things to films too by adding different types of music.


----------



## HansZimmer

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> Just listened to both - sounded extremely powerful to me divorced from the film scenes (I've not watched Dune yet, and Gladiator's been years ago), and they worked well autonomously in general - does it get even more powerful in combination with the movie?
> 
> (And reasonably sure the heaviest Gladiator scenes weren't in there? There was the uplifting opening, then fast-paced action fireworks, and a melancholy number at the end.)


I agree. @SanAntone says that my personal tastes are not arguments, but his personal tastes are facts apparently. If there are concerts of the music of Hans Zimmer it's because it's possible to sell tickets, which means that the music can stand on its own from the perspective of many persons.


----------



## HansZimmer

jojoju2000 said:


> Perhaps, they're seeing something in John Williams that we have not ? I mean, they're not inviting Zimmer.


Many film scores of Hans Zimmer have little to nothing to do with classical music. The suites for The Gladiator however has been accepted in the Classic FM Hall of Fame and has obtained high ratings in the competition.


----------



## HansZimmer

jojoju2000 said:


> " Zimmer's whole gang " adapted by switching over completely to what I call the Bastardization of Film Music.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's cheaper, faster. And you don't have to rely on a whole orchestra anymore. And if you have to use orchesteral real music, you can just hire a few NON UNIONIZED Musicians from Eastern Europe.
> 
> John Williams doesn't work that way. He is one of the few, actually the last Film Composer in Hollywood, who writes completely by hand for a full orchestra, and using UNION musicians ( This is very very important in the discourse of the relationship between Film and Classical Music in my view ).


First of all, I see that in the video you posted, Hans Zimmer takes credits for Pirates of Caribbeans. In reality the composer is Klaus Badelt.

That said, you are right, but to enjoy music the compositional process is not necessarily relevant. I know that the suites for The Gladiator and for the Lion King have probably been composed in a computer program, but the music is still excellent to my ears.
Of course writing music directly on the paper like Mozart is harder, but even if you use a computer program you still have to create the melodies, so it's not that fundamental essence of the creative process is cancelled if you compose with the tools of Hans Zimmer.

Furthermore I can forgive him if he doesn't use a real orchestra for recording as long as there are concerts produced by himself in which real orchestras play the music.

The concert "The World of Hans Zimmer" is an original production of the composer and he has also played some parts with his hands.


----------



## HansZimmer

SanAntone said:


> But they write serious music with more in it than any film score by John Williams (no matter how popular his music is) or the derivative works he has produced.


What does it mean "serious music"? Technically, the music that John Williams write for films is serious, so I have to conclude that the music you don't enjoy is not serious even if it's written in the most professional way.


----------



## HansZimmer

bargolus said:


> I asked ChatGPT what it thought about film music and classical music and it was pretty adamant
> 
> View attachment 180891
> 
> 
> I then asked it to provide an example and it compared Star Wars to Beethoven 5th, saying that Star Wars had more "epic grandeur"
> 
> View attachment 180892


You forgot to ask the bot to explain why incidental music for theatre instead can be considered classical music despite the fact that the music has been composed to dramatize a narrative and not as absolute music.

Of course that BOT does nothing but repeating what some humans have said/written, but not always what the humans have said/written is well reasoned.


----------



## HansZimmer

mikeh375 said:


> Well for the record again, I like some, no actually, lots of film music. Perhaps then you should consider the answer to the OP question a draw if it's so important to you, because you aint changing any minds from what I can see, least of all mine.


In my experience, it's difficult that someone changes his opinion in a forum. So I'm sure that the users who don't agree with me, they won't change their opinion, but viceversa is also true: the users who agree with me won't change their opinion.

Of course what I wanted to say is that you, ChatNoir and others have made it clear that you are not passionate of film music IN AVERAGE.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

HansZimmer said:


> If there are concerts of the music of Hans Zimmer it's because it's possible to sell tickets, which means that the music can stand on its own from the perspective of many persons.


Well that's not necessarily entirely true - people don't only ever just go to concerts or listen to audio in order to hear "music that works on its own";
sometimes they do just that;
at other times however, they may want to hear something represented through music, something conveyed to them, or be reminded of something - and in the case of live concerts, to experience this type of thing as a community.

Could be some kinda nationalistic/cultural/nostalgic/etc. ideal or notion, or they're cult-of-personality fans of the performer/conductor/composer in question, and they're there for hype reasons and to bask in this star's glory; 
or it can be an opera or film they're all aware of and have seen before, and now want to see a distilled music-only version of that thing they've seen earlier - then they'll listen to this stuff that maybe "doesn't stand on its own", but that's not a problem because they already have the mindset in their heads to complete the picture.


However as many incl. yourself have stated before, there are portions of FM that do work autonomously, entirely or to various degrees - what various listeners perceive as matching this standard or not, is probably best decided by polls etc.
Without those, posters here can obviously just convey their own impressions about this.





HansZimmer said:


> First of all, I see that in the video you posted, Hans Zimmer takes credits for Pirates of Caribbeans. In reality the composer is Klaus Badelt.


I think it was some kinda collaborative team effort - this is how Ramin Djawadi emerged out of being their assistant/intern, they (including HZ) were all trying to figure out how best to score that early Will vs. Jack duel, and Djawadi started offering some ideas and then ended up completing the task over the following night - or something like that.
So they all went "woah dude!" and he started participating more actively down the line, until eventually getting his own commissions etc.

However Badelt was initially the one credited incl. in the end credits I think.


----------



## HansZimmer

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> Ah, ok then; guess the general question is, what's the difference between a dialogue score session sounding poor/lacking in isolation vs. it having been created under those restrictions (by the director, as well as the general nature of it);
> 
> another thing to look at there, would be the degree to which the score is supposed to not draw attention to itself / "away from the actors" vs. play a prominent role, and the way that can vary between different productions.
> 
> Different kinds of "dialogue scenes" as well, of course.
> 
> Probably'll post some examples if I find some good comparisons (can't think of a concrete scene with poor unmemorable music rn, for obvious reasons lol - there ought to be a lot though).


The best parts of film music are often the ones in which the music is meant to be prevailing.

"Cuba Libre" from the suite for the film "Havana" is a good example. In the scene there are not dialogues, only the music. In these cases, the music is not a simple background that must not disturb too much the dialogues, but it becomes the primary driver of the auditory communication.

There are too many posts in this discussion which portray a black and white reality. The reality is colorful. The music can play different roles inside a film.

"The music is not the essential point" ---> False, in some scenes the music is an essential point of the auditory communication and without it the scenes would be sterile.


----------



## HansZimmer

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> There's only a handful of pieces from the Star Wars movies that I like and the are all from the original 3 movies, which are good.


There are at least three pieces in the new films that are memorable.

Across the Stars







Droid Invasion












March of the Resistance


----------



## HansZimmer

fbjim said:


> I think this is a fundamental difference with how people evaluate film music. If you're evaluating film music as an aficionado who likes listening to soundtracks on their own, you aren't going to care so much about things like this, but the "professional" evaluation of film music (and likely how film producers view it) rests on how well it plays in the context of the production as a whole. A lot of great film music isn't going to play well in the concert hall for this reason - it was never designed or written to do so, and in some sense, there's something of a bias towards music that "sounds good in the hall" when it comes to listing great film composers that classical music listeners might be interested in - that, and an obvious preference towards music written for classical-style ensembles/instruments.


The best film scores are the ones which are brilliant inside the films as well as they are in the concert hall. It's as simple as that. If a determined score works well inside the film, doesn't mean that it doesn't work outside of the film. In my opinion, only extractable music can be really excellent INSIDE the film.


----------



## HansZimmer

Aries said:


> Comparing Dario Marianellis Atonement soundtrack and John Williams Star wars A New Hope soundtrack I come to the conclusion that the appeal is actually extremly different. The attraction in the Atonement score lies in reveling themes. The attraction in the Star wars score lies in characteristic motifs and very pronounced development sections.
> 
> See The Battle of Javin section. Listen to the remarkable free procession, dissection and recombination of themes and motifs in this 9 minute long development section:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a lot of uncertainty in the music about what is actually going on. Such developing music is more independent and not just illustrative like some unalternated, intact full themes. John Williams music has symphonic characteristics. I wish more actual symphonies had 9 minute development sections.


To be honest, this piece really sounds like pure "film music", because this agitated fragmentation of melodies is typical of film scores inside action scenes.

The concert works of romantic music are not composed in this way. There is more coherence/fluidity in the development.












However, if you like this style of composition (melodies composed by fragment of themes), the entire suite of Toy Story is composed like this (you find it in the Best Original Musical or Comedy Score - 1996). To be honest, I prefer more fluid melodies rather than strongly fragmented melodies which don't let the themes breathe.


----------



## HansZimmer

AaronSF said:


> This interview with Glass and Corigliano is brilliant. They are both very clear that film music and concert music are quite different from each other and they explain why and how. If the opinions of two contemporary composers--who have composed both film and concert music--can't convince you that film music and concert music are two very different things, then I think nothing can.


The official definition of "classical music" doesn't say that it's concert music (otherwise incidental music wouldn't be classical music), therefore I also don't recognize this meaning. So, Glass and Corigliano have simply explained the difference between composing concert music and film music, not between composing classical music and rock music/pop music/jazz music/whatever...


----------



## HansZimmer

mikeh375 said:


> LOL. So far in this thread, poor composers have been accused of not knowing what kind of music they write and now they have a non-argument apparently when they say that there is a difference between writing for film and the concert hall. I'll stick with the thoughts of those who know what they are talking about thanks.


The best composer of the earth can be confused about definitions. The official definition of classical music is not "concert music" (show me that the official definition has this constraint), so the composers who think that "concert music" and "classical music" are synonimous are confused about words.

No one denies that there is asubstantial difference between composing symphonies, operas and film music. The point is that you can not arbitrarily exclude film music from classical music if the offical definition doesn't say that it's concert music... and if the definition said this, then Thamos of Mozart is not classical music.


----------



## HansZimmer

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> The only two kinds of music that matter to me are music that I like and music that I don't like. Having said that, it is mildly interesting to see the different schools of thought on film music. My local symphony orchestra - the TSO - plays some film music every year, usually Star Wars but with the film playing on the big screen, not just the music. So is this an admission by the TSO that the music alone is not sufficient to hold the attention of the concert goer? The TSO also plays the music of ABBA and Queen. Does that make ABBA and Queen classical music when played by a symphony orchestra?


If you use a theme of a rock song to compose a classical music piece, then you are obviously composing classical music. The original song is not classical music, but your piece is.
However, "orchestral" doesn't necessarily mean "classical".

For example, this orchestral version of "Yellow Submarine" doesn't sound like classical music to my ears, but like band music or circus music.


----------



## Aries

HansZimmer said:


> To be honest, this piece really sounds like pure "film music", because this agitated fragmentation of melodies is typical of film scores inside action scenes.
> 
> The concert works of romantic music are not composed in this way. There is more coherence/fluidity in the development.


It is more extrem regarding fragmentation than typical romantic concert works. However some romantic concert works have similarities to this style. Here some examples:

Most obvious is Wagners style, but he wrote operas, doesn't count as concert works I guess.
Dimitri Shostakovich, Symphony No. 3 (time: 2:02-10:29): Link But it is a somewhat modern work, not properly romantic anymore.
Gustav Mahler, Symphony No. 3 (time: 17:17-24:39): Link
Peter Tchaikovsky, Symphony No. 4 (time: 7:20-12:33): Link



HansZimmer said:


> However, if you like this style of composition (melodies composed by fragment of themes), the entire suite of Toy Story is composed like this (you find it in the Best Original Musical or Comedy Score - 1996). To be honest, I prefer more fluid melodies rather than strongly fragmented melodies which don't let the themes breathe.


A great thing about the Williams soundtrack is that he has not just the fragmented battle section but also a Ouverture/Exposition-equivalent as well as a Coda-equivalent, where the themes are presented in a more complete unfragmented form.


----------



## HansZimmer

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> To me, it feels more that people who want film music to be accepted as classical music want their musical tastes validated; they would feel better if the film music they liked was acknowledged as classical music because they consider classical music a superior genre.


It's a strawman. If I needed a validation of my personal tastes, I would have opened a discussion with the title "Isn't Alan Menken one of the best living composers?", but the discussion simply supports the idea that if you write classical music for a film, it's classical music. Whether it's good or bad music is decided by the single individual with his personal tastes (remember that the quality of music is a PERSONAL thing).


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> k


Aside from the Imperial March, my favorite piece from Star Wars is the Cantina band 






HansZimmer said:


> There are at least three pieces in the new films that are memorable.
> 
> Across the Stars
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Droid Invasion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> March of the Resistance


These are perfect examples of what I consider formulaic and dull film music.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

HansZimmer said:


> It's a strawman. If I needed a validation of my personal tastes, I would have opened a discussion with the title "Isn't Alan Menken one of the best living composers", but the discussion simply spports the idea that if you write classical music for a film, it's classical music. Whether it's good or bad music is decided by the single individual with his personal tastes (remember that the quality of music is a PERSONAL thing).


If you say so. Other than validation for one's personal taste, I fail to see why it's so important to want to convince everyone that the film music you like should be considered classical.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> I think it was some kinda collaborative team effort - this is how Ramin Djawadi emerged out of being their assistant/intern, they (including HZ) were all trying to figure out how best to score that early Will vs. Jack duel, and Djawadi started offering some ideas and then ended up completing the task over the following night - or something like that.
> So they all went "woah dude!" and he started participating more actively down the line, until eventually getting his own commissions etc.
> 
> However Badelt was initially the one credited incl. in the end credits I think.


So still confused about the whole Zimmer/Badelt thing (they've all been collaborating on stuff and Zimmer was the first New Deutschreich colonist who then recruited fellow Germans Badelt and Djawadi), however here's the more exact version of that particular incident:

1:15:44-1:18:18





This is the scene in question:






So independently of how much stuff gets hacked around in the industry in general, here's apparently an example of an "ideal" case, as far as BTS creative work process goes:

The group of composers were trying to figure out the best way of scoring this already finished and edited sequence (apparently sitting on a bunch of already written/finished elements but not sure which to use or how to put them together) and then one of them figured it out and succeeded - writing around the events on the screen (as you can see there, a combination of moment-to-moment reaction "cues" as well as longer snippets of something that sounds really independent and autonomous and thereby drives the scene - the fully realized version of which can be heard in the end credits or various other moments etc.), but them seeing that as a legitimate creative challenge and not some kinda constraint put on their free-flowing expressive creativity;

and then expressing satisfaction when they succeed at that challenge - describing the result as something that sounds like it was written first and the scene in question was designed around, even though in reality it was the opposite.



While clearly nowhere as independent sounding as various other cases (incl. the X2 example I brought up earlier
#1,898), it's still relevant in the context of



mikeh375 said:


> Film music _is_ very restrictive in its timings for musical phrasing and general narrative, this is patently obvious. From sync points to scene durations (with hit points along the way if needed within the one cue), to emotional arcs and instant shifts in mood. It's a given for a composer to have to make these durational happenings and events seem musically inevitable - thats just being professional.


There's two aspects to this that can be highlighted here:

-what it means when something does end up something "musically inevitable", or autonomous, etc., even when it was written around tight restrictions with precise timing requirements etc.; and

-independently of FM-CHM comparisons and that whole subject, even when the FM clearly doesn't sound independent, like in this Pirates example, whether that warrants default cynicism about extra-musical elements restricting the musical creativity - esp. given how those external factors can range anywhere between tone-deaf producers / egotistical tone-deaf directors, to artistic products of the other artforms that the music is to be combined with into an organic whole.


In this case the music crew clearly sees it in the latter sort of way - as a creative endeavor that they want to take on, rather than some sort of restricting nuisance that they wouldn't be facing in a CHM context.


In this other PotC interview, they themselves talk about how a lot of other productions end up with recycly sounding hack scores because of the assembly line temp track process etc., while they lucked out, escaping that kind of situation and benefitting creatively:





I think it probably makes more sense to discuss a medium/form (like film, in this case) in terms of what it's generally shown to be capable of, in instances like this, instead of the hackery it may be falling back on in other cases - even if those cases do happen to comprise some kind of vast majority.

That subject would then rather be about the "state of the industry" and how it may be falling short of the potential of the medium (achieved in certain cases), rather than the medium itself and how it inherently compares to other forms like music theater etc. - two distinct topics really, if one looks at it.


----------



## hammeredklavier

mmsbls said:


> I have seen a reasoned argument based on the process of composing. Then I have seen people give examples of composers with expertise in the field who agree with that argument. Basically, those people are saying, "Here's our reasoning, and it's not just some people without musical knowledge. Here are examples of experts giving that same reasoning." People should be somewhat skeptical when I say "Pluto is not a planet for reason X." When the International Astronomical Union defines the term planet and gives the same reason X for not classifying Pluto as a planet, people should be less skeptical of the reasoning.


In the case of whether or not Pluto is a planet, there is a clear (qualitative and quantitative) definition. With "classical music", there has never been a clear one. Of course, the "establishment" has been taken over by the likes of the judges of a certain 'Bubbles experiment'. (which I won't discuss in detail here, since it's a sensitive topic for some.)


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


----------



## hammeredklavier

mikeh375 said:


> I think @Aries is possibly referring to the fact that JW's style of scoring (or perhaps that should read musical know-how) is not as in demand these days as it might have been 20-30 or more years ago when links to a more traditional way of writing and scoring where more prevalent. Whether I've read @Aries correctly or not, the rise of the DAW (which can justifiably be seen as the polar opposite to William's compositional approach), has tended to democratise the business of film scoring, affecting what one might see as any mastery of craft by enabling a lower compositional standard or bar (in terms of orchestral writing that is), to become acceptable - not just aesthetically and technically, but also in a practical way because of the DAW's convenience during composing, presenting ideas and post-production. The DAW has in other words, contributed much to the demise of an older school, traditional orchestral approach and has enabled newer approaches to scoring to become popular.
> 
> For me, the now ubiquitous use of the DAW and its impact is not neccessarily bad because the movement away from the purely orchestral over the years has also opened up much expressive and dramatic potential in filmic terms with sound - a potential the DAW partly instigated and can maximise to the fullest.(The soundtrack to 'Gravity' for example was composed with spatialisation incorporated as a technique, utilising surround sound so that music moved in the audio field to mimic how it would be if the characters heard the sound. This was only possible thanks to the DAW and general technology available and was as much sound design as score.
> 
> The DAW's impact however bears heavily on the OP's question as I see it because clearly orchestral music is still in demand for film, but is not always being written to the highest standards of orchestral writing other than what orchestral samples used in a DAW can playback convincingly enough (they have limitations at present). This is yet another reason why a place alongside the canon for much in the way of filmscore can be problematical for me because scoring for a real orchestra and with a good technique vastly expands expressive potential. Some of the more creative and idiomatic orchestral effects and timbres are difficult to achieve with current samples, if not impossible, although samples are getting better and better.
> Here is an example of the samples used in media music today.
> Spitfire Audio — Spitfire Appassionata Strings


So long story short, you're saying music composed with use of such software or device (eg. DAW) doesn't quality as classical music? Whatabout things like Pithoprakta by Xenakis?


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Aside from the Imperial March, my favorite piece from Star Wars is the Cantina band


Ok here you go then (possibly)


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao




----------



## hammeredklavier

hammeredklavier said:


> There are also instances of now-famous composers "borrowing" things from now-neglected composers, but the now-famous composers get credit (given by the classical music community and academia) for "popularizing" them. Doesn't Williams also deserve credit (for "popularizing Stravinsky") in a similar fashion? Take for example, J.H. Knecht's pastoral symphony (1784), in terms of "programmatic" cyclic content it stands out from its time and became the basis for Beethoven's.
> 
> Btw, let's not get into arguments like "But Beethoven still wrote a better symphony". The evaluation (whether it's really better, or just different, or even just too much popular-music-like in comparison, etc) could depend on how one views the sequential repeats or www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdsbzkXxosI&t=3m18s, for instance.


@PaulFranz, I'm continuing our argument in this thread cause I don't want to do it in that thread, <How can people not see the foolhardiness of their contention...>. As a reply to your arguments that John Williams is only neo-Wagnerian, I also want to point out-

*"PG *Absolutely. After all, wasn’t it John Williams who made Stravinsky a popular idiom?" (Debate: When is film music ‘classical’?)


----------



## mikeh375

hammeredklavier said:


> So long story short, you're saying music composed with use of such software or device (eg. DAW) doesn't quality as classical music? Whatabout things like Pithoprakta by Xenakis?


I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that people who cant' read music can create orchestral sounding music within a DAW using orchestral samples - that's it's democratising ability. The lack of formal study is often apparent, particularly in orchestration which is limited to the simplest of formulae and the ubiquitous use of certain sample articulations, especially rhythmic staccato or spiccato strings. Idiomatic instrumental techniques used for their expressive an/or orchestral appropriateness are virtually non-existent because they are either 1) not available i.e. have not been sampled by the companies that sell sample sets, or 2) do not sound convincing when played by samples, or 3) and most likely, composers will not have the technical nor musical knowledge to exploit idiomatic writing.
A whole thread could be started regarding the influence of sample articulations on the impact of film music and especially how it is written a priori. If you know what to look for, as I do, the difference between a composer who 'writes exclusively for samples' and a composer who writes for an orchestra is easliy discernible.

It's patently obvious that the quality of music that comes out of a DAW (a computer after all), is equal to the quality of musical information and know-how that is inputted, so your question is somewhat redundant and missing the point. Whatever determines music to be classical has nothing to do with a DAW, which is just a tool.


----------



## mikeh375

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> There's two aspects to this that can be highlighted here:
> 
> -what it means when something does end up something "musically inevitable", or autonomous, etc., even when it was written around tight restrictions with precise timing requirements etc.; and
> 
> -independently of FM-CHM comparisons and that whole subject, even when the FM clearly doesn't sound independent, like in this Pirates example, whether that warrants default cynicism about extra-musical elements restricting the musical creativity - esp. given how those external factors can range anywhere between tone-deaf producers / egotistical tone-deaf directors, to artistic products of the other artforms that the music is to be combined with into an organic whole.
> 
> 
> That subject would then rather be about the "state of the industry" and how it may be falling short of the potential of the medium (achieved in certain cases), rather than the medium itself and how it inherently compares to other forms like music theater etc. - two distinct topics really, if one looks at it.


Musical inevitability is not a simple discussion to have so I wont focus too much on that. It might be a good thread topic to start up in the 'Composer's Today' section though. Suffice to say that inevitability is a mostly subjective property ( although it can also be achieved or aided technically). It's also a highly desirable property to have in most genres of music and composing, even if it is obscured in complexity and discernible only by the composer. If that happens, then subjective and/or technical inevitability as perceived by the composer, can be seen as a process for justifying choices - ie how a work proceeds at the molecular level over time from note to note. Others may have a different view but all would agree I'm sure that musical inevitability in a very basic sense of the term means that it 'feels' right - for listeners and especially composers.

Regarding FM's impact on creativity, my position is not 'default cynicism' it is_ absolute certainty_ that the limits of personal expression (and therefore technique, fantasy, imagination), a composer might draw upon for the concert hall has to be curtailed or reigned in in many ways if a film cue/theme is to be written. It's not open to debate imv and in my experience and I make no concessions whatsoever, for it is actually what happens _for a certain type of composer_ (see below).

One can of course be highly inventive and creative within any set of parameters, even push technical and musical boundaries, that's obvious and much in the way of film score does this to terrific effect as evidenced in Cristobal Tapia de Veer's inventive, creepy and effective score to 'Smile'. But when it comes to writing _orchestral_ film/media music, the many extraneous requirements to be fulfiled or taken into account, impinge too much on not just a few, but potentially far too many compositional elements at once, in order to fully compare any resulting music to a more personal, profound, searching and musical exploration and expression.

It might be worth mentioning again that I always have in mind when posting in this thread, composers who are actually capable technically and musically of writing concert hall music and have done so. This is the single and most important distinction I make in my stance and why I made this very clear early on in the thread because it relates directly to the OP question as I see it. Zimmer is not one of those composers of symphonies and concertos as I'm sure he'd be the first to admit and consequently is not really relevant to my pov.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

HansZimmer said:


> If you use a theme of a rock song to compose a classical music piece, then you are obviously composing classical music. The original song is not classical music, but your piece is.
> However, "orchestral" doesn't necessarily mean "classical".
> 
> For example, this orchestral version of "Yellow Submarine" doesn't sound like classical music to my ears, but like band music or circus music.


These distinctions are all blurry and arguable though:


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

mikeh375 said:


> Musical inevitability is not a simple discussion to have so I'll leave that out.
> Regarding impact on creativity, my position is not 'default cynicism' it is_ absolute certainty_ that expression - and therefore technique, fantasy, imagination - a composer might draw upon for the concert hall has to be curtailed or reigned in in many ways if a film cue/theme is to be written. It's not open to debate imv and I make no concessions whatsoever, for it is what happens.


Unless the composer is also the auteur director and editor all at once, it's obviously not up to debate that if he's tasked with scoring a finished sequence, he has lots of constraints to work in - whereas in an autonomous concert piece, he has virtually none.

The point there was whether this is supposed to be viewed as a bad thing or a good thing, or under what circumstances it's bad or good - and that in an instance like this, where the composers embrace the task and challenge of coming up with something that specifically fits a particular scene, rather than lamenting their lack of freedom and considering this to be an inferior type of work, the case seems to be the latter.




> One can of course be highly inventive and creative within any set of parameters, even push boundaries, that's obvious and much in the way of film score does this to terrific effect as I heard in Cristobal Tapia de Veer's inventive, creepy and effective score to 'Smile' the other night.


Not seen that one yet, however it could also be called a positive example if
-it cannot be said that an unconstrained CHM version of that score would be even better (not necessarily than the score is in isolation, but rather than the score is in the context of the film);
-the composer viewed it the same way.




> But when it comes to writing orchestral film/media music, the many extraneous requirements to be fulfiled or taken into account, impinge too much on not just a few, but potentially far too many compositional elements at once, in order to fully compare any resulting music to a more personal, profound, searching and musical exploration and expression.
> 
> It might be worthg mentioning again that I always have in mind when posting, composers who are actually capable technically and musically of writing concert hall music. This is the single and most important distinction I make in my argument and why I made this very clear early on in the thread. Zimmer is not one of those composers as I'm sure he'd be the first to admit and is not really relevant to my pov.


Based on some of his end credits stuff etc., probably could write relatively short concert pieces; or maybe 20 minutes ambient works, like that Dune suite that was posted here a few pages ago.
At least I'm not aware of any reasons why he couldn't.


----------



## mikeh375

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> Unless the composer is also the auteur director and editor all at once, it's obviously not up to debate that if he's tasked with scoring a finished sequence, he has lots of constraints to work in - whereas in an autonomous concert piece, he has virtually none.
> 
> The point there was whether this is supposed to be viewed as a bad thing or a good thing, or under what circumstances it's bad or good - and that in an instance like this, where the composers embrace the task and challenge of coming up with something that specifically fits a particular scene, rather than lamenting their lack of freedom and considering this to be an inferior type of work, the case seems to be the latter.
> 
> 
> Not seen that one yet, however it could also be called a positive example if
> -it cannot be said that an unconstrained CHM version of that score would be even better (not necessarily than the score is in isolation, but rather than the score is in the context of the film);
> -the composer viewed it the same way.
> 
> Based on some of his end credits stuff etc., probably could write relatively short concert pieces; or maybe 20 minutes ambient works, like that Dune suite that was posted here a few pages ago.
> At least I'm not aware of any reasons why he couldn't.


Yeah, I acknowledged the heat and excitement of constraints and even work within some of my own devising on a daily basis these days. (I edited my post most likely whilst you where responding - the last paragraph is particularly important for my pov). Constraints are not just good, they are essential if a composer is to express themselves. In FM composing the constraints are also a spur for creativity, nothing is different in that respect. The freedoms I speak of relate to musical freedoms allowed in the concert hall and not in film. The process of actually composing is in one sense much the same, it's the tools, how they are applied and to what extent their full and personal expressive reach is blunted in FM which are an issue for me. One that potentially disqualifies FM as being CH music according my definitions and criteria, (which I might add @HansZimmer are clear and accurate).
HZ (the real one), might well write longer pieces but they will not be as cogent and musically focused as say a symphony by a formally trained composer. So no, much as I love some of his work, I disagree that HZ's music can be 'concert music' in the sense I prefer to define it as determined by compositional approach and the example of the canon. YMMV clearly.


----------



## HansZimmer

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> As a "natural" social convention, when said during casual conversation, that's all fine, but in this case the notion that "we credit Mozart, not da Ponte" was used as an argument to support an assertion - namely that "Prima La Musica", and there's no debate to be had there;


For what it worths, in opera I also want a good story, because it's what the genre is about: a story narrated with music. Of course I also want a good interpretation (I WATCH opera, so the eyes want their part!). So, I'd say that the skills of the composer, the skills of the librettist, the skills of the interpreters, the skills of the technicians who prepare everything which is needed (dresses, stage,...) are equally important.

If I only want to listen to the music alone, then it's full of pieces who are intended to be simply listened to. When it comes to music alone, I prefer concertos and symphonies.


----------



## HansZimmer

DaveM said:


> (Assume IMO for all of this.)
> So much of this thread has devolved into arguments against the premise of film music as classical music, some of them dismissive and disparaging. I’d like to return to some of the reasons that anyone would bring this subject up to begin with. Also, I am tiring of hearing the same 3-4 film composers (especially John Williams) or those from half a century ago being the subject of discussion when there are several other notable film composers from the last 30 years. One of them, practically never mentioned, except by me, is Randy Edelman who I’ll use as an example below. He is, by any measure, an upper tier if not tier 1, film composer.
> 
> Classical music underwent major changes in the 20th century and they continue in the 21st. Common to these changes is a move away from accessible melody and harmony. While I find there to be semblances of melody and harmony in atonal works, it is not as obvious or accessible as in music of the CP era. Sometimes a melody is more discernible, but is what I would call a wandering melody. Then there are the avant-garde works which dispense with melody, harmony and structure altogether.
> 
> And so, in this background, in the latter 20th century came a period of highly orchestrated film music with soaring melodie’s and harmony. This period was roughly 1980 to 2015 when producers and directors were looking for soundtracks to make a major contribution to the movie rather than just as background music. Melodic themes opened the movie, were associated with things such as the love interest and closed (sometimes) with end-title standalone works. For some of us, certainly me, this became a source of some of the characteristics that originally drew us to classical music and were now either less apparent or missing in contemporary music.
> 
> These are some examples from Randy Edelman, each one quite different from the other and each one highly original and melodic:
> 
> *From the 1993 Gettysburg:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> From the* 2000 Passion of Mind:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the *1996 Dragonheart:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a concert where the above work is played. Looks very much like a full orchestra similar to what would play classical music and my guess is that this work would be far more accessible to audiences, even if they had never heard it before, than many modern, contemporary classical music works:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not an argument to put works such as this in a classical music classification. There are reasons why the music and the way it is composed has important differences from CM. But it is an attempt to explain why some film music provides some characteristics of accessible melody and harmony that some of us have missed as classical music has changed so drastically.


Nice selections!


----------



## HansZimmer

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Cybernaut is adding extremely well-thought out, unassailable arguments in support of his point of view.


If you think that the reasons are linked to snobbery, then you don't have to argument, because there is nothing to argument against snobbery.


----------



## HansZimmer

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> there is some film music that I like but cannot think of any that I would rather listen to on its own without the film


1) I don't care for the Disney animated movies of the nineties (The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Lion King, Aladdin, Pocahontas,...), but I consider their scores excellent, and I like to listen to the music without having to watch the cartoons one more time.

2) I have never watched the film "Avalon", but I enjoy the suite.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

mikeh375 said:


> Yeah, I acknowledged the heat and excitement of constraints and even work within some of my own devising on a daily basis these days.


Ah, maybe wasn't remembering those particular statements while typing my post - guess it was a redundant one then lol



> (I edited my post most likely whilst you where responding - the last paragraph is particularly important from my pov). Constraints are not just good, they are essential if a composer is to express themselves. In FM composing the constraints are also a spur for creativity, nothing is different in that respect. The freedoms I speak of relate to musical freedoms allowed in the concert hall and not in film, the process of actually composing is in one sense much the same, it's the tools, how they are applied and to what extent their full and personal expressive reach is blunted that is an issue.


Hm, don't necessarily understand the nuances of all that or can reply here in any meaningful way - except the very basic premise of the concrete constraints that come with the task of scoring a particular (esp. already finished) scene, that is.


Thing is I tend to instinctively view an film as an "auteur production" even when I know it isn't (neither internally among the filmmakers, nor externally in terms of studio/audience/deadline pressures) - as long as it's "working" that is;

so if it makes the impression of being the cinematic version of a well-planned and "full and expressive", finding out that it actually got hastily scrapped together under pressure or whatnot, tends to be interesting in its own specific way.

And if it doesn't work, it can be seen as some sort of failure of imagination on the (imaginary) "auteur's" part, or a result of a disjointed collaboration process now made apparent.


So that's my type of perspective I suppose, at least currently.




> HZ might well write longer pieces but they will not be as cogent and musically focused as say a symphony by a formally trained composer. So no, much as I love some of his work, I disagree that HZ's work would be 'concert music' in the sense I prefer to define it as determined by compositional approach and the canon. YMMV clearly.


Well his shorter 3 minute ones might be; the longer ones may very well end up being less convincing, if he hasn't done anything like that before.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

HansZimmer said:


> For what it worths, in opera I also want a good story, because it's what the genre is about: a story narrated with music. Of course I also want a good interpretation (I WATCH opera, so the eyes want their part!). So, I'd say that the skills of the composer, the skills of the librettist, the skills of the interpreters, the skills of the technicians who prepare everything which is needed (dresses, stage,...) are equally important.
> 
> If I only want to listen to the music alone, then it's full of pieces who are intended to be simply listened to. When it comes to music alone, I prefer concertos and symphonies.


Well yeah, by default certainly; it can vary from work/production to work/production though, or depend on current mood (which makes generalized "debates" about "which is the most important" across all music theater, everywhere, kind of really pointless).


----------



## HansZimmer

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> If you say so. Other than validation for one's personal taste, I fail to see why it's so important to want to convince everyone that the film music you like should be considered classical.


It's not. If you read the OP, it's the journalist of The Guardian who thinks that the question is so important that an article in a journal is needed to attack the buisiness of Classic FM. My question about the rationality of the reaction is totally free.


----------



## HansZimmer

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> These distinctions are all blurry and arguable though:


Of course there are intersections between different genres and grey areas, but I had a friend who played the trumpet in a band and I went to a concert of his band. I seriously doubt that any person there had the feeling that we were listening to a classical music concert. "Folk music concert" would be the right word. Folk music is often confused with popular music, but it's a different thing, because in popular music there are the musical genres that have been launched by the music industry. Band music is a form of traditional music that already existed before the music industry and that it has probably nationalistic roots.

By definition, folk music is the music of the local traditions, the music "of the people". It's ancient, traditional music which has an historic importance for a community, while popular music is globalist.

I think that it's safe to say that there wasn't a war between folk music and classical music, so they probably took inspiration between each others. Band music is basically a form of orchestral music. However, they are still distinct musical traditions. Classical music has created its own aesthetic, its own forms, and so on... and the music you hear in a band concert is different from classical music in regards to many different aspects.


----------



## fbjim

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> As a "natural" social convention, when said during casual conversation, that's all fine, but in this case the notion that "we credit Mozart, not da Ponte" was used as an argument to support an assertion - namely that "Prima La Musica", and there's no debate to be had there;


Its not just casual shorthand though- an enormous amount of our musical scholarship is based on the social convention that the prime creative force behind a work of classical music is the composer. 

This isn't to say that there's no other ways to look at this - as an example, every so often people point out that it's maybe not 100% accurate to credit everything in a film to the film's director - but these conventions also inform the creation of art itself. A guitarist in a punk band, a classical guitar soloist, and a session guitar player who plays on popular country records have significantly different "standing" in terms of being viewed as the "auteur", in film crit terms, and this affects what art gets created, how it gets created, and how listeners view it. 

To put it another way, the fact that this is a social convention and not something provable, or even something that exists in any concrete way does not prevent it from being important, and it's more difficult than it might seem to simply toss it out. The value of money, after all, is a social convention, but that doesn't mean having no money has no effect on me.


----------



## fbjim

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> Not quite sure whether that's the case - I think people can sometimes be unaware that sth is a cover, but when they are, the original is typically acknowledged as the, well, original real thing, while the cover is the cover.


While this is true, I believe the convention in popular music is to evaluate cover versions (or renditions of standards) on their own terms, while in classical, a lot of the discussion around performances focuses on successful rendition of the composer's vision. 

Of course we care about what the performers (especially soloists) bring to the work, and there are exceptions where conductors have gotten "auteurist" acclaim in their own right e.g. Furtwangler/Barbirolli/Celibidache, but even then, when I hear acclaim for their performances, it's so frequently framed as how they "do justice" or "bring to life" the composer's vision, as if they are channeling the spirit of Beethoven or something, in a way that doesn't quite match up to how we view pop music covers.


----------



## Luchesi

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Cybernaut is adding extremely well-thought out, unassailable arguments in support of his point of view.


If Cybernaut, Aries and this OP had different experiences then how different would their likes and dislikes be currently?

The same goes for all of us, I guess, but there are big differences in experiences. For how long do sweet transitions and resolutions remain the most important aspects of music? For me it was about 15 or 20 years, but I started young..


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

HansZimmer said:


> 2) I have never watched the film "Avalon", but I enjoy the suite.


To my ears this music is so banal, so formulaic and so forgettable (could not listen past the first few minutes) that I would be ashamed to say I liked classical music if it were included in the genre.


----------



## Aries

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> To my ears this music is so banal, so formulaic and so forgettable (could not listen past the first few minutes) that I would be ashamed to say I liked classical music if it were included in the genre.


Is "I like classical music" a statement you want to make and feel good about it? To me such generalized statements sound pretty stupid anyway. A statement an uninformed person would make, because it has no clue how diverse classical music is but it heard Mozart once. Or a statement a snob would make to present themselve as something better.

I know that classical music is diverse, and because of that I prefer statements like "I like Anton Bruckner". I know that I dislike Stockhausen, and that I don't care much for Brahms.

Maybe some people are actually able to like all classical music, but a dislikement for the Avalon soundtrack would be implausible in this case.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> To my ears this music is so banal, so formulaic and so forgettable (could not listen past the first few minutes) that I would be ashamed to say I liked classical music if it were included in the genre.


You already hate the harpsichord lol


----------



## hammeredklavier

hammeredklavier said:


> Here, Mozart sounds like he only makes "sound suggestions" to his librettist, and is not in a position to dictate what should or should not go on in the opera in terms of overall plot.


All Mozart did was writing music in numbers in a way that fits into the play, as expected of any other opera composer at the time in the society and industry. Of course his numbers aren't "cut off" in the way today's film music is; but that was just a Classical period convention. Some of his numbers take forms similar to the sonata or the rondo, not just the form of "episodes" of today's film music; also a Classical period convention. These shouldn't be interpreted as "a composer having control over his art". There were theater directors in Mozart's time telling the librettist and composer, "You see; I can do anything".

Da Ponte / Memoirs, Part II (On 'Le nozze di Figaro')
There was a certain Bussani, who had a post as inspector of costumes and stage properties, and was jack-at-all-trades save at that of an honest man. Having heard that I had woven a ballet into my Figaro, he ran forth-with to the Count and in a tone of amazed disapprobation cried:
'Excellency, the signor poeta has put a ballet in his opera!'
The Count sent for me at once, and frowning darkly, launched into this dialogue, a fine counterpart to the one I had with his Barnabotic Excellency:
'So, the signor poeta has used a ballet in Figaro!'
'Yes, Excellency.'
'The signor poeta does not know that the Emperor has forbidden dancing in the theater?'
'No, Excellency.'
'In that case, signor poeta, I will tell you so now.'
'Yes, Excellency.'
'And I will tell you further, signor poeta, that you must take it out!' (His signor poeta had a significant tone of its own which gave the phrase the meaning of 'Signor Jackass' or something of the sort. But my 'Yes, Excellency' and 'No, Excellency,' had their innuendo too.)
'No, Excellency.'
'Have you the libretto with you?'
'Yes, Excellency.'
'Where is the scene with the dance?'
'Here it is, Excellency.'
'This is the way we do.'
Saying which he took two sheets of my manuscript, laid them carefully on the fire, and returned the libretto to me.
'You see, signor poeta, that I can do anything!'


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> You already hate the harpsichord lol


True but my reaction to the music had nothing to do with the harpsichord.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Aries said:


> Is "I like classical music" a statement you want to make and feel good about it? To me such generalized statements sound pretty stupid anyway. A statement an uninformed person would make, because it has no clue how diverse classical music is but it heard Mozart once. Or a statement a snob would make to present themselve as something better.
> 
> I know that classical music is diverse, and because of that I prefer statements like "I like Anton Bruckner". I know that I dislike Stockhausen, and that I don't care much for Brahms.
> 
> Maybe some people are actually able to like all classical music, but a dislikement for the Avalon soundtrack would be implausible in this case.


Yes, the statement "I like classical music" is pretty general but used in the context of this thread it made sense to me when I made it. There is a lot of classical music I don't like yet the music I like the most is classical.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

HansZimmer said:


> Of course there are intersections between different genres and grey areas, but I had a friend who played the trumpet in a band and I went to a concert of his band. I seriously doubt that any person there had the feeling that we were listening to a classical music concert. "Folk music concert" would be the right word. Folk music is often confused with popular music, but it's a different thing, because in popular music there are the musical genres that have been launched by the music industry. Band music is a form of traditional music that already existed before the music industry and that it has probably nationalistic roots.
> 
> By definition, folk music is the music of the local traditions, the music "of the people". It's ancient, traditional music which has an historic importance for a community, while popular music is globalist.
> 
> I think that it's safe to say that there wasn't a war between folk music and classical music, so they probably took inspiration between each others. Band music is basically a form of orchestral music. However, they are still distinct musical traditions. Classical music has created its own aesthetic, its own forms, and so on... and the music you hear in a band concert is different from classical music in regards to many different aspects.


State/military could probably be classified as yet another related but distinct category - too official and up there to just be "traditional" band or folk, but not exactly court entertainment music either.


Also I've sometimes wondered if what they did in the 19th could be categorized as pretty much an entirely different animal from the court music they did in the 18th and before (perhaps not counting the commercial music theater work or inter-musical publications) - one that gradually evolved from it of course, but eventually ended up becoming a distinct entity on its own;

if seen that way, could that minuet from the Rigoletto (i.e. the 2nd time stamp) be viewed as as much a "foreigner" to the opera's general style as the band dance music from the same opening?
It's kind of almost drawn attention to by the fact that both are played by on-stage musicians (contrasting with the two comparable instances from Don Giovanni where the hired in-universe musicians were emphatically playing in the same style of the opera, up to the direct quotes from previous irl works).



However a lot comes down to the sound and performance style of course - some productions make these segments sound a lot more homogenous:











Here they've even got a violin on top:










fbjim said:


> Its not just casual shorthand though- an enormous amount of our musical scholarship is based on the social convention that the prime creative force behind a work of classical music is the composer.
> 
> This isn't to say that there's no other ways to look at this - as an example, every so often people point out that it's maybe not 100% accurate to credit everything in a film to the film's director - but these conventions also inform the creation of art itself. A guitarist in a punk band, a classical guitar soloist, and a session guitar player who plays on popular country records have significantly different "standing" in terms of being viewed as the "auteur", in film crit terms, and this affects what art gets created, how it gets created, and how listeners view it.
> 
> To put it another way, the fact that this is a social convention and not something provable, or even something that exists in any concrete way does not prevent it from being important, and it's more difficult than it might seem to simply toss it out. The value of money, after all, is a social convention, but that doesn't mean having no money has no effect on me.


Sure, given how this is the aesthetics&fiction department etc., in a way it's valid to say that if such narratives reach enough of a presence in someone's (or the collective) mind, they then "become real" to some extent.

However at the same time that's no reason to generally toss confirmed/historical reality out the window - one can easily go watch Rigoletto or Figaro while thinking of them as original auteur works by their respective composers, and maybe even talk of them that way in various casual conversations etc., and maybe there's value in analyzing them from that kind of perspective;

at the same time both remain 0) collaborations of composer and librettist, 1) theater adaptations, and 2) works written around heavy state censorship (which temporarily banned the original plays as well - thus sparing them of alterations, ironically), and when things come to an even halfway "rational" discussion, facts like this can no longer get buried or ignored.

So that's generally a sensible approach to this stuff I think.




fbjim said:


> While this is true, I believe the convention in popular music is to evaluate cover versions (or renditions of standards) on their own terms, while in classical, a lot of the discussion around performances focuses on successful rendition of the composer's vision.
> 
> Of course we care about what the performers (especially soloists) bring to the work, and there are exceptions where conductors have gotten "auteurist" acclaim in their own right e.g. Furtwangler/Barbirolli/Celibidache, but even then, when I hear acclaim for their performances, it's so frequently framed as how they "do justice" or "bring to life" the composer's vision, as if they are channeling the spirit of Beethoven or something, in a way that doesn't quite match up to how we view pop music covers.


Yes, but as previously pointed out, arrangements like "Liszt's Campanella" are more comparable to "cover versions", since they're also strongly altered, and their authors get a lot more creator credit than performers/conductors who only change the dynamics / time distortions and ornamentations to various extents, but not the main notes or instruments.

And from my impressions, the amount of that "creator credit" generally corresponds to the amount of alteration and creative work done on the original, and is overall handled similarly across these different scenes and genres - i.e. a straightforward instrument transcription / similar cover gets less, while elaborate variations on a theme / virtuoso renditions / jazz standard improvisation solos / 20 minute remixes / sampling work etc. get a lot more.


----------



## Forster

Aries said:


> Is "I like classical music" a statement you want to make and feel good about it? To me such generalized statements sound pretty stupid anyway.


Says a member of an online forum dedicated to sharing the love of classical music.


----------



## Aries

Forster said:


> Says a member of an online forum dedicated to sharing the love of classical music.


I like classical music as a concept, because the concept allows great music more than other genres. But I don't like every specification of classical music. You can understand it in different ways.

I think TwoFluteOneTrumpets comment is interessting. Maybe many people exclude classical film music from classical music, because they don't like it. But is music you don't like a reason to be ashamed? If you have identify yourself with it, maybe. But you don't have to identify yourself with music you don't like. But what about things you have to identify yourself with like being a human?

Is music like this reason to be ashamed for being a human:





I think it is rather just a reminder of what we are: We are still the kind of of the thing depictured in TwoFluteOneTrumpets avatar. We should understand that with sobriety. High culture is volatile and something special.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

We should return to monke.


----------



## HansZimmer

fbjim said:


> The value of money, after all, is a social convention, but that doesn't mean having no money has no effect on me.


Not exactly. The value of the money is established by its credibility. You want a determined currency because it's credible. I don't want to start a discussion about economics, but one of the reason for which the currencies are credible is that the law of the states make their use mandatory for the commercial exchanges (a commercial activity can not refuse to accept the official currency as payment), but the states also have to mantain the values of the currencies (avoiding inflaction) so the currencies have a market value.


----------



## HansZimmer

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> To my ears this music is so banal, so formulaic and so forgettable (could not listen past the first few minutes) that I would be ashamed to say I liked classical music if it were included in the genre.


How many other times will you write that music that it's written and played in the most professional way is not good only because it doesn't excite you? It's like to say "The music of Beethoven doesn't excite me, so it's not good music".
Everyone has his own personal tastes, but the music doesn't become more serious or less serious just because you like or don't like it.


----------



## Kreisler jr

fbjim said:


> Its not just casual shorthand though- an enormous amount of our musical scholarship is based on the social convention that the prime creative force behind a work of classical music is the composer.


But this is not merely a convention. In fact, opera started out with the *lyrics being conceived as or more important as the music* because people wanted to recreate Greek Tragedy that had some music but all of it was lost and AFAIK it was not completely sung, so the Italians around 1600 were mistaken about 5th cent. BC Greek tragedy. 
However, opera quickly developed practically into "prima la musica" and the music has dominated the art form for most of the time, despite Mozart's name printed smaller than Schikaneder's in the Zauberflöte's playbill. (If it was merely a convention we should expect a bit more diversity, shouldn't we, with at least a few operas mainly known for the text/librettists.) This doesn't mean that the librettist is unimportant (it's probably not by accident that many people know of Da Ponte but hardly anyone could name the librettists to Mozarts Idomeneo or Beethoven's Fidelio). Operas with good music that failed because of poor plots or libretti do exist (e.g. all of Schubert's or Weber's Euryanthe). 
I also don't think that deciding who was the "creative force" is that important. It just developed that way that the music (and thus the composer) is seen as more important, even if a particular opera was strongly influenced by the librettist. Again, I cannot think of an example from opera or operetta but in some other musical theater we rarely find the writer named with more or equal prominence (e.g. in Germany this applies to Weill's Threepenny Opera which is quite unfair as the libretto was very probably not even written by Brecht but by his mistress and a lot of it is free translation from the 18th century Beggar's opera).

It's also quite clear that in incidental music for stage plays the convention is that the music is subordinate and it is usually the case, unless it turned out that a piece was forgotten quickly but music of a great composer survived. The same is imaginable for some movies, but I'd guess it would be very rare. Because the music is clearly subordinate in almost all movies. People go to the opera for the music. Except maybe for some musical films who goes to the movies for the music?


----------



## HansZimmer

Aries said:


> I like classical music as a concept, because the concept allows great music more than other genres. But I don't like every specification of classical music. You can understand it in different ways.
> 
> I think TwoFluteOneTrumpets comment is interessting. Maybe many people exclude classical film music from classical music, because they don't like it. But is music you don't like a reason to be ashamed? If you have identify yourself with it, maybe. But you don't have to identify yourself with music you don't like. But what about things you have to identify yourself with like being a human?


I think that it's obvious that most users who complain about the inclusion of symphonic film scores in classical music don't like a great part of the production of the mainstream composers.
They basically want to fill the category with music they like and exclude the music they don't like.

I think that in this discussion we should use philosophical arguments and perspectives even before musical arguments. Does it make any sense to create an offical category based on personal tastes? Obviously not. The offical categories must be based on quite objective parameters: the totally subjective paramaters like "quality" and so on can not play any role in classification, otherwise there can not exist an official category. "Classical music" would simply become a container where everyone insert the music that he likes.

Finally, a little word about the notion of "quality": just because a piece of music doesn't excite you doesn't mean that it's not well written. Many users here have attacked film scores that are objectively well written only because they judge them as "boring" or because they are not written in the way they want ("Tonality in 2023? PUAH! This music is not valid!").


----------



## Forster

HansZimmer said:


> film scores that are objectively well written


Have any such scores yet been identified in this discussion?


----------



## Aries

HansZimmer said:


> I think that it's obvious that most users who complain about the inclusion of symphonic film scores in classical music don't like a great part of the production of the mainstream composers.
> The basically want to fill the category with music they like and exclude the music they don't like.
> 
> I think that in this discussion we should use philosophical arguments and perspectives even before musical arguments. Does it make any sense to create an offical category based on personal tastes? Obviously not. The offical categories must be based on quite objective parameters: the totally subjective paramaters like "quality" and so on can not play any role in classification, otherwise there can not exist an official category. "Classical music" would simply become a container where everyone insert the music that he likes.
> 
> Finally, a little word about the notion of "quality": just because a piece of music doesn't excite you doesn't mean that it's not well written. Many users here have attacked film scores that are objectively well written only because they judge them as "boring" or because they are not written in the way they want ("Tonality in 2023? PUAH! This music is not valid!").


I believe that the distinction between "classical music" and "folk music" is somehow based on a difference in quality. While folk music may employ classical instruments and techniques, I would classiy it as old popular music"due to its lack of the high artistic standards associated with classical music. Traditional music, on the other hand, exists in a gray area. There is a vast amount of traditional music from all over the world, but it seems to have not undergone the same development towards high art that European music did during the Renaissance, Baroque, and classical periods. However, European medieval and Renaissance music is considered classical, so it could be argued that traditional music from other regions should also be classified as classical.

When it comes to film music, some people have excessively high or specific demands. The concept of film music as a separate genre aside from classical, pop, and jazz does not make sense given the overlap of styles. How can one distinguish film music that they are not familiar with from similar concert music that they are also not familiar with? What is the accuracy rate in such a distinction?

The argument that the composing conditions and lack of artistic freedom disqualify film soundtracks from being considered classical music seems insincere. What about videogame soundtracks? Do they count as classical because their composers have more artistic freedom than those creating film soundtracks? The level of artistic freedom available to composers of soundtracks varies regardless of whether they are creating music for film or videogames. Therefore, the argument of missing artistic freedom is not a suitable basis for excluding soundtracks in general from the category of classical music.


----------



## mikeh375

^^ insincere? You might not like or most probably even understand my reasoning but don't call it insincere, that's the last thing it is. Yes, I'm offended by that.


----------



## Aries

mikeh375 said:


> ^^ insincere? You might not like or most probably even understand my reasoning but don't call it insincere, that's the last thing it is. Yes, I'm offended by that.


I did not want to offend you. I don't think it is done conciously. The word "disingenuous" would offend you as well, I guess. What about the terms "advanced" and "underhung"?

It is understandable to defend what one understands as quality standards, but I don't think your rationalization is fully thought out. I think it is driven by the will to protect what you recognize as quality.


----------



## HansZimmer

Forster said:


> Have any such scores yet been identified in this discussion?


"Setting the trap" of "Home Alone" is not probably the most memorable score of John Williams, but memorability is a subjective quality (so I wouldn't be surprised if someone would tell me that he thinks that it's the most memorable piece of John Williams).
However, no one can support the idea that the score looks like a homework of a child.

The part written by John Williams starts at 1:04 (the initial part must be an intro written by the guy who realized the video).

If I've understood well the construction, there is a main subject and a countersubject, so the whole piece is a fugue. Furthermore, there is a secondary subject (which comes from "Star of Betlehem") which replaces the subject of the fugue between 1:44 and 1:47 (so, the secondary subject is exposed here).
After 2:30, the secondary subject is reprised in what we might identify as the climax: now we have a counterpoint between the main subject, the countersubject and the secondary subject. We can say that the climax is created with a complication of the texture in the final part.






The "raw technique" it's not so interesting. What is interesting is how John Williams uses the technique to reach the expressive goals. In the forum dedicated to John Williams, it is said that John Williams often uses intricate textures to create/increase the tension (and it works well), so you will often find this kind of writing in action scenes.

You can like the music or not, but the technical knowledge of John Williams comes out in the scores. Anyone who denies this simple fact it's just a lying hater. It's basically like to say "The music of Mozart bores me, so he was not a trained composer".


The score in the context.







The analysis of the score.







Some film scores are more focused on melodies and colors and, for some strange reasons, some people in the classical music community fail to recognize the artistic merits in the writing of melodies.
In the basket of film scores that I've listened to closely, I attribute the highest artistic merits in regard to melodies and colors to Alan Menken.
The closure of The Beauty and the Beast is a representative example.


----------



## Forster

HansZimmer said:


> You can like the music or not, but the technical knowledge of John Williams comes out in the scores.


Technical knowledge may be admirable, but who is to say that your criteria for "well-wriiten" are applicable, objectively speaking; and that he achieves his ends, objectively speaking?


----------



## hammeredklavier

Kreisler jr said:


> But this is not merely a convention. In fact, opera started out with the lyrics being conceived as or more important as the music because people wanted to recreate Greek Tragedy that had some music but all of it was lost and AFAIK it was not completely sung, so the Italians around 1600 were mistaken about 5th cent. BC Greek tragedy.
> However, opera quickly developed practically into "prima la musica" and the music has dominated the art form for most of the time, despite Mozart's name printed smaller than Schikaneder's in the Zauberflöte's playbill. (If it was merely a convention we should expect a bit more diversity, shouldn't we, with at least a few operas mainly known for the text/librettists.) This doesn't mean that the librettist is unimportant (it's probably not by accident that many people know of Da Ponte but hardly anyone could name the librettists to Mozarts Idomeneo or Beethoven's Fidelio). Operas with good music that failed because of poor plots or libretti do exist (e.g. all of Schubert's or Weber's Euryanthe).
> I also don't think that deciding who was the "creative force" is that important. It just developed that way that the music (and thus the composer) is seen as more important, even if a particular opera was strongly influenced by the librettist. Again, I cannot think of an example from opera or operetta but in some other musical theater we rarely find the writer named with more or equal prominence (e.g. in Germany this applies to Weill's Threepenny Opera which is quite unfair as the libretto was very probably not even written by Brecht but by his mistress and a lot of it is free translation from the 18th century Beggar's opera).
> 
> It's also quite clear that in incidental music for stage plays the convention is that the music is subordinate and it is usually the case, unless it turned out that a piece was forgotten quickly but music of a great composer survived. The same is imaginable for some movies, but I'd guess it would be very rare. Because the music is clearly subordinate in almost all movies. People go to the opera for the music. Except maybe for some musical films who goes to the movies for the music?


Are you saying how things like the Queen of the Night Aria has survived is somehow different from how Pachelbel's Canon in D (which has been enormously influential to modern popular music, even called its "Godfather") has? 100 years from now, what if the music for Starwars also survives like that? If lots of people listen to it on youtube (or whatever the equivalent of youtube in that point of time in the future will be) and comment on it "lol, even after more than 100 years, and it's still a classic", wouldn't it become a "classic"?

That's how things like Mozart's requiem (the Lacrimosa being the most "hackneyed"), 40th, Beethoven 5th, 9th (notable examples of works on youtube that have amassed billions of views) get played/listened to so often in the world today and "continue to survive" in the industry. Honestly the only argument people used to argue they're not "pop classical" is that "they're symphonies", which is a pretty weak argument.


----------



## HansZimmer

Forster said:


> Technical knowledge may be admirable, but who is to say that your criteria for "well-wriiten" are applicable, objectively speaking; and that he achieves his ends, objectively speaking?


If we want to speak about subjective quality then we can close the discussion with "everyone has his personal tastes", but if someone says that John Williams is not a serious composer, to my ears he is saying that he doesn't master technique. Obviously John Williams and James Horner have received a university certification in composition because they don't understand anything of composition.


----------



## hammeredklavier

People thought Mozart's music in the context of opera was disposable (valid maybe only for a few years as opera), just like Paisiello's, who was another "melody machine" (do listen to his music, if you don't know. Would you classify this as Bel Canto? "Questo vago...). At least, after its heyday, it was mostly a connoisseur interest.

That's how Cosi fan tutte even got arranged as a mass. How can you say the music was not "subordinate" to its form in terms of its function in society? (Wouldn't Mozart have made such arrangements in huge quantity if he was paid handsomely for it? Why not? Because he would have thought it was something unworthy for him to do, compared to his composition of some hundred standalone minuets and dances, which are somehow accepted today as valid "classical music"?)





Then came the "19th century biographical myths" about Mozart being "divine perfection" or things (descriptions like "there's not a single note out of place") like that. I'm not criticizing anything as "overrated". I'm just saying it's up to each of us how he/she interprets the stuff.
(Don't get me wrong, I admire Mozart wholeheartedly, but one can admire Mozart but still feel disturbed when he's "glorified" with arguments like "Although he always saw himself as a crowd-pleaser and was never ashamed of it, he _wasn't just_ a crowd-pleaser.")


----------



## Forster

HansZimmer said:


> If we want to speak about subjective quality then we can close the discussion with "everyone has his personal tastes", but if someone says that John Williams is not a serious composer, to my ears he is saying that he doesn't master technique. Obviously John Williams and James Horner have received a university certification in composition because they don't understand anything of composition.


None of this is a reply to my objection. I am not doubting their technical abilities - I already accepted them. What I object to is the idea that the criteria you put forward to arrive at a judgement of "well-written" are subjectively determined. That is to say, they are important to _you_ in your assessment of the quality of the scores you cited. Other listeners might choose other criteria and arrive at a different judgement.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Kreisler jr said:


> The same is imaginable for some movies, but I'd guess it would be very rare.


The music for Starwars gives people nostalgic feelings for the movie when they watch it. How's that different from the same phenomenon with Die Zauberflote. What do you mean by "rare"? There's only one "Starwars" by Williams, just as there's only one "Die Zauberflote" by Mozart, irreplaceable by other "Starwars"s and "Die Zauberflote"s respectively.
It's only the minority classical/contemporary music fanbase/academia today in their elitism that keeps denying this.


----------



## Musobooks

HansZimmer said:


> In the "Movie Corner" I opened a poll about the film scores which got the nomination "Best original score" in the Academy Awards (Oscars) of 1990: Talkclassical best film score award - 1990
> 
> This is for the first part of the competition Talkclassical best film score award.
> 
> Now, the score of the film "The Fabulous Baker Boys" (one of the film nominated in 1990) could be probably classified as Jazz (see for example the first theme) and Intrumental pop (see for example the second theme).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that no one would say that this is not jazz music because it was composed for a film. No one would say "this is not jazz but film music". Indeed, film music is not a genre of music: it only means that the music was composed for a film.
> 
> However, the other four nominated film scores, I think that can be classified as "romantic music".
> Usually, the film scores which get a nomination for the "Best original scores" are more or less classical music.
> 
> That's why the radio Classic FM started to insert some film scores in the competition Classic FM Hall of Fame.
> Their decision is criticized by many people. Read for example this article of the journal "The Guardian": Can film music ever be classical?
> 
> The argument of the writer of this article is that film scores can never be classified as "classical music" because they are composed for images and not for concerts (so, it is not standalone music, but a part of the movie).
> If this argument is valid, then we must conclude that the score of "The Fabulous Baker Boys" is not jazz because it was composed for images and not for concerts.
> 
> However, I agree that pure "motion music" is not extractable from it's context, but the best film scores (the one who win at The Academy Awards) are not simply "motion music": it's music that can be extracted as standalone music. Indeed, the best score composers sell tickets for concerts.
> 
> 
> Maybe the real reason of these people is that they think that John Williams is not as good as Beethoven, Mozart, Bach and so on and they see classical music as a "closed enclosure" where you can enter only if you have a special permission.
> If it is so, still I don't see the logic: you don't have to be Roger Federer for being a tennis player. So, you could simply say "Peter is a tennis player but not the number one" and "John Williams is a classical music composer but not the number one".
> 
> You might say that Bach is the number one and John Williams only an ordinary composer, if you think this, but I don't see the logic of "the closed enclosure".
> Someone could for example say that the composer of "The Fabulous Baker Boys" is a poor jazz composer, but it's still jazz.
> 
> 
> To conclude, my opinion is that much of the music composed for film scores is good classical music: "good" is my personal judgement, but every one can have his own.
> If you ask me "Don't you hear the difference between classical music and film scores?", my anwser is that usually film scores are built around one or more powerful themes, while some pieces in classical music are not so melody focused.
> I won't say that film scores don't have their distinticive rules, but that those rules are compatible with classical music, because there are many pieces that are considered "classical" that are built around a main theme.
> "Spring" of Vivaldi is a good example.
> The idea that classical music must be "chaotic" is only a personal preference of some people and not a rule that every composer must respect.


This doesn’t answer your question but when somebody tells me that they don’t like Classical music, I say, “Do you watch films?”. However, I do find it very difficult to define Classical music. I know it when I hear it. As an appendage, have you seen this? 👇


----------



## Kreisler jr

hammeredklavier said:


> Are you saying how things like the Queen of the Night Aria has survived is somehow different from how Pachelbel's Canon in D (which has been enormously influential to modern popular music, even called its "Godfather") has?


Do you ever read what you respond to or do you quote messages just to start with some hardly related thoughts of your own?
I responded to the claim that it is a "convention" that the opera of the last 400 years focusses on the composers (or music and singer, certainly not the librettists). What does this have to do with Pachelbel's canon?



> 100 years from now, wouldn't the music for Starwars also survive like that? If lots of people listen to it on youtube (or whatever the equivalent of youtube in that point of time in the future will be) and comment on it "lol, even after more than 100 years, and it's still a classic", wouldn't it become a "classic"?


It's possible. But is it likely? It would not at all be like the Magic Flute (where the more or less complete piece has been continually staged with the same text and music for 200 years). It would be more like "Ruins of Athens" where the play is forgotten but a march by Beethoven is still rather well known. I seriously doubt that in the case of Star Wars the movies and their content will be forgotten but some of the music will be remembered. We have had around 90 years of movies with (fixed) music and feel free to include another 30 years of silent movies with musical live accompaniment. Shouldn't we have quite a few examples for music still being popular and played but the movie mostly forgotten? I honestly don't know but I am not aware of any.
There are lots of songs and also some instrumental pieces surviving from otherwise mostly forgotten operettas and musicals of the late 19th and early 20th century (many Jazz standards began like that), so this phenomenon clearly does exist. But I wonder what would be good more recent (say after 1950) examples? I'd guess it would be most of the time songs from "musical films" like "Grease" or "Dirty Dancing" although obviously these movies are still known and popular after ca. 40 years.


----------



## Kreisler jr

hammeredklavier said:


> The music for Starwars gives people nostalgic feelings for the movie when they *watch* it. How's that different from the same phenomenon with Die Zauberflote. What do you mean by "rare"?


You totally missed the point (as most of the time, unfortunately). The whole point was that movie music would become in some ways like classical music if people were usually/more frequently listening to movie music WITHOUT watching the movie. Otherwise one must obviously assume that the reason people watch the movie is the movie, not the music.

What I meant by rare (and I have not been presented with a single plausible example, so I feel pretty safe with that attribute) is precisely* that music for a movie remains popular while the movie is all but forgotten*. 
I'll give you one non-classical example: "White Christmas" was first made popular (although apparently composed a few years earlier) in the movie "Holiday Inn". But now that movie is almost unknown (not repeated every Xmas on TV) while the song is one of the most famous ones in history. And there are lots of similar examples with popular* songs* from operettas, musicals, movies.

Now give me a few examples of pseudo-symphonic (or just any instrumental!) movie music that is somewhat similar to "White Christmas", i.e. movie forgotten, music popular (after at least a few decades). Maybe there is one, but I am not aware of any, so someone please make suggestions!


----------



## hammeredklavier

Kreisler jr said:


> What I meant by rare (and I have not been presented with a single plausible example, so I feel pretty safe with that attribute) is precisely* that music for a movie remains popular while the movie is all but forgotten*.
> I'll give you one non-classical example: "White Christmas" was first made popular (although apparently composed a few years earlier) in the movie "Holiday Inn". But now that movie is almost unknown (not repeated every Xmas on TV) while the song is one of the most famous ones in history. And there are lots of similar examples with popular* songs* from operettas, musicals, movies.


Yes, there are lots, for example, the music for Gone With the Wind




2,391,253 views

which is just as popular (if not more) as numerous works that are considered to have "survived" in our minority circle


----------



## Forster

Kreisler jr said:


> somewhat similar to "White Christmas", i.e. movie forgotten, music popular


_White Christmas_ has been forgotten? I don't think so.


----------



## Forster

hammeredklavier said:


> Yes, there are lots, for example, the music for Gone With the Wind
> [...]
> 
> which is just as popular (if not more) as numerous works that are considered to have "survived" in our minority circle


Seriously?? _Gone With The Wind_, forgotten?


----------



## hammeredklavier

Forster said:


> Seriously?? _Gone With The Wind_, forgotten?


Kreisler jr wants examples of people listening only to the music without watching the movie. So there.



Kreisler jr said:


> Do you ever read what you respond to or do you quote messages just to start with some hardly related thoughts of your own?
> I responded to the claim that it is a "convention" that the opera of the last 400 years focusses on the composers (or music and singer, certainly not the librettists). What does this have to do with Pachelbel's canon?


Why not? It could be said that, outside of our minority circles, the reason it survived is because of its popular-music like qualities (eg. the popularity of the "catchiness" of the Queen of the Night Aria). What's your definition of "classical music"?



Kreisler jr said:


> You totally missed the point (as most of the time, unfortunately). The whole point was that movie music would become in some ways like classical music if people were usually/more frequently listening to movie music WITHOUT watching the movie. Otherwise one must obviously assume that the reason people watch the movie is the movie, not the music.


No I didn't. Exactly as you implied. How many instances there are of Wagner operas being played by orchestras and singers in their entirety (not just the "excerpts"; film music has their "excerpts" too) without being "staged"? How many people outside of our circles listen to them as recordings only?


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

HansZimmer said:


> How many other times will you write that music that it's written and played in the most professional way is not good only because it doesn't excite you? It's like to say "The music of Beethoven doesn't excite me, so it's not good music".
> Everyone has his own personal tastes, but the music doesn't become more serious or less serious just because you like or don't like it.


I'm pretty sure the music you referenced (Avalon suite) will be deemed trash by most experienced classical listeners. If you don't believe me, do a poll.


----------



## hammeredklavier

It's not that Baroque and Classical operas' plots are "forgotten". A lot of them are generic or samey or have the same basic plotline and morals of outdated sensibilities. Even Fidelio has a lot of similarities with Orfeo ed Euridice. Tell you what - for many in (even) our circles, it's the silliness or ridiculousness of the plot that turns them off, so they choose only to listen to the music. Seriously, are people in this thread putting forth arguments like "People don't read them as libretti, so the music reigns supreme".


----------



## Forster

hammeredklavier said:


> Kreisler jr wants examples of people listening only to the music without watching the movie.


No, he doesn't.

But it's not only you who misread the relevant post; I see he was referring to _Holiday Inn_ as the forgotten movie, not White Christmas. My bad.


----------



## Kreisler jr

I am out of this madhouse. People are really deeply confused here. 
There is very little important classical music that is usually presented out of context, such as Gluck's "blessed spirits" or some famous arias. And even then in almost all of such cases the operas are still in the repertoire. If people don't see the difference between "Nessun dorma" being a bit more popular than "Turandot" as a whole and that March from "Ruins of Athens" where the rest is forgotten, I don't know what more to say.
Likewise, there has not been presented a SINGLE plausible example of frequently played or listened to quasi-symphonic film soundtrack of a mostly forgotten film. "Gone with the Wind" is one of the five or so most famous films in history but I would not recognize the music without the movie. So it's a counterexample, if anything.
Of course, this would not make the music classical. But it would at least show one shared feature, i.e. that like classical music, movie music can* typically exist and is frequently appreciated as "pure music"* (i.e. without the movie).

The reference to "circles" is of course BS. If not "classical circles", which audience should be the reference for classical music? You cannot be serious...


----------



## Forster

Kreisler jr said:


> People are really deeply confused here.


Which people? It would be politer to be more specific, rather than dismiss us all.



Kreisler jr said:


> I would not recognize the music without the movie


Well, I would...though not every bar of it, of course.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Kreisler jr said:


> "Gone with the Wind" is one of the five or so most famous films in history but I would not recognize the music without the movie.


www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7w-IeNR9ko
*Morricone: Gabriel's Oboe. (8,033,220 views)*
One of the most highly rated comments says "I just discovered this piece of music and its musicians. How can - we as humans - not embrace such wonderful sounds. This piece of music is soul searching - makes one want to shed tears."


----------



## SanAntone

Kreisler jr said:


> You totally missed the point (as most of the time, unfortunately). The whole point was that movie music would become in some ways like classical music if people were usually/more frequently listening to movie music WITHOUT watching the movie. Otherwise one must obviously assume that the reason people watch the movie is the movie, not the music.
> 
> What I meant by rare (and I have not been presented with a single plausible example, so I feel pretty safe with that attribute) is precisely* that music for a movie remains popular while the movie is all but forgotten*.
> 
> I'll give you one non-classical example: "White Christmas" was first made popular (although apparently composed a few years earlier) in the movie "Holiday Inn". But now that movie is almost unknown (not repeated every Xmas on TV) while the song is one of the most famous ones in history. And there are lots of similar examples with popular* songs* from operettas, musicals, movies.
> 
> Now give me a few examples of pseudo-symphonic (or just any instrumental!) movie music that is somewhat similar to "White Christmas", i.e. movie forgotten, music popular (after at least a few decades). Maybe there is one, but I am not aware of any, so someone please make suggestions!


First of all, "White Christmas" is not a film score (which is music composed for a film to underscore dramatic or comedic scenes) but a song that was featured in a movie.

Secondly, _Holiday Inn_ is hardly a forgotten movie. It is regularly shown on TV during the Christmas season, almost as popular as _What A Wonderful Life_, and is considered by many a classic movie musical. 

Which brings me to my final point which is that movie musicals are a subset of movies in general, and as musicals the music is a more integral aspect of the film than a normal movie soundtrack. And it was often the case the songs from musicals were extracted and became hits in their own right. In fact, for a long time, from the 1930s-1960s, composers would purposely write two or three songs that could transcend the musical for the express purpose of being extracted from the show or movie. The American Popular Songbook was primarily made up of these songs until the advent of the 1960s and 1970s (right up until today) when pop songs were written for radio not for any show or movie.

And lastly, none of the music in _Holiday Inn_ would ever be considered classical music, no matter how well-written the song "White Christmas" undoubtedly is.


----------



## Forster

SanAntone said:


> _Holiday Inn_ is hardly a forgotten movie


Quite right. I hadn't forgotten it. In fact, I prefer it to _White Christmas_!


----------



## Aries

Kreisler jr said:


> What I meant by rare (and I have not been presented with a single plausible example, so I feel pretty safe with that attribute) is precisely* that music for a movie remains popular while the movie is all but forgotten*.
> I'll give you one non-classical example: "White Christmas" was first made popular (although apparently composed a few years earlier) in the movie "Holiday Inn". But now that movie is almost unknown (not repeated every Xmas on TV) while the song is one of the most famous ones in history. And there are lots of similar examples with popular* songs* from operettas, musicals, movies.
> 
> Now give me a few examples of pseudo-symphonic (or just any instrumental!) movie music that is somewhat similar to "White Christmas", i.e. movie forgotten, music popular (after at least a few decades). Maybe there is one, but I am not aware of any, so someone please make suggestions!


I linked here earlier the suite to film The Blizzard (1964) composed by Georgy Sviridov. I never watched this film and even the Wikipedia entry is minimalistic, but I was very familar with the Romance movement of the suite when I heard the suite the first time (starting at 9:07). According to ChatGPT this music was used in at least 8 other films. I could not verify this, but it seems plausible to me.






Another example of classical film music used out of context is Bernard Herrmanns music for Psycho. Think about the killing scene music.


----------



## DaveM

Kreisler jr said:


> What I meant by rare (and I have not been presented with a single plausible example, so I feel pretty safe with that attribute) is precisely* that music for a movie remains popular while the movie is all but forgotten*.
> I'll give you one non-classical example: "White Christmas" was first made popular (although apparently composed a few years earlier) in the movie "Holiday Inn". But now that movie is almost unknown (not repeated every Xmas on TV) while the song is one of the most famous ones in history. And there are lots of similar examples with popular* songs* from operettas, musicals, movies


It‘s not that simple. The original movie Holiday Inn, made in 1942, was Black and White and particularly dated. The movie White Christmas (a rough remake of Holiday Inn) was made in Color in 1954 to take advantage of the popularity of the Irving Berlin White Christmas song and it is that movie that appears somewhere every Christmas to this day. (Holiday Inn is still accessible, but not scheduled regularly at Christmas.)


----------



## HansZimmer

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> I'm pretty sure the music you referenced (Avalon suite) will be deemed trash by most experienced classical listeners. If you don't believe me, do a poll.


It's an Argumentum ad populum. I don't care of the tastes of the masses, otherwise I have to listen to Despacito. I can decide alone what's good and what's not good. The score of Avalon is good. The masses have always rejected good works of their time. The fact that there is a certain amount of snobbery towards contemporary composers it doesn't surprise me at all.

I can bet that the film music composers of our time will be considered the Mozarts of our time in the future.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

HansZimmer said:


> It's an Argumentum ad populum. I don't care of the tastes of the masses, otherwise I have to listen to Despacito. I can decide alone what's good and what's not good. The score of Avalon is good. The masses have always rejected good works of their time. The fact that there is a certain amount of snobbery towards contemporary composers it doesn't surprise me at all.
> 
> I can bet that the film music composers of our time will be considered the Mozarts of our time in the future.


Your views of film music are certainly not mine and my sense is that you really don't quite understand the depths of classical music, judging from your lumping together film music with music that is so much superior.

Thinking that the score of Avalon is good is another great example of your inability to detect banal and formulaic music. This is like thinking Fur Elise is Beethoven's best work.

And I wasn't making any argument (you must feel quite good about yourself posting a link to a logical fallacy) about popular opinions of music. You must consider the context: you create a thread asking why clearly inferior music is not considered in the same category as classical music; so you obviously care about the opinions of others else you would not have created this thread. So I present to you my opinion about the music of Avalon and since it is contrary to yours, I suggest that you get other opinions.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

Aries said:


> I linked here earlier the suite to film The Blizzard (1964) composed by Georgy Sviridov. I never watched this film and even the Wikipedia entry is minimalistic, but I was very familar with the Romance movement of the suite when I heard the suite the first time (starting at 9:07). According to ChatGPT this music was used in at least 8 other films. I could not verify this, but it seems plausible to me.


With the possible slight exception of that "Spring / Autumn" number, those are all very auto sounding pieces though - probably there to establish the general (period) setting and mood, and not fit specific scenes and moments.

This is of course a whole widespread type of "FM" (previously featured here with "Age of Innocence" and "S&S"), and those like @SanAntone who'd count "songs written for the movie" as a separate category, probably ought to consider this type of FM a distinct animal as well;

whether this would then also go on to include stuff like credits etc. is probably another question - those are definitely on that side of this autonomy continuum though.




> Another example of classical film music used out of context is Bernard Herrmanns music for Psycho. Think about the killing scene music.


It's used in incidental contexts though, as far as I'm aware - mostly comical/parody.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Your views of film music are certainly not mine and my sense is that you really don't quite understand the depths of classical music, judging from your lumping together film music with music that is so much superior.


Since everyone here's got a different definition of CM, what'd be yours, in case you haven't stated it already? Is it the type that excludes a lot of stuff commonly thought of as CM as "not really", thus using a narrower definition? For works that are sufficiently deep and complex maybe?

You've already said you do exclude operas, so there's that. 




> Thinking that the score of Avalon is good is another great example of your inability to detect banal and formulaic music. This is like thinking Fur Elise is Beethoven's best work.


I stopped hating Furry Elisa when I realized that it can be understood as intentionally conveying a numbed sense of melancholy, perhaps bordering on depressed indifference - however whether that "blandness" is a feature or a bug, it does score higher in blandness than the Avalon thing, doesn't it?

Which btw I don't appear to be desensitized enough to have found that one bland, but that'd be a pointless debate regardless lol


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

HansZimmer said:


> It's an Argumentum ad populum. I don't care of the tastes of the masses, otherwise I have to listen to Despacito.


Everyone keeps dissing Despacito all the time, have I even ever heard it? Is it really that bad lol


----------



## HansZimmer

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> film music with music that is so much superior.


ROTFL



> you really don't quite understand the depths of classical music


Who gave you the license to recognize which is the "deep classical music".

I might say that you don't understand the depth of classical music if you don't understand the value of the music that the major film composers have produced.



> And I wasn't making any argument (you must feel quite good about yourself posting a link to a logical fallacy) about popular opinions of music. You must consider the context: you create a thread asking why clearly inferior music is not considered in the same category as classical music; so you obviously care about the opinions of others else you would not have created this thread.


The discussion asks for explanations about the stupid polemic around cinematic classical music: why do some people feel the need to exclude it from the category of classical music? It doesn't ask for the totally irrelevant opinions of the users about the quality of film music. I'm doing games and polls to satisfy my curiosity about the tastes of people and I consider them simply as games for fun. Nothing more.

That said, it's perfectly normal that some people hate the artworks of the cinematic composers. It could be said that an artist is recognized by the fact that he attracts hate. If the fillm music composers were not hated, it would mean that they are creating conventional classical music which satisfies the expectations of the masses inside classical music.
The reason for which some people in the classical music community want to exclude them is that they are fingers in the butts.



> This is like thinking Fur Elise is Beethoven's best work.


I agree about Fur Elise, but the reason is that it's an example of a piece that don't offer the highest level of expressivity: it's simply a catchy motif, basically.
It's the opposite of film music, where the primary goal is to reach the highest level of expressiveness/emotionality. It's funny your comparison between film music and Fur Elise, because you show that you don't understand why film music composers are paid so well by the film producers.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

SanAntone said:


> First of all, "White Christmas" is not a film score (which is music composed for a film to underscore dramatic or comedic scenes) but a song that was featured in a movie.
> 
> Secondly, _Holiday Inn_ is hardly a forgotten movie. It is regularly shown on TV during the Christmas season, almost as popular as _What A Wonderful Life_, and is considered by many a classic movie musical.
> 
> Which brings me to my final point which is that movie musicals are a subset of movies in general, and as musicals the music is a more integral aspect of the film than a normal movie soundtrack.


Well of course, "musicals" i.e. with nom-diegetic singing are the same category as opera, of course it's different.

With that said, the degree of how "integral" a soundtrack is varies between different productions, as well as between scenes and moments within a single movie - often it does come very close to the role it plays in musicals/opera, or even reaches it.

Something that shouldn't be forgotten when discussing this subject.


----------



## hammeredklavier

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> you really don't quite understand the depths of classical music


It's subjective. Is it objectively wrong to call this sentimentality, for example?


----------



## Aries

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> With the possible slight exception of that "Spring / Autumn" number, those are all very auto sounding pieces though - probably there to establish the general (period) setting and mood, and not fit specific scenes and moments.
> 
> This is of course a whole widespread type of "FM" (previously featured here with "Age of Innocence" and "S&S", and those like @SanAntone who'd count "songs written for the movie" as a separate category, probably ought to consider this type of FM a distinct animal as well;
> 
> whether this would then also go on to include stuff like credits etc. is probably another question - those are definitely on that side of this autonomy continuum though.


A discussion about which film music is more classical and which less would be more interssting than the discussion about whether classical film music is possible at all. The question of the OP also is about "classical film music" (which is per definition classical), it is not stated in the OP that all film music is classical.

Autonomous pieces/numbers like in the Snowstorm suite are more obviously classical than fragmented music. But fragmentation as criteria seems also very questionable since a lot of opera music like Wagners is also very fragmented. I would say Wagners music is more fragmented than John Williams music at least regarding the Ring (Der fliegende Holländer is much different). Wagner had to deal with all the text and some text-heavy passages are very fragmented/text-dependend, while Williams could just concentrate on the instrumental music without bringing it in line with every word.

Really interessting is the question what distingushies light film music from serious film music or light music from serious music in general. I perceive many film music just as light music (not John Williams music though). But way too many here rather want to deny that any film music can be classical.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

Aries said:


> A discussion about which film music is more classical and which less would be more interssting than the discussion about whether classical film music is possible at all. The question of the OP also is about "classical film music" (which is per definition classical), it is not stated in the OP that all film music is classical.


I think sb should prb start a thread on this forum about what everyone's definitions of classical music is (btw "classical" theater, literature, painting and architecture etc. are also a thing - all the art generally associated with the higher classes of the Early Modernity and their typically advanced craftsmanship skills) - there'll be dozens of mutually contradicting answers, but at least it would serve as a sort of foundation to help focus other threads more.




> Autonomous pieces/numbers like in the Snowstorm suite are more obviously classical than fragmented music.


Well I brought that up more in the context of autonomy generally being one of the subjects here - not specifically to argue whether "that makes it classical" or not;
even though that's technically what this thread is about, I guess lol





> But fragmentation as criteria seems also very questionable since a lot of opera music like Wagners is also very fragmented. I would say Wagners music is more fragmented than John Williams music at least regarding the Ring (Der fliegende Holländer is much different). Wagner had to deal with all the text and some text-heavy passages are very fragmented/text-dependend, while Williams could just concentrate on the instrumental music without bringing it in line with every word.


Well operas are a separate thing, and the opera/FM musical autonomy comparison issue hasn't really been resolved or delved much into here (at least in terms of detailed analysis, that is);

however I was just about to check out your other examples of fragmentation in certain symphonies, so brb on that one.


(The extent to which there _is_ sometimes score-dialogue interaction in movies is another interesting subject btw, might be worth looking into as well.)








> Really interessting is the question what distingushies light film music from serious film music or light music from serious music in general. I perceive many film music just as light music (not John Williams music though). But way too many here rather want to deny that any film music can be classical.


The "light" vs. "serious" dichotomy is another source of confusion since it has at least 2 distinct meanings, one referring to the tone, and the other referring to the degree of craftsmanship, and possibly a 3rd one referring to various kinds of social status or prestige etc. - and they all get conflated and confused way too often.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

hammeredklavier said:


> No I didn't. Exactly as you implied. How many instances there are of Wagner operas being played by orchestras and singers in their entirety (not just the "excerpts"; film music has their "excerpts" too) without being "staged"? How many people outside of our circles listen to them as recordings only?


Listened to the Ring and Parsifal that way, it works great esp. in the sense that the imagery created in the mind ends up exceeding the limitations of a stage production - films not sure atm, there's one Parsifal film I think, but no Nibelung ones right?


However as far as the immediate context here is concerned, they're very obviously very drama driven and can't be mistaken for abstract vocal symphonies.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

Kreisler jr said:


> People go to the opera for the music. Except maybe for some musical films who goes to the movies for the music?


I'd say any music fan who's a fan of the score composer, can go see a new movie for primarily that reason; or because of some specific trait of that soundtrack that he's read about etc.

It's all a bit theoretical without polls of course, but yeah.


----------



## Forster

HansZimmer said:


> Many users here have attacked film scores that are objectively well written


I note that my request for an example of an "objectively well written" has failed to yield an evidenced example. One film score was offered, but the validity of the criteria by which to judge how well written it was was not established.

Now, I suspect, the person asserting that others have attacked such scores is avoiding the issue.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Forster said:


> I note that my request for an example of an "objectively well written" has failed to yield an evidenced example. One film score was offered, but the validity of the criteria by which to judge how well written it was was not established.


But you think such criteria don't exist in classical music either. No?


----------



## composingmusic

Something that I've discussed with a number of my colleagues is the process of how a lot of concert music is written vs. the process for writing a lot of film scores. The school where I did my master's degree also has quite a strong film programme, and it's quite a different world from the contemporary classical scene for a number of reasons. I need to give the following disclaimer here: this does not apply to all film composers, or all contemporary classical composers. However, this does apply to most that I've spoken to and my colleagues have confirmed my views of this as well. 

The aim of the contemporary classical composer is to write the music that stands on its own artistic merit. There are a number of different types of processes, but a good number of these people work with notation (if not standard notation, then some sort of graphic notation or hybrid of graphic/aleatoric notation and standard notation). Typically, they work with live musicians with the aim of having their music played in concert halls. Yes, there is also electronic music, but this isn't typically trying to mock up the sound of an instrumental ensemble. Writing speed varies a lot, but it can be quite slow in many cases – for something like a 10 minute orchestral piece, you would expect to have a gestation period of at least several months at the very minimum. 

Film composition often works quite differently from this. A director will have a vision of what kind of music they want, and where they want it. Composers will be given temp tracks and told the director wants something in the style of that temp track, and the composer will have to do something to that effect. Some of the top composers do work with live instrumentalists and orchestras – the LSO has recorded a number of the Harry Potter and Star Wars movies, for instance – but most film composers are working with VSTs and sample libraries in a DAW rather than writing for live instrumentalists. 

Another huge difference is amount of time spent on a piece. I gave an example of how much time a concert music composer would expect to have to write a 10 minute orchestral piece. For film composition, the deadlines are much, much tighter. They can be expected to write a feature film's worth of music in a matter of weeks, rather than months. It's an incredibly high-paced and stressful environment. This is one of the reasons why a film composer has assistants to help out with the orchestration – I've heard that some composers will only sketch out the main lines and leave a lot of the details of the orchestration and realisation to the assistants. Now, this is not the case for all film composers, but I know this is the case for a number of them. 

Then there's also the matter of issues like production cuts. A director may decide they want to change the order of a sequence, or cut a sequence, or add some footage somewhere. The composer will rarely have a say in any of this, and their music may be completely reordered from what they had first planned. 

These are just some of the differences between the concert music and film composition world. I'm not saying that there isn't good film music, or that concert music is somehow inherently superior. However, concert composers generally do have more of a say in what they do, and they have a longer time to actually think about what they want to do in their work (most of the time anyway). This does affect the work in a number of ways.


----------



## Forster

hammeredklavier said:


> But you think such criteria don't exist in classical music either. No?


What I think it is that it is a complicated business trying to establish a set of criteria by which such judgements can be consistently made across a genre of music. Melody is important to one, atmosphere to another. For example, I really like the score to John Carpenter's _The Thing_ because it comes across to me as cold, impersonal, atmospheric, fitting the film admirably. But someone who sets greater store by melody might hold a different opinion, and declare it inferior to, say, _Born Free_ simply on the grounds that the latter has a much more memorable tune/song!


----------



## DaveM

composingmusic said:


> ..Another huge difference is amount of time spent on a piece. I gave an example of how much time a concert music composer would expect to have to write a 10 minute orchestral piece. For film composition, the deadlines are much, much tighter. They can be expected to write a feature film's worth of music in a matter of weeks, rather than months..


Which raises the question: Does it take a non-film composer months to write a 10 minute orchestral piece?


----------



## composingmusic

DaveM said:


> Which raises the question: Does it take a non-film composer months to write a 10 minute orchestral piece?


Yes, it definitely can – I’d say more often than not.


----------



## SanAntone

DaveM said:


> Which raises the question: Does it take a non-film composer months to write a 10 minute orchestral piece?


Yes. Months is the norm, but it can take years if the composer is like Pierre Boulez who revisits his works and revises them or continues theme in extended versions.


----------



## DaveM

SanAntone said:


> Yes. Months is the norm, but it can take years if the composer is like Pierre Boulez who revisits his works and revises them or continues theme in extended versions.


Months to compose 10 minutes is the norm? Things must have changed over the last century. One couldn’t have possibly made a living in the 19th century composing at that rate.


----------



## composingmusic

DaveM said:


> Things must have changed over the last century.


Yes, they have.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> Since everyone here's got a different definition of CM, what'd be yours, in case you haven't stated it already? Is it the type that excludes a lot of stuff commonly thought of as CM as "not really", thus using a narrower definition? For works that are sufficiently deep and complex maybe?
> 
> You've already said you do exclude operas, so there's that.


I include opera in CM, it has long established itself; I just don't like it particularly. 
My definition would be the standard one; I'll cite the Oxford Dictionary definition: “music written in a Western musical tradition, usually using an established form (for example a symphony). Classical music is generally considered to be serious and to have a lasting value. 



YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> I stopped hating Furry Elisa when I realized that it can be understood as intentionally conveying a numbed sense of melancholy, perhaps bordering on depressed indifference - however whether that "blandness" is a feature or a bug, it does score higher in blandness than the Avalon thing, doesn't it?
> 
> Which btw I don't appear to be desensitized enough to have found that one bland, but that'd be a pointless debate regardless lol


I never said I hated Fur Elise. It's quite a nice piece, albeit much too familiar.


----------



## DaveM

composingmusic said:


> Yes, they have.


There‘s something not adding up here. I’ve read up on what the typical rates are for commissions for classical works and I don’t see any possible way a composer can make a living if it takes months to write 10 minutes of music. Also, a question is what kind of classical music are we talking about, fully orchestrated, solo, small ensemble? I’m sorry, but taking months to write 10 minutes of music sounds like a lot of dicking around going on.

At the very least my respect for film composers is rising even more. And btw, as I understand it, the main reason film composers such as Hans Zimmer have a ‘group‘ involved is because he receives so many projects, he couldn’t possibly attend to all of them alone.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

HansZimmer said:


> ROTFL
> 
> 
> 
> Who gave you the license to recognize which is the "deep classical music".
> 
> I might say that you don't understand the depth of classical music if you don't understand the value of the music that the major film composers have produced.


You created this thread, you want opinions from other posters, no? You can say whatever pleases you about my understanding of classical music but you would be wrong. I am not the one claiming clearly inferior music belongs with the likes of Beethoven's symphonies or Chopin's Nocturnes or Shostakovich's string quartets, to give just a few examples. 



HansZimmer said:


> The discussion asks for explanations about the stupid polemic around cinematic classical music: why do some people feel the need to exclude it from the category of classical music? It doesn't ask for the totally irrelevant opinions of the users about the quality of film music. I'm doing games and polls to satisfy my curiosity about the tastes of people and I consider them simply as games for fun.


Neither you, nor anyone else, has made any coherent argument why film music should be considered classical, in part because there is no concise, unambiguous definition of classical music, and in part because it really is inferior music to the great music that we come to this forum to discuss for the most part. 



HansZimmer said:


> That said, it's perfectly normal that some people hate the artworks of the cinematic composers. It could be said that an artist is recognized by the fact that he attracts hate. If the fillm music composers were not hated, it would mean that they are creating conventional classical music which satisfies the expectations of the masses inside classical music.
> The reason for which some people in the classical music community want to exclude them is that they are fingers in the butts.


 Hate is such a strong word. I don't hate film music; I enjoy some of within the context in which it is meant to be enjoyed - a movie.



HansZimmer said:


> I agree about Fur Elise, but the reason is that it's an example of a piece that don't offer the highest level of expressivity: it's simply a catchy motif, basically.
> It's the opposite of film music, where the primary goal is to reach the highest level of expressiveness/emotionality. It's funny your comparison between film music and Fur Elise, because you show that you don't understand why film music composers are paid so well by the film producers.


What this segment shows is that you failed to understand my Fur Elise analogy and that you're conjuring up nonsense.


----------



## composingmusic

DaveM said:


> There‘s something not adding up here. I’ve read up on what the typical rates are for commissions for classical works and I don’t see any possible way a composer can make a living if it takes months to write 10 minutes of music. Also, a question is what kind of classical music are we talking about, fully orchestrated, solo, small ensemble? I’m sorry, but taking months to write 10 minutes of music sounds like a lot of dicking around going on.


I thought we were talking about orchestral music. I did say a 10 minute orchestral piece, but I know people who've taken months to write pieces with smaller ensembles or solo works of similar length. Look, writing speeds vary a lot and if someone is intent on having everything perfect (or as close to perfect as possible) in their piece, it can take a long time to get it right – that's certainly not dicking around at all. I know some composers who are quite fast, who'd be able to write a solo piece in a few weeks. I know others for whom it takes much, much longer. 

Also, commission rates vary a lot. There are guidelines that various musicians' unions, composers' societies, or other organizations put up. The reality is that people can be paid much more or much less than these rates – they're just there to set a baseline of what's considered fair practice. 



DaveM said:


> At the very least my respect for film composers is rising even more. And btw, as I understand it, the main reason film composers such as Hans Zimmer have a ‘group‘ involved is because he receives so many projects, he couldn’t possibly attend to all of them alone.


To make it clear, I wasn't denigrating film composers with this. I'm just saying that these are some of the key differences I've seen between concert composers and film composers from speaking to people who work in both of these areas.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> I include opera in CM, it has long established itself; I just don't like it particularly.
> My definition would be the standard one; I'll cite the Oxford Dictionary definition: “music written in a Western musical tradition, usually using an established form (for example a symphony). Classical music is generally considered to be serious and to have a lasting value.


Hm well ok, vague as you yourself agree it is.
"Usually established form" well that dissolves toward the end of the 19th, but we can always say "unusually";
and conversely, established forms not counted as C can be excluded at will.

"Serious" well not in the tonal sense I take; and every other use of "serious" is vague and arguable.

"Of long lasting value" not all their colleagues who got forgotten though? And trad folk songs that are also of long lasting value, eh they don't count for other reasons. 

Oh well I asked lol



To me it's just an orientation guide, more or less - there's certain material that's widely considered to belong to category A, and other things sharing various traits with that core to various degrees, that are kind of swirling around it - and if you're looking for a forum or playlist or whatnot that's gonna contain that familiar "core" and probably some of the satellite stuff, typing [category name] into the search box is probably gonna result in what one's looking for.

That's kinda it really? But oh well






> I never said I hated Fur Elise. It's quite a nice piece, albeit much too familiar.


I used to, as a reaction to ppl circlejerking about how great and emotional it was or something


----------



## Luchesi

Forster said:


> I note that my request for an example of an "objectively well written" has failed to yield an evidenced example. One film score was offered, but the validity of the criteria by which to judge how well written it was was not established.
> 
> Now, I suspect, the person asserting that others have attacked such scores is avoiding the issue.


I'm timid about beginning to explain what I mean by objectively well-written, because it's a very big subject. It's also somewhat different for different musicians, even though they can communicate with each other about it, following the score. Using just the notes alone you can see the story in the score of notes.
If you read scores well enough you might have formed some ideas about what's original and what's not. You also consider the total work as a logical whole, knowing musical forms and knowing why they've developed.


----------



## DaveM

Once again, getting back to the subject of the OP: I presented this some time ago, but it‘s worth a repeat. This is a standalone piece of over 8 minutes, Sarajevo by Hans Zimmer, from the 1997 movie Peacemaker. It has some very classical-like characteristics and IMO is a damn-sight more attractive to me than a lot of contemporary CM.


----------



## SanAntone

DaveM said:


> Months to compose 10 minutes is the norm? Things must have changed over the last century. One couldn’t have possibly made a living in the 19th century composing at that rate.


Composers today usually have teaching positions and do not rely on composing as their only source of income. Also they normally write one work a year, maybe two, but it is unusual for a composer to write more than that in year unless they also create a suite from an existing work, or some kind of adaptation that would not take as long to compose.

What composers did in previous centuries is not relevant to what is usual for composers of the 20th and 21st centuries, that is, if you are trying to make a comparison to film composers.

Here is a chronological list of the compositions of Shostakovich as an idea of what I am describing. And Shostakovich is considered prolific, and was subsidized by the state allowing him to devote all of his time to composing.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> Hm well ok, vague as you yourself agree it is.
> "Usually established form" well that dissolves toward the end of the 19th, but we can always say "unusually";
> and conversely, established forms not counted as C can be excluded at will.
> 
> "Serious" well not in the tonal sense I take; and every other use of "serious" is vague and arguable.
> 
> "Of long lasting value" not all their colleagues who got forgotten though? And trad folk songs that are also of long lasting value, eh they don't count for other reasons.
> 
> Oh well I asked lol


Yes, the standard definition of classical music is very general. The word "serious" almost always seems to crop in there as does the notion of longevity and timelessness and established forms such as a symphony. Can we even all agree on what a symphony is without any ambiguity? Beethoven's 5th is about as symphonic as a piece of music can get but what about Debussy's La Mer? The composer didn't call it a symphony but it sure looks like one. But even if we could argue whether it's a symphony or not, no one in their right mind would disagree that it is classical music. 

So given the nebulous nature of the definition, it is not possible to put forth a rigorous argument for or against the inclusion of film music in the CM genre. 
And what films are we talking about? The music for Tenet (not a lot of orchestral music there) or the music for The Lord of the Rings? Is music in films that uses an orchestra classical because it uses a musical ensemble associated with classical music and sounds like classical music to some listeners? Is film music played on the piano classical because it uses an instrument often used to play well-established classical music? What well-established forms does film music take? Do you know of a symphony written specifically for a film? A string quartet that uses thematic development? A piano sonata?

Film music, when an orchestra is used, is nothing more than an enhancer of the visual experience and is stripped of its appeal by taking away the visual part because it was never written to stand alone.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

DaveM said:


> Once again, getting back to the subject of the OP: I presented this some time ago, but it‘s worth a repeat. This is a standalone piece of over 8 minutes, Sarajevo by Hans Zimmer, from the 1997 movie Peacemaker. It has some very classical-like characteristics and IMO is a damn-sight more attractive to me than a lot of contemporary CM.


This is interesting. is the 8-minute standalone piece written _for _the movie or was it used in the movie and written for its own, musical, sake? Is it used in the movie in its entirety uninterrupted?


----------



## hammeredklavier

------------------------------------------


----------



## DaveM

SanAntone said:


> Composers today usually have teaching positions and do not rely on composing as their only source of income. Also they normally write one work a year, maybe two, but it is unusual for a composer to write more than that in year unless they also create a suite from an existing work, or some kind of adaptation that would not take as long to compose.
> 
> What composers did in previous centuries is not relevant to what is usual for composers of the 20th and 21st centuries, that is, if you are trying to make a comparison to film composers.
> 
> Here is a chronological list of the compositions of Shostakovich as an idea of what I am describing. And Shostakovich is considered prolific, and was subsidized by the state allowing him to devote all of his time to composing.


A composer can’t possibly live on what is considered the primary income from one or two works a year. The term ‘professional‘ usually implies that it is the primary source of income. On the contrary, one can usually live on a teaching position alone so, in that circumstance, it is the real profession.

For a number of years, back when, I wrote and sold a fairly complex accounts receivables program, one of the first available for ‘personal’ computers at a reasonable price. It was published by a company and then, later, I sold it directly. I had to learn 3 programming languages in the process. I never lost money on the project, but, in the end, I couldn’t make a living from it. Because of that, I never thought of myself, or called myself, a professional programmer.


----------



## DaveM

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> This is interesting. is the 8-minute standalone piece written _for _the movie or was it used in the movie and written for its own, musical, sake? Is it used in the movie in its entirety uninterrupted?


I don’t know for sure, although, if memory serves, a good chunk of it is used uncut in the movie.


----------



## That Guy Mick

It comes as no surprise that compositions written purely for the auditory experience are easily and often incorporated into film soundtracks. The "Movie Lover's Beethoven" album calls to mind the following films: "Kalifornia" "A Clockwork Orange" "The Competition" "Howard's End" "Rosemary's Baby" and "Force of Evil." What about Brahm's Violin Concerto in D the film "There Will Be Blood?" "Apocalypse Now" - Flight of the Valkyries. "2001 A Space Odyssey" - Also Sprach Zarathustra. "Platoon" - Barber's Adagio for Strings. Bartok and Penderecki - The Shining. 

Yet, how many film soundtracks have ingratiated the Classical listener's appreciation to such a degree that a soundtrack recording was purchased?

Personally, I enjoy my "Memoirs of a Geisha" soundtrack; John Williams, Yo-yo Ma, and Itzhak Perlman, but it is a bit distant from the traditional CM oeuvre.


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> Here is a chronological list of the compositions of Shostakovich as an idea of what I am describing. And Shostakovich is considered prolific, and *was subsidized by the state allowing him to devote all of his time to composing.*


He still made his living by composing, and was "professional" in the sense of the correct definition of the term (as described by DaveM). The state was acting as the "patron". For an artist/entertainer to be professional, it doesn't matter where the money is coming from, it could be a million fans each paying $1, or one rich fan paying $1mil; the effect is the same.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

SanAntone said:


> What composers did in previous centuries is not relevant to what is usual for composers of the 20th and 21st centuries, that is, if you are trying to make a comparison to film composers.


Hm that would be addressing the much more specific question of comparing the _contemporary classical composing scene _with the FM scene - which is kind of ironic since there are some who only acknowledge the Common Practice period (+ maybe some give or take) as classical, or at least the main classical  






TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Yes, the standard definition of classical music is very general. The word "serious" almost always seems to crop in there as does the notion of longevity and timelessness


Well yeah it ranges anywhere from "it's what was written during those time periods in those social contexts" to "it's what we've determined to be immortal best art from that time" to "anything deemed advanced and artistic enough etc. etc., like 20 of them.
Is it genre, or prestige, or social status, etc.? Well all of those meanings get used in our culture at various times, so they all "ring true" in a way.

Maybe all those things should get their own unambiguous terms? It'd certainly be useful lol





> and established forms such as a symphony. Can we even all agree on what a symphony is without any ambiguity? Beethoven's 5th is about as symphonic as a piece of music can get but what about Debussy's La Mer? The composer didn't call it a symphony but it sure looks like one. But even if we could argue whether it's a symphony or not, no one in their right mind would disagree that it is classical music.


Well Debussy is well within each of those concentric circles, so he's yeah.

"Symphony" used to mean sth else before the Classicism era (called "sinfonia" back then), and then the word started getting used more loosely again I think.

Is it quite clear why Prometheus is a definitely symphony rather than a piano concerto?



"So given the nebulous nature of the definition, it is not possible to put forth a rigorous argument for or against the inclusion of film music in the CM genre.
And what films are we talking about? The music for Tenet (not a lot of orchestral music there) or the music for The Lord of the Rings? Is music in films that uses an orchestra classical because it uses a musical ensemble associated with classical music and sounds like classical music to some listeners? Is film music played on the piano classical because it uses an instrument often used to play well-established classical music?"

Yeah, + the question which movies count as the legitimate successors of the pre-talkie "classical theatre", and what theater/literature from the 19th century or before counts as classical or not, etc. etc. 



"What well-established forms does film music take? Do you know of a symphony written specifically for a film? A string quartet that uses thematic development? A piano sonata?"

Well that Blizzard one from a few posts ago had some conventional waltz / march forms, so there's that type of stuff; 
sth written in the sonata form, not that I'm aware of atm.






> Film music, when an orchestra is used, is nothing more than an enhancer of the visual experience and is stripped of its appeal by taking away the visual part because it was never written to stand alone.


The importance played by the score can easily reach like 50% in some scenes in certain movies, and the 2nd statement is also a case-by-case question - but I was gonna make some more example posts on those aspects anyway.


----------



## That Guy Mick

Luchesi said:


> I'm timid about beginning to explain what I mean by objectively well-written, because it's a very big subject.


Musicians will fall on subjective evaluations sooner rather than later, and explanations become lengthy exercises in futility that hope for consensus as the best argument.


----------



## Forster

Luchesi said:


> I'm timid about beginning to explain what I mean by objectively well-written, because it's a very big subject. It's also somewhat different for different musicians, even though they can communicate with each other about it, following the score. Using just the notes alone you can see the story in the score of notes.
> If you read scores well enough you might have formed some ideas about what's original and what's not. You also consider the total work as a logical whole, knowing musical forms and knowing why they've developed.


This hinges on what is meant by "well-written". It can mean "well-constructed" in a technical sense - you know, all the right notes doing what right notes do, just as Bach, Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven would have known from what they were taught that notes should do. Trouble with that is that many composers came after and got notes to do so many different things, breaking many of the rules, so film composers can now write like both rule followers and rule breakers. (And I'm not talking only about the aerialists and the experimentalists.)

So, looking at the score will tell you nothing.

"Well-written" can also mean "serves its purpose" and, in the case of film music, this is usually, though not always, about its impact on audience understanding and emotional response to the visuals on screen. No point looking at the score there either - you need to look at the audience.

One of my favourite scores - because its one of my favourite movies - is for _The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp _(1943). It's by Allan Gray (actually Józef Żmigrod*). *This movie makes me laugh and cry in all the right places, and I know that the music is a big help, especially for the comic scenes, and when a piece of Mendelssohn is played by an orchestra in the background to a scene of failed reconciliation between a German and an English officer after WW1. I can't listen to "Fingal's Cave" now without tearing up because it reminds me of that scene in the movie.

Now that was well-written!


----------



## mikeh375

composingmusic said:


> Something that I've discussed with a number of my colleagues is the process of how a lot of concert music is written vs. the process for writing a lot of film scores. The school where I did my master's degree also has quite a strong film programme, and it's quite a different world from the contemporary classical scene for a number of reasons. I need to give the following disclaimer here: this does not apply to all film composers, or all contemporary classical composers. However, this does apply to most that I've spoken to and my colleagues have confirmed my views of this as well.
> 
> The aim of the contemporary classical composer is to write the music that stands on its own artistic merit. There are a number of different types of processes, but a good number of these people work with notation (if not standard notation, then some sort of graphic notation or hybrid of graphic/aleatoric notation and standard notation). Typically, they work with live musicians with the aim of having their music played in concert halls. Yes, there is also electronic music, but this isn't typically trying to mock up the sound of an instrumental ensemble. Writing speed varies a lot, but it can be quite slow in many cases – for something like a 10 minute orchestral piece, you would expect to have a gestation period of at least several months at the very minimum.
> 
> Film composition often works quite differently from this. A director will have a vision of what kind of music they want, and where they want it. Composers will be given temp tracks and told the director wants something in the style of that temp track, and the composer will have to do something to that effect. Some of the top composers do work with live instrumentalists and orchestras – the LSO has recorded a number of the Harry Potter and Star Wars movies, for instance – but most film composers are working with VSTs and sample libraries in a DAW rather than writing for live instrumentalists.
> 
> Another huge difference is amount of time spent on a piece. I gave an example of how much time a concert music composer would expect to have to write a 10 minute orchestral piece. For film composition, the deadlines are much, much tighter. They can be expected to write a feature film's worth of music in a matter of weeks, rather than months. It's an incredibly high-paced and stressful environment. This is one of the reasons why a film composer has assistants to help out with the orchestration – I've heard that some composers will only sketch out the main lines and leave a lot of the details of the orchestration and realisation to the assistants. Now, this is not the case for all film composers, but I know this is the case for a number of them.
> 
> *Then there's also the matter of issues like production cuts. A director may decide they want to change the order of a sequence, or cut a sequence, or add some footage somewhere. The composer will rarely have a say in any of this, and their music may be completely reordered from what they had first planned. *
> 
> These are just some of the differences between the concert music and film composition world. I'm not saying that there isn't good film music, or that concert music is somehow inherently superior. * However, concert composers generally do have more of a say in what they do, and they have a longer time to actually think about what they want to do in their work (most of the time anyway). This does affect the work in a number of ways.*


Amen @composingmusic . If you want more back-up just refer to my earliest posts in this thread. Is it just coincidence someone might wonder, that those of us with professional know-how and experience tally on so much concerning this topic? Mind you, haven't you heard? Apparently we composers know nothing when it comes to classification, style and the how and why things are written as they are....


----------



## Forster

DaveM said:


> Once again, getting back to the subject of the OP: I presented this some time ago, but it‘s worth a repeat. This is a standalone piece of over 8 minutes, Sarajevo by Hans Zimmer, from the 1997 movie Peacemaker. It has some very classical-like characteristics and IMO is a damn-sight more attractive to me than a lot of contemporary CM.


Video unavailable (in the UK only?)


----------



## That Guy Mick

Forster said:


> This hinges on what is meant by "well-written". It can mean "well-constructed" in a technical sense - you know, all the right notes doing what right notes do, just as Bach, Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven would have known from what they were taught that notes should do. Trouble with that is that many composers came after and got notes to do so many different things, breaking many of the rules, so film composers can now write like both rule followers and rule breakers. (And I'm not talking only about the aerialists and the experimentalists.)


The four that you mention were innovators in their eras. Western music consist of twelve notes and music theory is built upon the basic elements: melody, rhythm, harmony, form, pitch, and scales. Each innovator presented new Western themes in their respective era, and were successful in becoming CM's top pop. Their themes were copied. Their ideas were used and defied by the innovations of later generations.


----------



## Forster

That Guy Mick said:


> The four that you mention were innovators in their eras. Western music consist of twelve notes and music theory is built upon the basic elements: melody, rhythm, harmony, form, pitch, and scales. Each innovator presented new Western themes in their respective era, and were successful in becoming CM's top pop. Their themes were copied. Their ideas were used and defied by the innovations of later generations.


No, no no, you've got that all wrong. Everyone knows that together, they comprise the core of what TRUE classical music is - everything else after is just heresy! The last time I suggested that any one of those four were innovators and rule breakers, I was roundly criticised for blasphemy!


----------



## That Guy Mick

Forster said:


> No, no no, you've got that all wrong. Everyone knows that together, they comprise the core of what TRUE classical music is - everything else after is just heresy! The last time I suggested that any one of those four were innovators and rule breakers, I was roundly criticised for blasphemy!


It is more than academic such that even a neophyte would recognize differences, don't you think? Each expanded or significantly changed one or more of the existing forms; opera, symphony, concertos, etc. Certainly other composers contributed, but with understated relevance to the devices and arrangements of CM's forementioned pop stars.


----------



## HansZimmer

Forster said:


> I note that my request for an example of an "objectively well written" has failed to yield an evidenced example. One film score was offered, but the validity of the criteria by which to judge how well written it was was not established.
> 
> Now, I suspect, the person asserting that others have attacked such scores is avoiding the issue.


With "objectively well written" I simply mean that there is a more than decent elaboration. We should agree that the preference between the pieces above the line of "decent elaboration" it's simply a question of tastes.


----------



## HansZimmer

composingmusic said:


> Yes, it definitely can – I’d say more often than not.


Not Mozart, however. That man wrote a symphony in five days and a violin sonata in a hour.

There are composers that are very fast. Surely, to be able to work as a film composer you have to be really fast.


----------



## Forster

HansZimmer said:


> I simply mean that there is a more than decent elaboration.


What does "decent" elaboration look like? And who says that it's an objective measure of well-written?


----------



## hammeredklavier

mikeh375 said:


> Is it just coincidence someone might wonder, that those of us with professional know-how and experience tally on so much concerning this topic?


To be honest, I can't take seriously what a "professional" says unless he proves to us everything he accomplished in the industry (ie. his successes). Because it reminds me of the fable "the Fox and the Grapes". I mean no offense to you sir, btw. Put yourself in our shoes; would you take, for example, a failed professional footballer's criticism of Lionel Messi seriously? Wouldn't you rather wonder first; "why hasn't he become like Messi then?"
I mean, it's so easy for us to criticize things these days with arguments like "What they're doing is not art cause it's crowd-pleasing."


----------



## mikeh375

hammeredklavier said:


> To be honest, I can't take seriously what a "professional" says unless he proves to us everything he accomplished in the industry (ie. his successes). I mean no offense to you sir, but because it reminds me of the fable "the Fox and the Grapes". Put yourself in our shoes; would you take, for example, a failed professional footballer's criticism of Lionel Messi seriously? Wouldn't you rather wonder first; "why hasn't he become like Messi then?"
> I mean, it's so easy of us to criticize things these days with arguments like "What they're doing is not art cause it's crowd-pleasing."


It's about knowing how to compose, what it takes to do so and having the technique to achieve any end result. It's also about having a lot of experience in the industry. I have all of these attributes and know the game very very well, earning my living solely from composing. Besides there are quotes cited from very big names in this thread that back up everything I and others have said as well as musical examples.

The bickering over film music's classification and status is one mainly for listeners as there is no doubt about what the differences are in composing one style or the other within the profession. You obviously don't have to take my word on anything and are welcome to bicker with people who have no inside track of course. You can always check out my signature below or search me on IMDb if you wish. I'll stick with what I know to be true from my professional training and musical/compositional experiences.


----------



## composingmusic

mikeh375 said:


> It's about knowing how to compose and having experience in the industry. I have both attributes, my education is online
> 
> 
> It's about knowing how to compose, what it takes to do so and having the technique to achieve any end result. It's also about having a lot of experience in the industry. I have all of these attributes and know the game very very well, earning my living solely from composing. Besides there are quotes cited from very big names in this thread that back up everything I and others have said as well as musical examples. The bickering over film music's classification and status is one mainly for listeners as there is no doubt about what the differences are in composing one style or the other within the profession. You obviously don't have to take my word on anything and are welcome to bicker with people who have no inside track of course. I'll stick with what I know to be true from my professional experiences.


Agreed with all of this. It’s strange that people here seem to assume that those of us with professional experience here are somehow “failed” and it’s up to us to prove otherwise. I do have professional experience and a reasonable amount of success in the field as well, but don’t see why I should have to essentially provide my CV. You do have your website linked and that does show that you have extensive experience in the field!


----------



## mikeh375

composingmusic said:


> Agreed with all of this. * It’s strange that people here seem to assume that those of us with professional experience here are somehow “failed” and it’s up to us to prove otherwise.* I do have professional experience and a reasonable amount of success in the field as well, but don’t see why I should have to essentially provide my CV. You do have your website linked and that does show that you have extensive experience in the field!


It's just another indicator that most don't understand or know anything about the training, business, industry and actual composing. It's not unreasonable that some are ignorant on all of this of course - we are all ignorant on many things, especially me. But it is unreasonable imv to simply dismiss folk who clearly have a little more in-depth knowledge about the topic at hand in an outright manner, or accuse them of insincerity and worse. Ahhh...the internet.......welcome to the fray.


----------



## SanAntone

The question I've had throughout this thread, and one I don't remember being answered is this:

*Why is it important or preferable that film music be considered classical music? *


----------



## mikeh375

I could hazard a few guesses @SanAntone but might get into trouble from some of the veterans and laity again with yet another can of worms. So as I'm desperately trying to extricate myself from the thread, I'll keep quiet.


----------



## hammeredklavier

mikeh375 said:


> Besides there are quotes cited from very big names in this thread that back up everything I and others have said as well as musical examples.


Philip Glass says film music is classical music. there has been attempt in this thread to distort his view, btw.


----------



## composingmusic

SanAntone said:


> The question I've had throughout this thread, and one I don't remember being answered is this:
> 
> *Why is it important or preferable that film music be considered classical music? *


I see these as being somewhat separate, for the reasons I stated earlier. The processes for film music and contemporary classical music tend to be quite different; film composers are usually working on much shorter deadlines, and they don’t typically have the type of artistic freedom that concert music composers do. 
To be clear, yes, there can be overlap between these areas. And I’m not trying to argue for superiority of one over another. Film music serves a very specific function, which is different from the function of contemporary classical music.


----------



## composingmusic

HansZimmer said:


> Not Mozart, however. That man wrote a symphony in five days and a violin sonata in a hour.
> 
> There are composers that are very fast. Surely, to be able to work as a film composer you have to be really fast.


Mozart was very fast, yes. It’s important to point out that the stories of his speed are often greatly exaggerated: for instance, he did not write the overture to Don Giovanni on the morning of the premiere. Rather, this would probably have taken him several weeks. The reason for this tale is that Mozart was using manuscript paper he bought in Prague, which is where the premiere was – this lead to tales of him writing the overture very quickly, which became increasingly exaggerated over time.

On the other hand, you have composers like Brahms, who took a decade to write his first symphony. Beethoven also often took quite a long time with his work and edited extensively. Another important thing to take into account is that these composers were working with a set of forms and conventions that meant they didn’t have to construct their musical language from the ground up when writing a new piece. This is not the case today: composers today have much more freedom in their musical language, which means they also have to work much harder to maintain coherence. This slows the process down considerably.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

Forster said:


> Video unavailable (in the UK only?)


Available in Germany - maybe it's EU revenge


----------



## Aries

composingmusic said:


> Film composition often works quite differently from this. A director will have a vision of what kind of music they want, and where they want it. Composers will be given temp tracks and told the director wants something in the style of that temp track, and the composer will have to do something to that effect. Some of the top composers do work with live instrumentalists and orchestras – the LSO has recorded a number of the Harry Potter and Star Wars movies, for instance – but most film composers are working with VSTs and sample libraries in a DAW rather than writing for live instrumentalists.


So most film music isn't actually played by real instruments? This would surprise me, because classical pieces realized with Software like Sibelius don't sound that realistic. Is other software already that advanced? Hard to believe. But this would be a criterium for a exclusion like: Music that isn't actually played by physical instruments isn't classical. You could still play it with instruments though.



composingmusic said:


> Another huge difference is amount of time spent on a piece. I gave an example of how much time a concert music composer would expect to have to write a 10 minute orchestral piece. For film composition, the deadlines are much, much tighter. They can be expected to write a feature film's worth of music in a matter of weeks, rather than months. It's an incredibly high-paced and stressful environment. This is one of the reasons why a film composer has assistants to help out with the orchestration – I've heard that some composers will only sketch out the main lines and leave a lot of the details of the orchestration and realisation to the assistants. Now, this is not the case for all film composers, but I know this is the case for a number of them.


Was orchestration by assistants something that happend in all eras of film music or is it more common today?

There is a quote of Bernard Herrmann about it: "To orchestrate is like a thumbprint. I can't understand having someone else do it. It would be like someone putting color to your paintings."

So not all film composers (have to) do these questionable things, so it is appropriate to not lump all film music together, but to define under which circumstance film music is classical and und which not.

Also interessting is the question if there is a decline of film music and whether film music is less classical than 50 or 75 years ago. At least DAW-related issues must be rather new. What do you think?


----------



## Forster

hammeredklavier said:


> offense to you sir, btw. Put yourself in our shoes; would you take, for example, a failed professional footballer's criticism of Lionel Messi seriously?


"No offense" [sic] but let's compare a member at TC who has experience of composing music with a failed footballer! 

You've rather undermined your own argument there. What matters is the validity of the criticism, not the status of the critic. Failed footballer or legendary sportsman; our own HansZimmer and hammeredklavier; all entitled to opine on any subject they wish, and to be taken seriously if they offer serious opinions backed by evidence.


----------



## composingmusic

Aries said:


> So most film music isn't actually played by real instruments? This would surprise me, because classical pieces realized with Software like Sibelius don't sound that realistic. Is other software already that advanced? Hard to believe. But this would be a criterium for a exclusion like: Music that isn't actually played by physical instruments isn't classical. You could still play it with instruments though.


Making a realistic sounding mock-up is a lot of hard work. Sibelius is very different from a DAW; the priority is notation, not a realistic-sounding mock-up. If you’re creating a mock-up, there’s a lot of work to be done in tweaking phrases, adjusting dynamics, using specific instrument techniques from the library of available sounds, and much more. There’s a lot of human effort involved and it’s very, very different than making a score on Sibelius (this is also a lot of work, but it’s a very different process and the priorities are very different). 



Aries said:


> Was orchestration by assistants something that happend in all eras of film music or is it more common today?
> 
> There is a quote of Bernard Herrmann about it: "To orchestrate is like a thumbprint. I can't understand having someone else do it. It would be like someone putting color to your paintings."
> 
> So not all film composers (have to) do these questionable things, so it is appropriate to not lump all film music together, but to define under which circumstance film music is classical and und which not.


I think someone like Bernard Hermann would have wanted to be in control of the entire process. From what I’ve heard, the same is true of Howard Shore today. I don’t know the exact details of when assistants helping with orchestration became more common – that’s something you could look up.

You’ve twisted my logic with the second statement. I never said that all film music should be lumped together. What I did say is that the priorities are different. Film music serves the function of being part of a film, whereas contenporary classical music functions as music for its own sake. Again, I’m not trying to say one type of music is superior to the other; I’m differentiating these types of music by function. 



Aries said:


> Also interessting is the question if there is a decline of film music and whether film music is less classical than 50 or 75 years ago. At least DAW-related issues must be rather new. What do you think?


I’m not an expert in film music. My expertise is more in the direction of concert music. I do know film music has changed a lot over the decades, and some of it does seem to have become more homogeneous. Some of the changes in film music do have to do with evolving technology, and this has also opened up new possibilities for working methods and new sounds.


----------



## SanAntone

composingmusic said:


> I see these as being somewhat separate, for the reasons I stated earlier. The processes for film music and contemporary classical music tend to be quite different; film composers are usually working on much shorter deadlines, and they don’t typically have the type of artistic freedom that concert music composers do.
> To be clear, yes, there can be overlap between these areas. And I’m not trying to argue for superiority of one over another. Film music serves a very specific function, which is different from the function of contemporary classical music.


I too have posted that genre classification does not connote quality judgments. There is jazz, rock, pop, country, and rap, which I consider of high artistic quality. Which is why I wonder why calling film music "classical music" is important to the OP and others who support the idea.

They must think that "classical music" is somehow better than the film music they point to just because it is called classical music.


----------



## Forster

Aries said:


> Also interessting is the question if there is a decline of film music and whether film music is less classical than 50 or 75 years ago.


There is a change in film music compared to 75 years ago...who's to say whether it's a decline?

We don't remember the bulk of movie output of 75 years ago: we tend to remember only the hits and their soundtracks. So how can we make a valid comparison to reach a generalisation about a decline?


----------



## Aries

composingmusic said:


> Making a realistic sounding mock-up is a lot of hard work. Sibelius is very different from a DAW; the priority is notation, not a realistic-sounding mock-up. If you’re creating a mock-up, there’s a lot of work to be done in tweaking phrases, adjusting dynamics, using specific instrument techniques from the library of available sounds, and much more. There’s a lot of human effort involved and it’s very, very different than making a score on Sibelius (this is also a lot of work, but it’s a very different process and the priorities are very different).


I makes sense, some newer film music just sounds a bit different. Mores simple, more perfect, less vivid. I think it makes sense to exclude these DAW-music from classical music, if it is not played by classical instruments. Classical music is music played by classical institutions/ensembles like symphony orchestras and others. DAWs are not a classical institution.



composingmusic said:


> You’ve twisted my logic with the second statement. I never said that all film music should be lumped together. What I did say is that the priorities are different. Film music serves the function of being part of a film, whereas contenporary classical music functions as music for its own sake. Again, I’m not trying to say one type of music is superior to the other; I’m differentiating these types of music by function.


Ok, but I think classical music can already have functions outside the music itself. Part of the function of opera music is to support the plot. The plot isn't the music. Part of the function of dance music is to support dancing. The dancing isn't the music. Part function of church music is to support the liturgy and religious rites. The religious rites aren't the music. There isn't really a sufficient difference to film music. And film music also its own value. Some more, some less. It makes more sense to differentiate it by other criteria, like the usage of real instruments, or the number of composers/cutters per work. Orchestration by someone else and cutting by someone else doesn't seem to be a classical practise. But it deserves a closer look.


----------



## hammeredklavier

hammeredklavier said:


> So long story short, you're saying music composed with use of such software or device (eg. DAW) doesn't quality as classical music? *Whatabout things like Pithoprakta by Xenakis?*


*"Whatabout things like Pithoprakta by Xenakis?" -*
I don't think I've got a convincing answer for this from the people I asked. I'm spotlighting it just in case they missed it. @mikeh375 , @composingmusic


----------



## HansZimmer

composingmusic said:


> I see these as being somewhat separate, for the reasons I stated earlier. The processes for film music and contemporary classical music tend to be quite different; film composers are usually working on much shorter deadlines, and they don’t typically have the type of artistic freedom that concert music composers do.
> To be clear, yes, there can be overlap between these areas. And I’m not trying to argue for superiority of one over another. Film music serves a very specific function, which is different from the function of contemporary classical music.


Listen: no one here wants to deny that what you and @mikeh375 (as well as other users) have written, which is essentially that the film music composers have a limited artistic freedom. I've written many times that the point is completely in the subjective judgement that you give to these objective facts.

1) "Film music in classical style is not classical music because the composers of the field must work under a tent of constraints" ---> which part of the OFFICIAL definition of classical music excludes the commissioned works written to satisfy the expectations of one client?

2) "Film music is not music of quality because of the constraints" ---> A part from the fact that this is not a discussion about the quality of film music, this argument is very weak. Let's pretend that someone kidnapped Beethoven and forced him to write a 10th symphony. Beethoven writes the first version, but the kidnapper doesn't like it. He writes a second version, and the kidnapper doesn't like it. After different attempts, Beethoven succeed in writing something that fully satisfies the personal tastes/expectations of the kidnapper.
Now, it would be legitimate to think that this hypothetical tenth symphony of Beethoven was the best symphony? Or would we have to reject the quality of the result just because Beethoven was not free to write what he wanted? If Despacito was composed by a "freelance songwriter", it would be better than the hypotetical tenth symphony of Beethoven just because it was written by a free artist?

Instead of continously repeat the same objective facts, you should ask yourself if your conclusions are also objective. If I say that the piece A for me is an example of excellent music, you can't tell me that I'm wrong only because the composer had a gun on the head while writing it. I think that some users here can't simply admit that the major film music composers don't satisfy their PERSONAL TASTES and feel the need to discredit film music. Despite the various attempts to discredit Hans Zimmer, I still think that the music he wrote for the Lion King is stunningly beatiful, expressive and heart touching.

P.S. If Hans Zimmer used a temp track for the score of The Lion King, then you must absolutely tell me what is the original piece!!!


----------



## Luchesi

Forster said:


> This hinges on what is meant by "well-written". It can mean "well-constructed" in a technical sense - you know, all the right notes doing what right notes do, just as Bach, Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven would have known from what they were taught that notes should do. Trouble with that is that many composers came after and got notes to do so many different things, breaking many of the rules, so film composers can now write like both rule followers and rule breakers. (And I'm not talking only about the aerialists and the experimentalists.)
> 
> So, looking at the score will tell you nothing.
> 
> "Well-written" can also mean "serves its purpose" and, in the case of film music, this is usually, though not always, about its impact on audience understanding and emotional response to the visuals on screen. No point looking at the score there either - you need to look at the audience.
> 
> One of my favourite scores - because its one of my favourite movies - is for _The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp _(1943). It's by Allan Gray (actually Józef Żmigrod*). *This movie makes me laugh and cry in all the right places, and I know that the music is a big help, especially for the comic scenes, and when a piece of Mendelssohn is played by an orchestra in the background to a scene of failed reconciliation between a German and an English officer after WW1. I can't listen to "Fingal's Cave" now without tearing up because it reminds me of that scene in the movie.
> 
> Now that was well-written!


Well as I expected, we're on different wavelengths here. Do you ever talk about the notes? Do you think about the notes? Extramusical allusions won't help understand much at all. 

Look at the sheet music for Mary had a little lamb and then look at the sheet music for the D minor Fantasy k397 of Mozart. The human brain finds them both attractive. Why? Which note combinations catch our attention and stimulate us and offer us the small metaphors which add up to being the metaphor of the whole piece, sometimes, making it memorable? 

This would be a lot less difficult if I could show you examples.

Why is that the Mozart is considered to be well-crafted, original and clever (even though he didn't finish it - he probably considered it a trifle from improvising (I don't know, could he sell it as a separate piece?), but it's been finished now and over a long period time the ending has been satisfactory, at least to me). The extra musical info about the pieces don't in any way affect my reduction of the effective note combinations, and what I can learn from the pieces. What the composers were doing specifically in each short work of music.. comparing the effective figures to other examples etc. etc.. It's endless, when you begin to care about just the notes.


----------



## HansZimmer

Forster said:


> "No offense" [sic] but let's compare a member at TC who has experience of composing music with a failed footballer!


Yes, it is an offensive statement, but many users in this discussion have offended absent people (Hans Zimmer, John Williams, Randy Newman...) and the persons who enjoy their music.


----------



## Forster

^ I don't think we'll ever be on the same wavelength. Music is, ultimately, for playing or listening, not studying. And film music is for hearing while watching movies.


----------



## Forster

HansZimmer said:


> Yes, it is an offensive statement, but many users in this discussion have offended absent people (Hans Zimmer, John Williams, Randy Newman...) and the persons who enjoy their music.


So...?


----------



## hammeredklavier

HansZimmer said:


> Not Mozart, however. That man wrote a symphony in five days and a violin sonata in a hour.
> There are composers that are very fast. Surely, to be able to work as a film composer you have to be really fast.


That was the norm of the time and their skills as improvisers. Haydn, for example, wrote his requiem in 2 weeks; if it is roughly equivalent to 7~8 numbers of opera music or movements of instrumental music, it's not any slower than Mozart's.


----------



## composingmusic

HansZimmer said:


> Listen: no one here wants to deny that what you and @mikeh375 (as well as other users) have written, which is essentially that the film music composers have a limited artistic freedom. I've written many times that the point is completely in the subjective judgement that you give to these objective facts.
> 
> 1) "Film music in classical style is not classical music because the composers of the field must work under a tent of constraints" ---> which part of the OFFICIAL definition of classical music excludes the commissioned works written to satisfy the expectations of one client?
> 
> 2) "Film music is not music of quality because of the constraints" ---> A part from the fact that this is not a discussion about the quality of film music, this argument is very weak. Let's pretend that someone kidnapped Beethoven and forced him to write a 10th symphony. Beethoven writes the first version, but the kidnapper doesn't like it. He writes a second version, and the kidnapper doesn't like it. After different attempts, Beethoven succeed in writing something that fully satisfies the personal tastes/expectations of the kidnapper.
> Now, it would be legitimate to think that this hypothetical tenth symphony of Beethoven was the best symphony? Or would we have to reject the quality of the result just because Beethoven was not free to write what he wanted? If Despacito was composed by a "freelance songwriter", it would be better than the hypotetical tenth symphony of Beethoven just because it was written by a free artist?
> 
> Instead of continously repeat the same objective facts, you should ask yourself if your conclusions are also objective. If I say that the piece A for me is an example of excellent music, you can't tell me that I'm wrong only because the composer had a gun on the head while writing it. I think that some users here can't simply admit that the major film music composers don't satisfy their PERSONAL TASTES and feel the need to discredit film music. Despite the various attempts to discredit Hans Zimmer, I still think that the music he wrote for the Lion King is stunningly beatiful, expressive and heart touching.
> 
> P.S. If Hans Zimmer used a temp track for the score of The Lion King, then you must absolutely tell me what is the original piece!!!


It is you who are coming up with these conclusions, not me. Once again, you are putting words in my mouth. I never said that either classical music or film music is inherently superior to the other; I’ve simply stated that 1. the working methods are very different for most people working in these respective genres and 2. they serve a different function.

As for opera, the focus is still on the music. The composer has just as much of a say in the artistic vision of the work as the librettist, if not more. This is not the same as with film music, where the director is in charge. This same argument could be made for religious music.

I am not saying that film music cannot sound like older classical music or that these categories are absolutely separate. Indeed, there is a good amount of overlap even. Again, I am differentiating these categories by function and I’m not saying the boundaries are absolute.


----------



## HansZimmer

composingmusic said:


> Mozart was very fast, yes. It’s important to point out that the stories of his speed are often greatly exaggerated: for instance, he did not write the overture to Don Giovanni on the morning of the premiere. Rather, this would probably have taken him several weeks. The reason for this tale is that Mozart was using manuscript paper he bought in Prague, which is where the premiere was – this lead to tales of him writing the overture very quickly, which became increasingly exaggerated over time.
> 
> On the other hand, you have composers like Brahms, who took a decade to write his first symphony. Beethoven also often took quite a long time with his work and edited extensively. Another important thing to take into account is that these composers were working with a set of forms and conventions that meant they didn’t have to construct their musical language from the ground up when writing a new piece. This is not the case today: composers today have much more freedom in their musical language, which means they also have to work much harder to maintain coherence. This slows the process down considerably.


However it's true that he composed a symphony in five days, an opera in three weeks and a piano concerto in one month. It's not?

I don't know if it's true that he composed the violin sonata No. 27 in one hour and that since he didn't have the time to write the part for the piano, he played the part for the piano to memory.


----------



## composingmusic

HansZimmer said:


> However it's true that he composed a symphony in five days, an opera in three weeks and a piano concerto in one month. It's not?
> 
> I don't know if it's true that he composed the violin sonata No. 27 in one hour and that since he didn't have the time to write the part for the piano, he played the part for the piano to memory.


I don’t know off the top of my head whether this is accurate. I’m not a Mozart scholar and would have to check these claims for accuracy. However, I will say two things: it can be quite difficult to separate truth from fiction in the case of Mozart, because elements of his life were often greatly exaggerated. Secondly, he was incredibly fast. 

I’ve already discussed this in the comment that you’ve replied to, but most composers of that era would have been slower than Mozart. Also, composers working today wouldn’t typically be working in the formal frameworks of the Classical era.


----------



## Luchesi

Forster said:


> ^ I don't think we'll ever be on the same wavelength. Music is, ultimately, for playing or listening, not studying. And film music is for hearing while watching movies.


Most of us admire the masters of CM and it seems to me only natural that we would want to know specifically what they do in their scores to make them so well-crafted and effective and memorable. I find all this education and wonder in the objective facts. So obviously I don't need to care about people's subjective opinions, whether people like something or don't like something, whatever that means in each case.
If you never know very much about it it's not a big loss to you. That's evident. Do we care how weather actually works? Most people I meet don't even know what the issue is.. 

I've found that every technical subject can be reduced and then reformulated for my own thinking.


----------



## mmsbls

HansZimmer said:


> Listen: no one here wants to deny that what you and @mikeh375 (as well as other users) have written, which is essentially that the film music composers have a limited artistic freedom. I've written many times that the point is completely in the subjective judgement that you give to these objective facts.


I don't think anyone has argued with that statement. Yes, all of our opinions here ultimately boil down to a subjective assessment of various facts. Do you think there could exist an objective assessment of the question?



> 1) "Film music in classical style is not classical music because the composers of the field must work under a tent of constraints" ---> which part of the OFFICIAL definition of classical music excludes the commissioned works written to satisfy the expectations of one client?


You have asked for or mentioned "the official definition of classical music" several times. I assume you know that there is no official definition. People's views on this subject do not require an "official definition."



> Instead of continously repeat the same objective facts, you should ask yourself if your conclusions are also objective.


I'm assuming that no one needs to do so because we all understand the conclusions are subjective. When you started the thread, did you expect people to give formal proofs of their view or show that one and only one possible view is correct? Weren't you simply asking why some people think film music is in a separate category from classical music? Many people gave you their _subjective_ reasons. Rather than discuss them, you have given the impression that each answer is objectively wrong. Is that what you mean to do? 

You believe film music can be classical music, film music can be excellent music, and film composers can be excellent composers. I believe most people here feel this topic is very important to you. You started the thread, have posted extensively in it, and argued about it in other threads as well. Do you know why it's so important to you?


----------



## DaveM

composingmusic said:


> Mozart was very fast, yes. It’s important to point out that the stories of his speed are often greatly exaggerated: for instance, he did not write the overture to Don Giovanni on the morning of the premiere. Rather, this would probably have taken him several weeks. The reason for this tale is that Mozart was using manuscript paper he bought in Prague, which is where the premiere was – this lead to tales of him writing the overture very quickly, which became increasingly exaggerated over time.
> 
> On the other hand, you have composers like Brahms, who took a decade to write his first symphony. Beethoven also often took quite a long time with his work and edited extensively.


That is misleading. It is well known that some of the great composers, for various reasons, took longer to write certain works. That doesn’t mean they weren’t writing and publishing other works during that time. Mozart wrote some of his major works in a few weeks. In 1791 alone (the year of his death), he wrote an opera, a piano concerto, a clarinet concerto, a quintet and a major part of a Requiem. Brahms took a longer than usual time to write his first major works because of a self-imposed challenge to try to rise to the level of Beethoven. He was composing a number of other works at the time.



> Another important thing to take into account is that these composers were working with a set of forms and conventions that meant they didn’t have to construct their musical language from the ground up when writing a new piece. This is not the case today: composers today have much more freedom in their musical language, which means they also have to work much harder to maintain coherence. This slows the process down considerably.


Well, now we’re (apparently) talking about avant-garde works where a composer constructs a new musical language. You have just supported the premise of the OP since a significant segment of film music that has been compared to CM uses the same musical language that classical music used for centuries. Playing devil’s advocate for the moment: How does avant-garde music that uses a new ‘musical language from the ground up’ get to be called classical music while film music that uses conventional notation does not? IMO, this is an important reason why the OP occurred in the first place. Some music called classical music, in the use of a new language, has become so obscure compared to ‘traditional CM’ that the door is opened to include music that isn’t (obscure).


----------



## Nate Miller

ok....enough already! after 120 pages, THIS is why film music is not "classical" music:

The "Classical" period ended about 200 years ago. Neither Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven or anyone from that era wrote for film, so therefore there is no classical film music. It follows that any music in a film must not be classical music.

this is Musicology 101 really. Well, maybe Musicology 204, but San Antonio is right. Why does calling it "classical" music matter at all?


----------



## mmsbls

mikeh375 said:


> It's just another indicator that most don't understand or know anything about the training, business, industry and actual composing. It's not unreasonable that some are ignorant on all of this of course - we are all ignorant on many things, especially me. But it is unreasonable imv to simply dismiss folk who clearly have a little more in-depth knowledge about the topic at hand in an outright manner, or accuse them of insincerity and worse. Ahhh...the internet.......welcome to the fray.


When I have an interest in some field, I'm thrilled to have access to the thoughts of people who work in that field. I view it as a valuable source of information. I'm thankful for those of you who compose for a living (or even part of a living) and are willing to share your knowledge about various aspects of composing, composition, contemporary music, and other related areas. 

I think the use of the term insincere probably meant not well founded rather than truly insincere (at least I hope so).


----------



## composingmusic

DaveM said:


> That is misleading. It is well known that some of the great composers, for various reasons, took longer to write certain works. That doesn’t mean they weren’t writing and publishing other works.


Misleading in what sense? I was saying that different people have different writing speeds, and Mozart taking a week to write a symphony isn't the norm for composers either in the past or in the present. Not to mention, I'd have to fact-check whether Mozart actually did take a week to write that symphony (and this isn't a simple thing, because as I mentioned, it can be hard to separate fact from fiction in the case of Mozart). Brahms did take a decade to write his symphony, even if he was working on other pieces at the time. Beethoven also worked on his ninth symphony for roughly a decade – he wrote and rewrote large sections of it throughout that time. Yes, there are other pieces that date from this time period. I never said that composers don't ever work on multiple things at a time. Again, not sure how my earlier statement was misleading. 



DaveM said:


> Well, now we’re (apparently) talking about avant-garde works where a composer constructs a new musical language. You have just supported the premise of the OP since the film music that has been compared to CM uses the same musical language that classical music used for centuries. Playing devil’s advocate for the moment: How does avant-garde music that uses a new ‘musical language from the ground up’ get to be called classical music while film music that uses conventional notation does not? IMO, this is an important reason why the OP occurred in the first place. Some music called classical music, in the use of a new language, has become so obscure compared to ‘traditional CM’ that the door is opened to include music that isn’t (obscure).


I'm not going to start the whole debate of what contemporary music is considered "avant-garde," and whether or not that gets to be called classical music – that's something that's been extensively argued in another thread. I think I've been pretty clear about my opinions in that thread. Regardless, I'm not arguing for a stylistic distinction here; I'm arguing that film music and concert music perform different functions. Not all contemporary classical music sounds the same; far from it. Not all film music sounds the same either. I also made clear in an earlier post that I'm not trying to create firm boundaries between concert music and film music either: it's not a clear-cut boundary, and there's a lot of overlap. I have stated this in earlier comments.


----------



## composingmusic

Nate Miller said:


> ok....enough already! after 120 pages, THIS is why film music is not "classical" music:
> 
> The "Classical" period ended about 200 years ago. Neither Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven or anyone from that era wrote for film, so therefore there is no classical film music. It follows that any music in a film must not be classical music.
> 
> this is Musicology 101 really. Well, maybe Musicology 204, but San Antonio is right. Why does calling it "classical" music matter at all?


There is a distinction between the term Classical (with an uppercase C), which refers explicitly to the Classical period, and the term classical (with a lowercase C), which refers more broadly to art music spanning from somewhere around the medieval or Renaissance era through to modern-day contemporary art music.


----------



## Forster

Nate Miller said:


> ok....enough already! after 120 pages, THIS is why film music is not "classical" music:
> 
> The "Classical" period ended about 200 years ago. Neither Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven or anyone from that era wrote for film, so therefore there is no classical film music. It follows that any music in a film must not be classical music.
> 
> this is Musicology 101 really. Well, maybe Musicology 204, but San Antonio is right. Why does calling it "classical" music matter at all?


If only it were that simple 😕


----------



## Aries

composingmusic said:


> I also made clear in an earlier post that I'm not trying to create firm boundaries between concert music and film music either: it's not a clear-cut boundary, and there's a lot of overlap. I have stated this in earlier comments.


But is classical music equal to concert music or is it an umbrella term? Church, opera and ballet music are all considered classical music. But is church music concert music? Imo no, but at least a lot of church music is played in concerts. Is opera music concert music? Isn't an opera performance something different than a concert? Is ballet music concert music? Isn't a ballet something different than a concert?


----------



## mikeh375

mmsbls said:


> When I have an interest in some field, I'm thrilled to have access to the thoughts of people who work in that field. I view it as a valuable source of information. I'm thankful for those of you who compose for a living (or even part of a living) and are willing to share your knowledge about various aspects of composing, composition, contemporary music, and other related areas.
> 
> I think the use of the term insincere probably meant not well founded rather than truly insincere (at least I hope so).


thanks @mmsbls. I feel the same especially when science is involved.


----------



## mikeh375

hammeredklavier said:


> *"Whatabout things like Pithoprakta by Xenakis?" -*
> I don't think I've got a convincing answer for this from the people I asked. I'm spotlighting it just in case they missed it. @mikeh375 , @composingmusic


I already replied to this


----------



## SanAntone

How long it took Mozart to write his music is irrelevant. More relevant is a comparison between a film composer such as John Williams and one of his influences, Gustav Holst.

Holst's orchestral suite _The Planets_ took him three years to compose. The score to _Star Wars_ took John Williams two months to compose. But of course he was not composing as much as plagiarizing Holst, and others.

_Some of Williams's work is so similar to The Planets that there are criticisms that it goes beyond inspiration and is actually plagiarism. When listening to The Planets, it can feel like you're listening to a Best of Hollywood movie soundtrack. But in all reality, Williams's work is fundamentally different from Holst's in enough ways to consider it unique. It's transformative and changes enough to be regarded as original work by most areas of academia. Williams also famously took inspiration for Star Wars, particularly from Eric Wolfgang Korngold and other composers of that era. 

But in truth, it's in The Planets we see where most of John Williams's inspiration came from. Even though his work is transformative enough, it's hard to imagine what Star Wars or countless other Hollywood blockbusters' soundtracks would sound like if The Planets had never been released._ (source)

Copying the sound and ideas of orchestral works by Holst, as well as other film scores, is a simple and fast process because most of the hard work has already been done, i.e. coming up with the original sound and ideas. Film score composers do it because they are under a time constraint to fulfill their contract to supply music for a movie.

It ought to be obvious how this process is different from what a classical composer does.


----------



## composingmusic

mmsbls said:


> When I have an interest in some field, I'm thrilled to have access to the thoughts of people who work in that field. I view it as a valuable source of information. I'm thankful for those of you who compose for a living (or even part of a living) and are willing to share your knowledge about various aspects of composing, composition, contemporary music, and other related areas.
> 
> I think the use of the term insincere probably meant not well founded rather than truly insincere (at least I hope so).


Yes, thank you @mmsbls! I came here to try and offer my views about the process and function of film music and how that compares with contemporary classical music, broadly speaking. The process and function of concert music and film music do differ quite a bit, although both cover a broad spectrum of stylistic and aesthetic areas, and working methods can differ quite a lot from composer to composer. 

As for the use of "insincere," @mikeh375's comment was a reply to this statement of mine:



> Agreed with all of this. It’s strange that people here seem to assume that those of us with professional experience here are somehow “failed” and it’s up to us to prove otherwise. I do have professional experience and a reasonable amount of success in the field as well, but don’t see why I should have to essentially provide my CV. You do have your website linked and that does show that you have extensive experience in the field!


My remark about "failed" professionals was referring to this earlier comment:


> To be honest, I can't take seriously what a "professional" says unless he proves to us everything he accomplished in the industry (ie. his successes). Because it reminds me of the fable "the Fox and the Grapes". I mean no offense to you sir, btw. Put yourself in our shoes; would you take, for example, a failed professional footballer's criticism of Lionel Messi seriously? Wouldn't you rather wonder first; "why hasn't he become like Messi then?"
> I mean, it's so easy of us to criticize things these days with arguments like "What they're doing is not art cause it's crowd-pleasing."


----------



## DaveM

composingmusic said:


> Misleading in what sense? I was saying that different people have different writing speeds, and Mozart taking a week to write a symphony isn't the norm for composers either in the past or in the present. Not to mention, I'd have to fact-check whether Mozart actually did take a week to write that symphony (and this isn't a simple thing, because as I mentioned, it can be hard to separate fact from fiction in the case of Mozart). Brahms did take a decade to write his symphony, even if he was working on other pieces at the time. Beethoven also worked on his ninth symphony for roughly a decade – he wrote and rewrote large sections of it throughout that time. Yes, there are other pieces that date from this time period. I never said that composers don't ever work on multiple things at a time. Again, not sure how my earlier statement was misleading.


Misleading because you are comparing apples to oranges. This started with your premise that it can take months for a present-day composer to compose a 10 minute work. When I questioned that you came up with a response such as the above. The composers of the CP era generally could not afford to make a living taking months or years to compose works. In circumstances where they took a long time to publish certain works, it was due to constraints they set for themselves, not due to an inability to compose works in a reasonable period of time when making a living was the priority.

You have given the reason for the prolonged time required to compose works these days as due to essentially a new paradigm which includes creating a new musical language. I’m sorry, but a composer taking months to write 10 minutes of music will not make a living in that way unless being heavily subsidized with no concern or regard for the likelihood of significant timely results. It’s interesting to me that the way you described the shorter time period that film composers work under sounds more like the time constraints composers of the CP era were under. They had to strut their stuff and get it published in a reasonable period of time to make a living.


----------



## mikeh375

Nate Miller said:


> ok....enough already! after 120 pages, ..........


Aww c'mon Nate. We're all having such a good time.


----------



## DaveM

mikeh375 said:


> Aww c'mon Nate. We're all having such a good time.


Let the good times continue:
Fwiw, IMO you’re one of the very few here that has the ‘cred’ of a real composer. We’ve had some discussions here and in one or two other threads where because of certain subject-matter we have essentially been counseled to give special attention to and respect for the opinions of composers taking part in the discussion. When that has happened, the question in my mind has been, what evidence is there that someone calling themselves a composer has the credibility that deserves special attention to their opinion.

Occasionally, we have new members declare themselves to be composers. Well, I suppose that’s okay on one level, but that, in and of itself, does not confer gravitas. IMO, if they want their opinion to have special respect, a little more is required. For me, that would mean a history of making a living from composing or at the very least, a history of having a significant number of works commissioned or published even if there is another source of income such as teaching. Just declaring oneself to be a composer because a few works were self-published on YouTube is not enough.


----------



## Nate Miller

composingmusic said:


> There is a distinction between the term Classical (with an uppercase C), which refers explicitly to the Classical period, and the term classical (with a lowercase C), which refers more broadly to art music spanning from somewhere around the medieval or Renaissance era through to modern-day contemporary art music.


well, if we're talking "music" with a small "m" too, then I guess...

But as a musician, I can't see spending the hundreds of hours it takes to prepare a piece for performance spent learning the score from a movie, but as a jazz player, I do play lots of tunes from old movies 

I see "film music" as tunes, not pieces of serious incidental music. So sorry, for me as a musician, film music isn't the same thing as classical music with or without the big "C"


----------



## DaveM

Nate Miller said:


> ..I see "film music" as tunes, not pieces of serious incidental music..


A lot of examples of film music has been posted here that rises to the level of serious music. Calling it just ‘tunes’ suggests that you’re really not very familiar with film music other than maybe playing a jazzed up version of something like Moon River.


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> How long it took Mozart to write his music is irrelevant. More relevant is a comparison between a film composer such as John Williams and one of his influences, Gustav Holst.
> 
> Holst's orchestral suite _The Planets_ took him three years to compose. The score to _Star Wars_ took John Williams two months to compose. But of course he was not composing as much as plagiarizing Holst, and others.
> 
> _Some of Williams's work is so similar to The Planets that there are criticisms that it goes beyond inspiration and is actually plagiarism. When listening to The Planets, it can feel like you're listening to a Best of Hollywood movie soundtrack. But in all reality, Williams's work is fundamentally different from Holst's in enough ways to consider it unique. It's transformative and changes enough to be regarded as original work by most areas of academia. Williams also famously took inspiration for Star Wars, particularly from Eric Wolfgang Korngold and other composers of that era.
> 
> But in truth, it's in The Planets we see where most of John Williams's inspiration came from. Even though his work is transformative enough, it's hard to imagine what Star Wars or countless other Hollywood blockbusters' soundtracks would sound like if The Planets had never been released._ (source)
> 
> Copying the sound and ideas of orchestral works by Holst, as well as other film scores, is a simple and fast process because most of the hard work has already been done, i.e. coming up with the original sound and ideas. Film score composers do it because they are under a time constraint to fulfill their contract to supply music for a movie.
> 
> It ought to be obvious how this process is different from what a classical composer does.


"Lesser artists borrow, great artists steal" –Stravinsky.
People prejudiced against Williams will always say he's nothing but a thief, even though "the value of his work has been recognized by his contemporaries" (the same way you describe Mozart, Beethoven) including composers such as Glass and musicians such as the leaders of the major orchestras around the world. Actually, it's sort of an inconvenient truth how much the "so-called greats" also borrowed from their predecessors and contemporaries; and the amount of "similarities" can be disturbing in some cases. The impressions of melody and harmony of the slow movements of Haydn's Divertimento for quintet MH199 (1774) and Mozart's Sonata for four hands K.497 (1786), for instance, are just the tip of the iceberg.
I doubt that the philosophy "a true artist must create his own language from scratch" was a thing throughout much of European music history.


----------



## Nate Miller

DaveM said:


> A lot of examples of film music has been posted here that rises to the level of serious music. Calling it just ‘tunes’ suggests that you’re really not very familiar with film music other than maybe playing a jazzed up version of something like Moon River.


yea, what would I know? For me calling something a "tune" isn't derogatory. Its means I'll play it, which must mean I like it. Tunes like "Body and Soul" (awesome boxing movie from 1947 btw) have meant alot to me in my playing career. Quite a bit of the jazz standard repertoire comes from movies and show tunes.

movies are great vehicles for promoting tunes, and in the old days, that was part of their purpose, too.

that's why I dont consider movie soundtracks classical music


----------



## Nate Miller

hammeredklavier said:


> "Lesser artists borrow, great artists steal" –Stravinsky.
> People prejudiced against Williams will always say he's nothing but a thief, even though "the value of his work has been recognized by his contemporaries" (the same logic you use for Mozart, Beethoven) including composers such as Glass and musicians such as the leaders of the major orchestras around the world. Actually, it's sort of an inconvenient truth how much the "so-called greats" also borrowed from their predecessors and contemporaries. And the similarities can be disturbing in some cases. The impressions of melody and harmony of the slow movements of Haydn's Divertimento for quintet MH199 (1774) and Mozart's Sonata for four hands K.497 (1786), for instance, are just the tip of the iceberg.
> I doubt that the philosophy "a true artist must create his own language from scratch" was a thing during much of European music history.



clearly BMI wasn't a going concern in the early 19th century


----------



## hammeredklavier

Nate Miller said:


> I see "film music" as tunes, not pieces of serious incidental music. So sorry, for me as a musician, film music isn't the same thing as classical music with or without the big "C"


There are "joke pieces" by composers of the past that are now considered to be dead serious just cause they follow the conventions of the time (such as the sonata form, or enlightenment rationalism).


----------



## Nate Miller

hammeredklavier said:


> There are "joke pieces" by composers of the past that are now considered as dead serious just cause they follow the conventions of the time (such as the sonata form, or enlightenment rationalism). Have a look at Jeremy Denk's writings on certain variations.


and when I say "tune" I'm not being derogatory. Tunes dont have words, songs do. Tunes dont have multiple movements, they have bridges and choruses. I have to use language to classify the types of music I play, so that's all there is behind it.

And the truth is that I play a large number of "tunes" that are from old movies. So clearly, I believe that film music is good music, but its not the same thing as playing classical music. It's just not. Not from the player's perspective, anyway


----------



## DaveM

Nate Miller said:


> yea, what would I know? For me calling something a "tune" isn't derogatory. Its means I'll play it, which must mean I like it. Tunes like "Body and Soul" (awesome boxing movie from 1947 btw) have meant alot to me in my playing career. Quite a bit of the jazz standard repertoire comes from movies and show tunes.
> 
> movies are great vehicles for promoting tunes, and in the old days, that was part of their purpose, too.
> 
> that's why I dont consider movie soundtracks classical music


Well, I didn’t respond because you said you don’t consider film music to be classical music. I responded because you said it doesn’t ‘rise to the level of serious music’. Btw, it’s interesting that you don’t consider music that contributes to ‘quite a bit of the jazz standard repertoire’ to be serious music. Much of the film music that has been posted here is far more than just ‘tunes’. I understand that it is popular for jazz players, pianists and otherwise, to play film themes in bars and elsewhere, but that isn’t the same as the more fleshed-out film music a number of us are referring to.

Just for giggles. Here’s some film music where the piano playing is close to indistinguishable from classical music:


----------



## mikeh375

DaveM said:


> Let the good times continue:
> Fwiw, IMO you’re one of the very few here that has the ‘cred’ of a real composer. We’ve had some discussions here and in one or two other threads where because of certain subject-matter we have essentially been counseled to give special attention to and respect for the opinions of composers taking part in the discussion. When that has happened, the question in my mind has been, what evidence is there that someone calling themselves a composer has the credibility that deserves special attention to their opinion.
> 
> Occasionally, we have new members declare themselves to be composers. Well, I suppose that’s okay on one level, but that, in and of itself, does not confer gravitas. IMO, if they want their opinion to have special respect, a little more is required. For me, that would mean a history of making a living from composing or at the very least, a history of having a significant number of works commissioned or published even if there is another source of income such as teaching. Just declaring oneself to be a composer because a few works were self-published on YouTube is not enough.


Well Dave that's actually worth a lot, thanks, much appreciated. For what it's also worth, I know @composingmusic has terrific 'cred' as a composer and is someone I have enormous respect for.


----------



## Nate Miller

DaveM said:


> I understand that it is popular for jazz players, pianists and otherwise, to play film themes in bars and elsewhere, but that isn’t the same as the more fleshed-out film music a number of us are referring to.


You realize there is a difference between jazz players playing movie themes in bars and a tune from a movie being part of the standard repertoire or "a jazz standard", right?

you keep talking to me like I dont know about this film music that you are talking about, and that's fine, but I'm still not going to go buy a score of film music and work on it. That is the difference. 

if it was all that and a bag of chips, then I'd be excited to open a score of film music and get to work just like I was sitting down with Bach's lute suites...but that's not how it is

and that's the bottom line for me


----------



## composingmusic

Nate Miller said:


> But as a musician, I can't see spending the hundreds of hours it takes to prepare a piece for performance spent learning the score from a movie, but as a jazz player, I do play lots of tunes from old movies
> 
> I see "film music" as tunes, not pieces of serious incidental music. So sorry, for me as a musician, film music isn't the same thing as classical music with or without the big "C"


Not sure how this relates to my reply?


----------



## composingmusic

DaveM said:


> Misleading because you are comparing apples to oranges. This started with your premise that it can take months for a present-day composer to compose a 10 minute work. When I questioned that you came up with a response such as the above.


I said it can take months for a present-day composer to compose a 10 minute work, yes. Initially I was giving an example of an orchestral piece, but this does apply to other types of works too, yes. I'm still not sure what you think my "apples to oranges" comparison is. I'll pick this apart more in a follow-up reply. 



DaveM said:


> The composers of the CP era generally could not afford to make a living taking months or years to compose works. In circumstances where they took a long time to publish certain works, it was due to constraints they set for themselves, not due to an inability to compose works in a reasonable period of time when making a living was the priority.


I'm really not sure why you think CP composers could not afford to take months or years to compose works – there's lots of evidence to suggest many people did take months or years to compose works, so I'm really not sure where you're getting this from. Again, some composers did write incredibly quickly. I'm not disputing that. There's also a big variance in the speed of composers today. I never disputed that either. 



DaveM said:


> You have given the reason for the prolonged time required to compose works these days as due to essentially a new paradigm which includes creating a new musical language. I’m sorry, but a composer taking months to write 10 minutes of music will not make a living in that way unless being heavily subsidized with no concern or regard for the likelihood of significant timely results. It’s interesting to me that the way you described the shorter time period that film composers work under sounds more like the time constraints composers of the CP era were under. They had to strut their stuff and get it published in a reasonable period of time to make a living.


Again, film composers are often given very specific deadlines by producers and directors. I also never said that composers have to create a new musical language for every work. What I said is that composers today aren't necessarily following the types of formal structures that Classical era composers had as conventions, which would have helped a lot with finding a structure for a piece. I did say there is a lot more artistic freedom now than there was in the classical era, and that does come at a cost for speed. 

As I mentioned in an earlier comment, commission fees vary greatly. So do writing speeds.


----------



## composingmusic

DaveM said:


> Misleading because you are comparing apples to oranges. This started with your premise that it can take months for a present-day composer to compose a 10 minute work.


As promised, here's the follow-up reply. This was my original comment below:



composingmusic said:


> Something that I've discussed with a number of my colleagues is the process of how a lot of concert music is written vs. the process for writing a lot of film scores. The school where I did my master's degree also has quite a strong film programme, and it's quite a different world from the contemporary classical scene for a number of reasons. I need to give the following disclaimer here: this does not apply to all film composers, or all contemporary classical composers. However, this does apply to most that I've spoken to and my colleagues have confirmed my views of this as well.
> 
> The aim of the contemporary classical composer is to write the music that stands on its own artistic merit. There are a number of different types of processes, but a good number of these people work with notation (if not standard notation, then some sort of graphic notation or hybrid of graphic/aleatoric notation and standard notation). Typically, they work with live musicians with the aim of having their music played in concert halls. Yes, there is also electronic music, but this isn't typically trying to mock up the sound of an instrumental ensemble. Writing speed varies a lot, but it can be quite slow in many cases – for something like a 10 minute orchestral piece, you would expect to have a gestation period of at least several months at the very minimum.
> 
> Film composition often works quite differently from this. A director will have a vision of what kind of music they want, and where they want it. Composers will be given temp tracks and told the director wants something in the style of that temp track, and the composer will have to do something to that effect. Some of the top composers do work with live instrumentalists and orchestras – the LSO has recorded a number of the Harry Potter and Star Wars movies, for instance – but most film composers are working with VSTs and sample libraries in a DAW rather than writing for live instrumentalists.
> 
> Another huge difference is amount of time spent on a piece. I gave an example of how much time a concert music composer would expect to have to write a 10 minute orchestral piece. For film composition, the deadlines are much, much tighter. They can be expected to write a feature film's worth of music in a matter of weeks, rather than months. It's an incredibly high-paced and stressful environment. This is one of the reasons why a film composer has assistants to help out with the orchestration – I've heard that some composers will only sketch out the main lines and leave a lot of the details of the orchestration and realisation to the assistants. Now, this is not the case for all film composers, but I know this is the case for a number of them.
> 
> Then there's also the matter of issues like production cuts. A director may decide they want to change the order of a sequence, or cut a sequence, or add some footage somewhere. The composer will rarely have a say in any of this, and their music may be completely reordered from what they had first planned.
> 
> These are just some of the differences between the concert music and film composition world. I'm not saying that there isn't good film music, or that concert music is somehow inherently superior. However, concert composers generally do have more of a say in what they do, and they have a longer time to actually think about what they want to do in their work (most of the time anyway). This does affect the work in a number of ways.


My point here was that there are a number of differences between contemporary classical music and film music. Generally concert music composers will have much more time to write a piece than film composers, and they don't have a specific set of criteria a director has asked for or a temp track to work with. A piece of contemporary classical music generally won't have the order of the work cut up and changed due to someone else's decisions (which happens a lot in the film world).

HansZimmer brought up Mozart – I wasn't directly comparing film composers to Mozart or Beethoven at any point, if that's what you're implying (I'm still not quite sure what you meant with the apples vs. oranges comparison). I stated that we need to be careful with Mozart because there's often inaccuracies when people cite how long he took to do things. Now, there's a great amount in the variance in speeds between common practice composers. Beethoven was generally quite a lot slower than Mozart. Chopin also reportedly spent lots of time editing and rewriting his pieces. 

This is true of composers today as well. Some are very fast, others are quite slow, and you've got all sorts of writing speeds in between. There's a general trend of composers today being slower than they were, and again, this does relate to having formal conventions in the common practice that one could follow, which is less the case today.


----------



## composingmusic

mikeh375 said:


> Well Dave that's actually worth a lot, thanks, much appreciated. For what it's also worth, I know @composingmusic has terrific 'cred' as a composer and is someone I have enormous respect for.


Thanks for this Mike!


----------



## DaveM

mikeh375 said:


> Well Dave that's actually worth a lot, thanks, much appreciated. For what it's also worth, I know @composingmusic has terrific 'cred' as a composer and is someone I have enormous respect for.


Well, that‘s a good recommendation.


----------



## DaveM

composingmusic said:


> ..HansZimmer brought up Mozart – I wasn't directly comparing film composers to Mozart or Beethoven at any point, if that's what you're implying (I'm still not quite sure what you meant with the apples vs. oranges comparison). I stated that we need to be careful with Mozart because there's often inaccuracies when people cite how long he took to do things. Now, there's a great amount in the variance in speeds between common practice composers. Beethoven was generally quite a lot slower than Mozart. Chopin also reportedly spent lots of time editing and rewriting his pieces..


I don‘t know why you think mentioning how long it took composers of that era to compose is relevant to prove your point when the fact is that they had to produce works regularly to survive. Mozart, Chopin and Beethoven died at ages 35, 39, and 56 respectively. Look at their overall output. On average, they weren’t taking months to compose 10 minute orchestral works. You will come back and talk about present-day composers and their new musical languages from the ground up. That’s why it’s apples and oranges. The fact that composers of the CP era took more time on some works is not relevant to the time composers are apparently taking these days (as per you).


----------



## composingmusic

DaveM said:


> I don‘t know why you think mentioning how long it took composers of that era to compose is relevant to prove your point when the fact is that they had to produce works regularly to survive.


And composers making a living from their work today don't?



DaveM said:


> Mozart, Chopin and Beethoven died at ages 35, 39, and 56 respectively. Look at their overall output. On average, they weren’t taking months to compose 10 minute orchestral works... The fact that composers of the CP era took more time on some works is not relevant to the time composers are apparently taking these days (as per you).


I thought I'd made it clear that on average, composers today do take longer to do things. My point with this is that there is a great degree of variance within both these groups. Some people are slower, some people are faster. This is the point I was making.



DaveM said:


> You will come back and talk about present-day composers and their new musical languages from the ground up. That’s why it’s apples and oranges.


I clarified in my previous comment that I was specifically talking about formal conventions. Not sure where you're getting this "new musical languages from the ground up" statement – I have not stated that in this thread. In any case, that's an incorrect assessment; composers today do tend to have personal musical languages, but they are greatly influenced by the people around them and learn from the past.


----------



## jojoju2000

Nate Miller said:


> and when I say "tune" I'm not being derogatory. Tunes dont have words, songs do. Tunes dont have multiple movements, they have bridges and choruses. I have to use language to classify the types of music I play, so that's all there is behind it.
> 
> And the truth is that I play a large number of "tunes" that are from old movies. So clearly, I believe that film music is good music, but its not the same thing as playing classical music. It's just not. Not from the player's perspective, anyway


Okay. I think the big problem is that Film Music itself is NOT a genre. Remember that folks ! People forget that. 

So, what people think of as Film music might vary alot. 

So Nate Miller, when you think about Film Music, what do you think of that makes Film Music different than say, the established classical forms ? So much so that Orchestras won't play pieces from movie scores ? Oh wait a minute....


----------



## DaveM

composingmusic said:


> ..*Not sure where you're getting this "new musical languages from the ground up" statement – I have not stated that in this thread.* In any case, that's an incorrect assessment; composers today do tend to have personal musical languages, but they are greatly influenced by the people around them and learn from the past.


I got it from this thread, post #2409, from a poster called composingmusic: 



composingmusic said:


> ..Another important thing to take into account is that these composers were working with a set of forms and conventions that meant *they didn’t have to construct their musical language from the ground up when writing a new piece. This is not the case today: composers today have much more freedom in their musical language, which means they also have to work much harder to maintain coherence. This slows the process down considerably.*


----------



## composingmusic

DaveM said:


> I got it from this thread, post #2409, from a poster called composingmusic:


Fine, fair enough. What I should have said is the following:
Composers today do have much more freedom in their musical language. They aren't constructing everything ground up between each piece, but people do tend to create their own idiosyncratic language to a degree. This is something that's also been true of composers in the past, but the current possibilities for artistic freedom have heightened this. 

One consequence of this is that composers don't usually stick to common practice forms, and this does tie into the issue of having to work harder to create a coherent piece of music. Pieces often end up with very interesting, idiosyncratic forms, and there are a huge number of ways people go about constructing their pieces. It's really quite fascinating.


----------



## jojoju2000

composingmusic said:


> Fine, fair enough. What I should have said is the following:
> Composers today do have much more freedom in their musical language. They aren't constructing everything ground up between each piece, but people do tend to create their own idiosyncratic language to a degree. This is something that's also been true of composers in the past, but the current possibilities for artistic freedom have heightened this.
> 
> One consequence of this is that composers don't usually stick to common practice forms, and this does tie into the issue of having to work harder to create a coherent piece of music. Pieces often end up with very interesting, idiosyncratic forms, and there are a huge number of ways people go about constructing their pieces. It's really quite fascinating.


Ironically though, many of the younger composers have returned to more " traditional " forms in their artistic freedom. For example, Marcus Paus who I think is a talent to be reckoned with. Guess who he cites as a influence ?


----------



## HansZimmer

Nate Miller said:


> ok....enough already! after 120 pages, THIS is why film music is not "classical" music:
> 
> The "Classical" period ended about 200 years ago. Neither Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven or anyone from that era wrote for film, so therefore there is no classical film music. It follows that any music in a film must not be classical music.
> 
> this is Musicology 101 really. Well, maybe Musicology 204, but San Antonio is right. Why does calling it "classical" music matter at all?


If you want to use the precise categories, most symphonic film music can be categorized as "neoromantic" and a minority of it as "neoclassical" or "neobaroque".

So, the question for you would be: "Why do many people say that neoromantic music composed for film scores is not neoromantic music?".


P.S. the word classical has two meanings: one refers to the music of the classical period, while the other one refers to the big container that group all the styles together. The problem of the big container is that it's difficult to determine what it is. What does avant-garde have to do with Vivaldi?

Maybe if I replace "neoromantic" with "classical" in the title the subject of the discussion becomes easier, because it's easier to define what is neoromantic music in respect to the big container of classical music.


----------



## HansZimmer

composingmusic said:


> It is you who are coming up with these conclusions, not me. Once again, you are putting words in my mouth.


No. I was simply replying to the whole discussion, not to your single post. The observations of your post have been used to argument two positions:

1) Neoromantic/neoclassical/neobaroque film music is not classical music.

2) Neoromantic/neoclassical/neobaroque film music is bad music.


----------



## HansZimmer

mmsbls said:


> You have asked for or mentioned "the official definition of classical music" several times. I assume you know that there is no official definition.


This is exactly the point: if a definition is vague, it means that it's thought to be inclusionary, not exclusionary.

So, what's wrong in what Classic FM is doing (promoting symphonic film scores)? What's the point of this article? Can film music ever be classical?

If you read the comments under article, the typical reaction is: "What's your problem, man?".

NO ONE: .....

NO ONE: ....

NO ONE: .....

The writer of the article: "Classic FM is evil!!! I've established that classical music must be abstract and since film music is not abstract is not classical music!!! I've also established that the score of The Gladiator sucks, Hans Zimmer sucks and Ennio Morricone is the good film music composer!!!".

The question is simple: if the definition is vague, and therefore not exclusionary, then why do you have to bust our balls with this nonsense?


That said, there is also not a precise definition of "rock music". The implicit definition is that you have to look at what are the pieces and the artists which are considered the standard of the genre and then try to establish which are the similar pieces/artists. It's a vague process, not a question which requires scientific research. So, if I hear the vague elements of classical music in a film score, I am not wrong if I say that it's classical music. Using your simple instinct it's the correct way to proceed.

Now, if someone would say that the music of John Williams is not a STANDARD of classical music but a SATELLITE of classical music I wouldn't have nothing to say.
What's the difference between a STANDARD and a SATELLITE? In the first category there are the pieces and the artists which CREATE the category (Do you want to know what is classical music? Then listen to the music of Mozart, Beethoven, Tchiakovsky, Shostakovich, and so on...), while in the second category there are the pieces which BELONG to the category because they have similarities with the STANDARDS.

I don't think that the composers of cinematic classical will become STANDARDS of classical music. Not because they compose film music, but because they compose neoromantic music. Whether it's concert music or film music, neoromantic music will be always a satellite of the original romantic music.
A film music composer might become a new standard if he launched a new symphonic style that it's considered interesting enough to become a reference point for many composers of classical music.

That said, I think that we should recognize that some composers of film music might become icons of the neoromantic wave, because there are many people who consider their music as extremely exciting and memorable. We should also recognize that while classical music succesfully replaced baroque music and romantic music succesfully replaced classical music, modern music is having difficulties in replacing romantic music... and this why the neoromantic wave is still so active and appreciated in the modern days. Many of us are still waiting for better alternatives.




> You believe film music can be classical music, film music can be excellent music, and film composers can be excellent composers. I believe most people here feel this topic is very important to you. You started the thread, have posted extensively in it, and argued about it in other threads as well. Do you know why it's so important to you?


It's not important. Not for me. Your are turning the omelette. As I wrote here above, the question is like this...

NO ONE: .....

NO ONE: ....

NO ONE: .....

The writer of the article: "Classic FM is evil!!! I've established that classical music must be abstract and since film music is not abstract is not classical music!!! I've also established that the score of The Gladiator sucks, Hans Zimmer sucks and Ennio Morricone is the good film music composer!!!".

The length of the discussion shows that it's a controversial subject. If there were not many people who feel the need to exclude neoromantic film music from classical music, the discussion would have died after 2 pages, because the users would have simply replied "No one is worried by that question, only the writer of that article!". It's obvious that I reply to what people write: it's my discussion, and I'm replying for fun, not because it's an important question.

The question which is more important is the future of classical music: try to keep it alive. In that regards, I think that the persons of the classical music community who offend John Williams and his followers might create damages to classical music. Everyone who loves classical music and recognizes the importance of the neoromantic wave and it's impact in the modern popular culture, would try to use it to attract people inside the STANDARDS of classical music. So, in the youtube comments I've suggested pieces of Mozart to persons who enjoy determined videogame soundtracks. If I was a hater, I would have offended them and the music they like and this would lead them to hate the world of classical music ("What the **** is this classical music? A world of frustrated snobs?).


----------



## composingmusic

HansZimmer said:


> No. I was simply replying to the whole discussion, not to your single post. The observations of your post have been used to argument two positions:
> 
> 1) Neoromantic/neoclassical/neobaroque film music is not classical music.
> 
> 2) Neoromantic/neoclassical/neobaroque film music is bad music.


The way you said it in the previous post did make it sound like you were saying that Mike and I were making these claims. Other people will say what they will, and people are welcome to state their subjective opinions. 

What I did say is that there are differences between the working processes of composers of contemporary art music and film composers. This largely has to do with the particular demands of the industry and the time constraints involved in the film industry. 

My point in making these remarks was to offer a perspective from people who have worked in film composition, rather than making subjective judgments on one of these types of music being better than the other. 

As for differences between classical and film music, my subjective opinion is that there is a difference in function. This is not a stylistic judgment; again, both of these types of music cover vast stylistic areas. Now, this is my own subjective opinion and I never said this is objectively correct or that nobody can disagree with this.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

HansZimmer said:


> That said, there is also not a precise definition of "rock music". The implicit definition is that you have to look at what are the pieces and the artists which are considered the standard of the genre and then try to establish which are the similar pieces/artists.


There's people there also insisting that various "mainstream" "imitation" of the real thing is fake, pseudo-rock etc. - sometimes even just due to the attitudes of or circumstances around the particular artists.





> We should also recognize that while classical music succesfully replaced baroque music and romantic music succesfully replaced classical music, modern music is having difficulties in replacing romantic music... and this why the neoromantic wave is still so active and appreciated in the modern days. Many of us are still waiting for better alternatives.


Not sure it "replaced" it? More like added sth new.
As has NM, in different ways.



> The question which is more important is the future of classical music: try to keep it alive. In that regards, I think that the persons of the classical music community who offend John Williams and his followers might create damages to classical music. Everyone who loves classical music and recognizes the importance of the neoromantic wave and it's impact in the modern popular culture, would try to use it to attract people inside the STANDARDS of classical music.


What's the need for this fandom expansion objective btw, is it about budget/funding?

Unless there's some need for budget increase etc. I'm not sure there's a point in drawing in new fans, especially as some kind of systematic effort.


----------



## Forster

To those who wish to make (or have made) a judgement about the state of film music today, it might be helpful to consider just how many films are released each year whose scores are only ever heard by a minority audience.

According to Statista, 792 films were released in the US and Canada in 2019 (subsequent figures severely affected by the pandemic.)

U.S. & Canada: movie releases per year 2021 | Statista

IMDB has a different tally - 12,522 titles (Global?)

Feature Film, Released between 2019-01-01 and 2019-12-31 (Sorted by Popularity Ascending) - IMDb

Now, when someone has made decent inroads into these figures - that is, seen a substantial proportion of these films - they may feel justified in passing judgement on the quality, style, production, direction of film soundtracks today.

Until then...


----------



## hammeredklavier

Forster said:


> To those who wish to make (or have made) a judgement about the state of film music today, it might be helpful to consider just how many films are released each year whose scores are only ever heard by a minority audience.


The same way there has been a countless number of obscure or now-obscure composers in classical music.


----------



## Forster

hammeredklavier said:


> The same way there has been a countless number of obscure or now-obscure composers in classical music.


Eh?


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

Ok I'll brb in 10,000 years


----------



## mmsbls

HansZimmer said:


> This is exactly the point: if a definition is vague, it means that it's thought to be inclusionary, not exclusionary.


Any definition is simply meant to give people a sense of what a word or term means. Just because it's not well-defined does not mean that everyone must include whatever someone else wishes to include.



> So, what's wrong in what Classic FM is doing (promoting symphonic film scores)? What's the point of this article? Can film music ever be classical?


To me, nothing. The author of the article makes it very clear what she believes is problematic. 



> The writer of the article: "Classic FM is evil!!! I've established that classical music must be abstract and since film music is not abstract is not classical music!!! I've also established that the score of The Gladiator sucks, Hans Zimmer sucks and Ennio Morricone is the good film music composer!!!".


Perhaps the Guardian article you read is different from the one I read. The author said none of that or even anything like that. Perhaps you severely exaggerate her statements because this topic is not important to you.



> The question is simple: if the definition is vague, and therefore not exclusionary, then why do you have to bust our balls with this nonsense?


Why do you choose to call arguments that are very specific and supported by many composers nonsense? Do you think you are busting _our_ balls because you post an enormous number of posts including in other threads in support of your opinion? Or do you do that because this topic is not important to you? 



> ...So, if I hear the vague elements of classical music in a film score, I am not wrong if I say that it's classical music. Using your simple instinct it's the correct way to proceed.


I'm wondering if MikeH, @composingmusic, or myself have ever said you are wrong in considering film music classical music. I do believe you have used some derogatory terms to refer to our beliefs (e.g. nonsense). Do you use the derogatory terms because this topic is not important to you? Also, in my experience, simple instinct is often wrong.



> It's not important. Not for me. Your are turning the omelette.


Oh, sorry, I forgot. It's not important to you. I've never heard the expression turning the omelet. I see it means "change a situation to the opposite." So it's important to me and the others arguing a different view. 



> The writer of the article: "Classic FM is evil!!! I've established that classical music must be abstract and since film music is not abstract is not classical music!!! I've also established that the score of The Gladiator sucks, Hans Zimmer sucks and Ennio Morricone is the good film music composer!!!".


Do you double down on completely misquoting the Guardian author because the topic is not important to you?



> It's obvious that I reply to what people write: it's my discussion, and I'm replying for fun, not because it's an important question.


No, of course it's not important. 



> The question which is more important is the future of classical music: try to keep it alive.


Others on TC have explained why classical music is still very much alive. There are complex reasons why its popularity has waned (e.g. the rise of electronic media and popular music). If performing film music in concerts can attract more people to listen to classical works or be more interested in classical work, that would be great. My daughter has played a modest amount of film music in concerts, and she considers some of it interesting and difficult. And people do want to hear it. 

It's obvious that this topic is very important to you, and that's OK. You are passionate about it. Why deny that? You love film music as many do. Perhaps you did explain why it's important to you when you said:



> ...modern music is having difficulties in replacing romantic music... and this why the neoromantic wave is still so active and appreciated in the modern days. Many of us are still waiting for better alternatives.


You find film music exciting and enjoyable, but you dislike much of modern music. I certainly disliked almost all modern music when I first came to TC. So you'd like to hear more film music and music perhaps inspired or influenced by film music. I don't see anything wrong with that. Others of us are very happy with the direction of classical music. The recent evolution of music is dominated by diversity.


----------



## Aries

mmsbls said:


> To me, nothing. The author of the article makes it very clear what she believes is problematic.
> 
> Perhaps the Guardian article you read is different from the one I read. The author said none of that or even anything like that. Perhaps you severely exaggerate her statements because this topic is not important to you.


You even quoted HansZimmer where he linked the article by Tristan Jakob Hoff. So either you read something else or you want to disrespect him for some reason by calling him woman? Weird.


----------



## composingmusic

mmsbls said:


> Perhaps the Guardian article you read is different from the one I read. The author said none of that or even anything like that. Perhaps you severely exaggerate her statements because this topic is not important to you.


Yes, the tone of the article doesn't read as "Classic FM is evil!!! I've established that classical music must be abstract and since film music is not abstract is not classical music!!! I've also established that the score of The Gladiator sucks, Hans Zimmer sucks and Ennio Morricone is the good film music composer!!!" at all to me. 

What it does say is that Classic FM does a lot of good for classical music, although it has its issues. Then the article makes a point of differentiating classical music from film music from a standpoint of function: _"The reason I am irked by this has nothing to do with the quality of the music... Whether a piece is classical or not has nothing to do with the forces involved, but with the way in which it is intended to be listened to. Classical music is designed to be considered, contemplated and - being the most abstract of all the art forms - to provoke a truly subjective response in each of its listeners. Film music, on the other hand, is meant to accompany moving pictures, to provide an objective commentary to the on-screen action. Robbed of that on-screen imagery, it loses much of its meaning."_

This is much the same as what I've been saying regarding function. I don't think film music is inherently good or bad. There's a range, and we all have our subjective preferences. There's also a huge range of stylistic idioms within both classical music and film music (as the article points out). The main difference between film music and classical music is the purpose of the music: film music is written with the intent of accompanying films, whereas classical music is written to be listened to on its own. 



mmsbls said:


> Why do you choose to call arguments that are very specific and supported by many composers nonsense?


This I don't understand either. My sole intent was to provide my personal experience and discuss what my colleagues have told me. Instead, people keep putting words in my mouth and saying things like:


> The observations of your post have been used to argument two positions:
> 1) Neoromantic/neoclassical/neobaroque film music is not classical music.
> 2) Neoromantic/neoclassical/neobaroque film music is bad music.


Again, putting words in my mouth. I never said these things. Honestly I find this quite strange.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

Nate Miller said:


> yea, what would I know? For me calling something a "tune" isn't derogatory. Its means I'll play it, which must mean I like it. Tunes like "Body and Soul" (awesome boxing movie from 1947 btw) have meant alot to me in my playing career. Quite a bit of the jazz standard repertoire comes from movies and show tunes.
> 
> movies are great vehicles for promoting tunes, and in the old days, that was part of their purpose, too.
> 
> that's why I dont consider movie soundtracks classical music


Is your definition of "tune" the same as Bernstein's?





composingmusic said:


> _Classical music is designed to be considered, contemplated and - being the most abstract of all the art forms - to provoke a truly subjective response in each of its listeners. Film music, on the other hand, is meant to accompany moving pictures, to provide an objective commentary to the on-screen action. Robbed of that on-screen imagery, it loses much of its meaning."_
> 
> This is much the same as what I've been saying regarding function. I don't think film music is inherently good or bad. There's a range, and we all have our subjective preferences. There's also a huge range of stylistic idioms within both classical music and film music (as the article points out). The main difference between film music and classical music is the purpose of the music: film music is written with the intent of accompanying films, whereas classical music is written to be listened to on its own.


I think "instrumental (or at least word-less) non-programmatic / absolute CHM" would be a better term to use here - and even then, while "meant to be listened to on its own" would apply there, I'm not sure "_considered, contemplated and - being the most abstract of all the art forms - to provoke a truly subjective response in each of its listeners_" is applicable to the more straightforward kinds of works (in both form and, arguably as always, expressive content) from that category.

And conversely, songs / music theater / film don't always go for straightforward "objectivity" and can contain emotional ambiguity - incl. in the soundtrack.

So I'm not sure how much sense that dichotomy from the article quote makes.


----------



## Nate Miller

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> Is your definition of "tune" the same as Bernstein's?


I'm not sure. I didn't know Mr. Bernstein. The thing of "tunes dont have words and songs do" is an Irish thing I learned from my grandma when I was a kid. That's just how I think of them

But I guess I misspoke since most of the jazz standards from old movies have words, which makes them songs

I guess I was being verbally lazy since when I play them, I'm just playing them without the words, so I think of them as tunes even though I know there's words. 

I hope that makes sense. If not, that's what its like being a screwy musician


----------



## composingmusic

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> I think "instrumental (or at least word-less) non-programmatic / absolute CHM" would be a better term to use here - and even then, while "meant to be listened to on its own" would apply there, I'm not sure "_considered, contemplated and - being the most abstract of all the art forms - to provoke a truly subjective response in each of its listeners_" is applicable to the more straightforward kinds of works (in both form and, arguably as always, expressive content) from that category.
> 
> And conversely, songs / music theater / film don't always go for straightforward "objectivity" and can contain emotional ambiguity - incl. in the soundtrack.
> 
> So I'm not sure how much sense that dichotomy from the article quote makes.


I think this is more of a remark on general trends rather than saying that all contemporary classical art music is inherently more abstract than film music, or that film music cannot be emotionally ambiguous. There is more of a tendency for abstraction in contemporary classical music than there is in film music (again, both of these encompass a broad range of stylistic idioms), but that does not mean this is always the case. 

However, in my view the main point from the article was the following: _Film music, on the other hand, is meant to accompany moving pictures... Robbed of that on-screen imagery, it loses much of its meaning." _This is not to say that the music cannot be listened to without the movie, but much of the meaning in the music is inherently going to be linked to the film. With music that is not intrinsically linked to a film, this isn't going to be the case. 

Going back to your argument about "instrumental (or at least word-less) non-programmatic / absolute CHM" – another reason I don't want to make this distinction is because classical music can absolutely be programmatic, and it doesn't necessarily have to be instrumental (see electroacoustic music or fixed media, for instance).  It doesn't have to be wordless either; see opera and song cycles. Again, both contemporary classical and film music cover a broad range of stylistic expression.


----------



## mmsbls

Aries said:


> You even quoted HansZimmer where he linked the article by Tristan Jakob Hoff. So either you read something else or you want to disrespect him for some reason by calling him woman? Weird.


No, I read the same article. My problem was simply that I looked at the end and saw the name and picture of Arwa Madawi, and I assumed that was the author. I realize now that the author was Tristan Jakob Hoff. Of course it had nothing to do with HansZimmer. Thanks for correcting me.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

_"A casual listener to the station might be forgiven, for instance, for thinking that all classical music is orchestral - after all, 75 pieces in their Top 80 feature orchestra forces. The inclusion of chunks of film soundtrack only furthers the perception that a piece is "classical" as long as it involves a symphony orchestra - which is almost as sensible as saying any piece involving a guitar is a rock song."_


Not "guitar", but if it's a distorted/overdriven guitar (a sound created by rock, as far as I'm aware - unless there's been parallel experiments with that in the jazz / classical scenes?), let alone played with any of the expressions/mannerisms associated with rock, one would probably have to put some effort into arguing that it isn't part rock at least to that extent.

Hell it seems like "rock" has pretty much expanded from that initial blues off-shoot to "anything played with that guitars-and-drums sound" over the decades - all subject to debate of course. 



_"The question is, what exactly is Classic FM trying to teach its listeners? That classical music is defined by its surface characteristics? That it lacks depth?"_

What is "depth". (Is depth unchanging law??)


_"That it is safely predictable and readily understandable?"_

Wait if it stops making sense after being taken out of its F context, how can is still be predictable or understandable?



_"If that is their mission, then they're clearly succeeding, but I can't help but feel sorry for their listeners. The classical canon is a bottomless treasure chest, available to anyone who cares to pry it open - just don't let the *fool's gold* flogged by Classic FM put you off exploring the true riches beyond."

"*The reason I am irked by this has nothing to do with the quality of the music*, which ranges from the very good - I'm almost glad to see Ennio Morricone's name on the list - to the utterly dire (anything by the lamentable Zimmer)."_

Looks like a bit of cognitive dissonance there?

Also 





Then the rest is paywalled, so don't know if he goes on to elaborate more?




Scrolling down to the 1st commenter:

"Badelt? Klaus chuffing Badelt? The tedious hack roped in to polish off the twiddly bits when Hans bloody Zimmer is too busy to finish them on his own? Look, I think film composers are responsible for much of the best orchestral work in the last 80-odd years. But I'm not going to list that eejit on there any time soon. Not that Pirates of the Carribbean is an orchestral piece, anyway - it's got the standard Media Ventures synth-filled junk. Yes - I am still annoyed that Bruckheimer binned Alan Silvestri's wonderful original score, built to the demandss of a classic swashbuckling sound, because it was 'too old-fashioned'. Arrgh."

Hey didn't Badelt write the Equilibrium one all on his own? Along with a bunch of other stuff I haven't seen yet?

Also is that original Silvestri score available?


The other commenters (from 2008) mostly cover familiar territory though (save for some of the examples that they cite).


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

composingmusic said:


> I think this is more of a remark on general trends rather than saying that all contemporary classical art music is inherently more abstract than film music, or that film music cannot be emotionally ambiguous. There is more of a tendency for abstraction in contemporary classical music than there is in film music (again, both of these encompass a broad range of stylistic idioms), but that does not mean this is always the case.
> 
> However, in my view the main point from the article was the following: _Film music, on the other hand, is meant to accompany moving pictures... Robbed of that on-screen imagery, it loses much of its meaning." _This is not to say that the music cannot be listened to without the movie, but much of the meaning in the music is inherently going to be linked to the film. With music that is not intrinsically linked to a film, this isn't going to be the case.


The pre-paywall part of it that I can read didn't seem this nuanced to me, but maybe he elaborates more afterwards. Can anyone here read the full article?

If he's making statements about tendencies/statistics, I don't have sufficient overview to judge about that, so no argument in that case.




> Going back to your argument about "instrumental (or at least word-less) non-programmatic / absolute CHM" – another reason I don't want to make this distinction is because classical music can absolutely be programmatic, and it doesn't necessarily have to be instrumental (*see electroacoustic music or fixed media*, for instance). It doesn't have to be wordless either; see opera and song cycles. Again, both contemporary classical and film music cover a broad range of stylistic expression.


Is that stuff like "Artikulation"? Not delved much into that part of NM so far (or poor recollections of the stuff I saw years ago, as it were. Need to fix that lol).


And yeah, sometimes people just automatically think about the instrumental absolute stuff when talking about "classical" for some reason - maybe cause symphs and concertos are higher up on the surface, who knows.

Or maybe because the vast majority of "CM style FM" is instrumental (or sometimes choral) so instrumental CM is the first to be thought of, that's also possible.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

Nate Miller said:


> I'm not sure. I didn't know Mr. Bernstein. The thing of "tunes dont have words and songs do" is an Irish thing I learned from my grandma when I was a kid. That's just how I think of them
> 
> But I guess I misspoke since most of the jazz standards from old movies have words, which makes them songs
> 
> I guess I was being verbally lazy since when I play them, I'm just playing them without the words, so I think of them as tunes even though I know there's words.
> 
> I hope that makes sense. If not, that's what its like being a screwy musician


Oh, that was just referring to a video posted here a few pages back:


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

Aries said:


> But what about things you have to identify yourself with like being a human?
> 
> Is music like this reason to be ashamed for being a human:


I think that piece evokes propeller WW planes more than helicopters? Not sure.


----------



## HansZimmer

DaveM said:


> Let the good times continue:
> Fwiw, IMO you’re one of the very few here that has the ‘cred’ of a real composer. We’ve had some discussions here and in one or two other threads where because of certain subject-matter we have essentially been counseled to give special attention to and respect for the opinions of composers taking part in the discussion. When that has happened, the question in my mind has been, what evidence is there that someone calling themselves a composer has the credibility that deserves special attention to their opinion.
> 
> Occasionally, we have new members declare themselves to be composers. Well, I suppose that’s okay on one level, but that, in and of itself, does not confer gravitas. IMO, if they want their opinion to have special respect, a little more is required. For me, that would mean a history of making a living from composing or at the very least, a history of having a significant number of works commissioned or published even if there is another source of income such as teaching. Just declaring oneself to be a composer because a few works were self-published on YouTube is not enough.


If the composers who are able to make a substantial living with composition are the ones with credible opinions, then we should ask John Williams, Hans Zimmer, Randy Newman, Thomas Newman and so on... to give their opinions about what the members of Talkclassical have written in this discussion instead of asking the members of Talkclassical to give their opinion about John Williams, Hans Zimmer, Randy Newman and so on...


----------



## HansZimmer

Nate Miller said:


> well, if we're talking "music" with a small "m" too, then I guess...
> 
> But as a musician, I can't see spending the hundreds of hours it takes to prepare a piece for performance spent learning the score from a movie, but as a jazz player, I do play lots of tunes from old movies
> 
> I see "film music" as tunes, not pieces of serious incidental music. So sorry, for me as a musician, film music isn't the same thing as classical music with or without the big "C"


Could you please explain why to play this movement...







... would be harder than playing this piece inside the suite of the film "Sense and Sensibility"?







And how much hard is this piece from Star Wars if compared to the two pieces above?







Finally, why should be relevant how much hard is to play a piece when judging the quality from the pure perspective of the listening experience? I prefer the the first two pieces, although my instinct suggests the last piece is the hardest one.

IMO a composer is a good composer because he is able to select the RIGHT notes, not because make cry the performers. Sometimes, the RIGHT notes are hard to play and so you need relly crafted performers.


----------



## composingmusic

HansZimmer said:


> If the composers who are able to make a substantial living with composition are the ones with credible opinions, then we should ask John Williams, Hans Zimmer, Randy Newman, Thomas Newman and so on... to give their opinions about what the members of Talkclassical have written in this discussion instead of asking the members of Talkclassical to give their opinion about John Williams, Hans Zimmer, Randy Newman and so on...


There’s a number of things I find strange about this statement. You speak of “composers who can make a substantial living from music,” and I see you’ve only listed film composers. There are a large number of composers who can make a credible living from composing who aren’t film composers. 

This post also seems to assume there aren’t any people here who can make a living from composing, but this is false. Myself and @mikeh375 are both professional composers and we’ve both stated this here multiple times. 

In any case, I don’t think it’s fair to say that the only people who have credible views. Gatekeeping opinions is something I’m generally quite wary of.


----------



## Nate Miller

HansZimmer said:


> Finally, why should be relevant how much hard is to play a piece when judging the quality from the pure perspective of the listening experience? I prefer the the first two pieces, although my instinct suggests the last piece is the hardest one.


sure, I didn't say "harder" you said that. I said I would not be willing to put the time into a film score like I would a work of actual music. I wont live long enough to play all the music in the world, so I must be selective about what I put my time into. Film music doesn't make the cut because there is no reason to put any work into it. Where would I perform it? Why would I pick film music over a bit of real music?

sorry to have to say it like that, but I think film music is not classical music and I'd never spend my time working on it. That's just how it is when it comes to what I'm going to work on

this thread asks the question "why do people think classical music composed for film scores is not classical music" 

so here is why I think that is...

1. film is a plastic art and music is a temporal art
2. as a musician, I would never spend the time to put the work into a film score as opposed to the hundreds of hours I'm happy to spend with J.S. Bach's e minor lute suite. So film music must not be the same as real classical music.
3. film music doesn't stand on its own, so it must not be the same as classical music

there's three good reasons. You can shoot them all down all day, but I think film music is not classical music. As a musician, I dont have the same regard for it, I'm sorry, but I just dont.

I'm not trying to change your mind, I'm just letting you know why I dont think film music is classical music


----------



## HansZimmer

Nate Miller said:


> sure, I didn't say "harder" you said that. I said I would not be willing to put the time into a film score like I would a work of actual music. I wont live long enough to play all the music in the world, so I must be selective about what I put my time into. Film music doesn't make the cut because there is no reason to put any work into it. Where would I perform it? Why would I pick film music over a bit of real music?
> 
> sorry to have to say it like that, but I think film music is not classical music and I'd never spend my time working on it. That's just how it is when it comes to what I'm going to work on
> 
> this thread asks the question "why do people think classical music composed for film scores is not classical music"
> 
> so here is why I think that is...
> 
> 1. film is a plastic art and music is a temporal art
> 2. as a musician, I would never spend the time to put the work into a film score as opposed to the hundreds of hours I'm happy to spend with J.S. Bach's e minor lute suite. So film music must not be the same as real classical music.
> 3. film music doesn't stand on its own, so it must not be the same as classical music
> 
> there's three good reasons. You can shoot them all down all day, but I think film music is not classical music. As a musician, I dont have the same regard for it, I'm sorry, but I just dont.
> 
> I'm not trying to change your mind, I'm just letting you know why I dont think film music is classical music


I don't want to change your personal opinion, but I think that it's a biased opinion, because:

1) The same thing that you say about film music can be said about incidental music ("it's projected to support a narrative")

2) The supposed "superior quality" of concert music in general in respect to incidental music in general is a binary view, and binary views are usually a nonsense. You can say that a determined concert work is better than determined work of incidental music, but the idea that the concert work is automatically better just because it's a concert work doesn't make any sense: it's a religious vision.

3) Given the rapidity of your reply, it's clear that you haven't listened to none of the three pieces I posted. I wonder if you have ever listened to film music closely.


----------



## Nate Miller

well, I was working on a post when I saw your post, so I added it to the post I was making. but I'm familiar with the Mozart and Star Wars

Yes, I am biased and no, I haven't listened to alot of film scores. That kinda goes into the same bias as why I dont spend time working on them. I dont have time to listen to all the music in the world either. 

But this bias of mine I think speaks to the heart of the matter. There IS a bias out there, at least among musicians. And if you want to know why there are people who dont think film music is classical music, this may be behind it.

So I post this so you can get to "know your enemy" 😄


----------



## Nate Miller

Also, I dont think quality has anything to do with it. that is an interesting point you bring up It IS a sheer bias. Given a choice between working on the most wonderful film score ever written or a Beethoven sonata, I'm going to work on the Ludwig Von every time.

I dont think it has anything to do with quality, to be honest. Its sheer bloody mindedness on my part

and that, I'm afraid is a bias that film score composers face


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

It's spelled Von Beethofen


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

Or maybe even Beetenhof


----------



## HansZimmer

bargolus said:


> I asked ChatGPT what it thought about film music and classical music and it was pretty adamant
> 
> View attachment 180891
> 
> 
> I then asked it to provide an example and it compared Star Wars to Beethoven 5th, saying that Star Wars had more "epic grandeur"
> 
> View attachment 180892



I've tried this ChatGPT for curiosity and I've just tried to ask the BOT same exact question to see if the answers differ from time to time. In my cases, the BOT told me that there are differences and similarities between film music and classical music.

_HansZimmer: "Why is film music essentialy the same as classical music?"_

-----------------------

_ChatGPT: "Film music, like classical music, is a form of art music that is created for a specific purpose or context. Both film music and classical music are composed for orchestras or other ensembles, and both use a wide range of musical techniques and elements to create a desired effect or atmosphere.

One key difference between film music and classical music is that film music is specifically composed for a visual medium, whereas classical music is typically performed without a specific visual accompaniment. Film music is often used to underscore or enhance the emotional content of a scene, or to help create a sense of atmosphere or mood.

Despite these differences, film music and classical music share many similarities in terms of their musical structure, composition, and performance. Both forms of music are characterized by the use of melody, harmony, and rhythm, and both make use of a wide range of musical instruments and techniques. Ultimately, the similarities between film music and classical music reflect the fact that they are both forms of art music that have evolved over time, and that share many common elements and techniques."_

-----------------------------------

HansZimmer: "In my opinion film music can be compared to incidental classical music for theatre. I don't think that classical music contains only concert works. "

------------------------------------

ChatGPT: "You are correct that classical music is not limited to concert works. In fact, classical music encompasses a wide range of musical styles and forms, including operas, symphonies, sonatas, and choral music, as well as incidental music for plays and other theatrical productions.

Incidental music is a type of music that is composed specifically for use in a play or other dramatic production. It is typically used to underscore or enhance the action or atmosphere of a scene, and is often played by an orchestra or other ensemble. Like film music, incidental music is designed to support the visual elements of the production and create a desired effect or mood.

In this sense, both film music and incidental classical music share some similarities in their function and purpose. Both are created for specific contexts and are used to support and enhance the emotional content or atmosphere of a scene. However, film music is typically composed for a visual medium, whereas incidental classical music is typically used in a live theatrical production."



 I'm impressed by how much clever is this bot. If he wrote posts in this discussion, no one would understand that it's not a human!


----------



## composingmusic

As for the question about asking composers who can make a living, I can’t say I’m in regular contact with many high-profile film composers. I have some film composer friends, and they do agree that there are big differences in workflow, deadlines, general stylistic traits (again, this is a general statement and doesn’t apply to all concert music or film composers), and function of the music. 

I do have a number of contemporary classical composer friends, and some of them are relatively high profile people. I’m not going to name drop for a number of reasons but I’d say that generally these people share these opinions on film music (i.e. there are functional differences between contemporary classical music and film music). 

I can also say that they don’t all share the same opinions on whether either film music or classical music is somehow superior to another. Some of my friends would definitely argue that classical music is superior, while others would disagree.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

HansZimmer said:


> I've tried this ChatGPT for curiosity and I've just tried to ask the BOT same exact question to see if the answers differ from time to time. In my cases, the BOT told me that there are differences and similarities between film music and classical music.
> 
> _HansZimmer: "Why is film music essentialy the same as classical music?"_
> 
> -----------------------
> 
> _ChatGPT: "Film music, like classical music, is a form of art music that is created for a specific purpose or context. Both film music and classical music are composed for orchestras or other ensembles, and both use a wide range of musical techniques and elements to create a desired effect or atmosphere.
> 
> One key difference between film music and classical music is that film music is specifically composed for a visual medium, *whereas classical music is typically performed without a specific visual accompaniment*. Film music is often used to underscore or enhance the emotional content of a scene, or to help create a sense of atmosphere or mood.
> 
> Despite these differences, film music and classical music share many similarities in terms of their musical structure, composition, and performance. Both forms of music are characterized by the use of melody, harmony, and rhythm, and both make use of a wide range of musical instruments and techniques. Ultimately, the similarities between film music and classical music reflect the fact that they are both forms of art music that have evolved over time, and that share many common elements and techniques."_
> 
> -----------------------------------
> 
> HansZimmer: "In my opinion film music can be compared to incidental classical music for theatre. I don't think that classical music contains only concert works. "
> 
> ------------------------------------
> 
> ChatGPT: "*You are correct that classical music is not limited to concert works. In fact, classical music encompasses a wide range of musical styles and forms, including operas,* symphonies, sonatas, and choral music, *as well as incidental music for plays and other theatrical productions.*
> 
> Incidental music is a type of music that is composed specifically for use in a play or other dramatic production. It is typically used to underscore or enhance the action or atmosphere of a scene, and is often played by an orchestra or other ensemble. Like film music, incidental music is designed to support the visual elements of the production and create a desired effect or mood.
> 
> In this sense, both film music and incidental classical music share some similarities in their function and purpose. Both are created for specific contexts and are used to support and enhance the emotional content or atmosphere of a scene. However, film music is typically composed for a visual medium, whereas incidental classical music is typically used in a live theatrical production."


Bot only remembered that bit after being reminded of it lol - bet that sentient Google bot wouldn't have let that happen...


----------



## DaveM

composingmusic said:


> ..I do have a number of contemporary classical composer friends, and some of them are relatively high profile people. I’m not going to name drop for a number of reasons but I’d say that generally these people share these opinions on film music (i.e. there are functional differences between contemporary classical music and film music).


I’m always skeptical about anecdotal reports supporting a given position. Anyway, regardless of ‘functional differences’, some contemporary classical music is so obscure as to be less accessible to a substantial segment of listeners than some film music.



> I can also say that they don’t all share the same opinions on whether either film music or classical music is somehow superior to another. Some of my friends would definitely argue that classical music is superior, while others would disagree.


Any reference to ‘superiority’ opens a can of worms. Which classical music are your friends referring to? CP era? All? And what is their experience with film music? I find some film music that has melody and harmony ‘better’ than contemporary music that doesn’t.


----------



## Nate Miller

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> Or maybe even Beetenhof



we got us a real scholar here, boys 😄 

...no hard feelings, brother, just kidding around


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

DON'T CALL ME PAL, BUDDY


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

DaveM said:


> I find some film music that has melody and harmony ‘better’ than contemporary music that doesn’t.


It's strange how this false dichotomy of "atonal contemporary cm vs. tonal accessible fm" keeps finding its way into comments all the time, even on that Guardian essay - on both "sides", and all by posters who really know better (with the exception of Paul "film music stopped at Wagner / 1890" Franz, that troll lol).


----------



## HansZimmer

Nate Miller said:


> yea, what would I know? For me calling something a "tune" isn't derogatory. Its means I'll play it, which must mean I like it. Tunes like "Body and Soul" (awesome boxing movie from 1947 btw) have meant alot to me in my playing career. Quite a bit of the jazz standard repertoire comes from movies and show tunes.
> 
> movies are great vehicles for promoting tunes, and in the old days, that was part of their purpose, too.
> 
> that's why I dont consider movie soundtracks classical music


The point is that you are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts. You wrote that in film music there are only tunes, not pieces. You also wrote that film music can not stand on its own.

Can you explain why the first piece is a piece while the second piece is only a tune? Can you explain why the second piece can not OBJECTIVELY stand on its own in respect to the first piece? Can you explain why your greater interest for the first piece is not simply a personal thing but something of universal relevance, at the point that it should play a role when it comes to objective classification?


----------



## Simon Moon

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> *It's strange how this false dichotomy of "atonal contemporary cm vs. tonal accessible fm" keeps finding its way into comments all the time*, even on that Guardian essay - on both "sides", and all by posters who really know better (with the exception of Paul "film music stopped at Wagner / 1890" Franz, that troll lol).


I have been wanting to post this exact thing for weeks!

It is not just on this thread. It is an ongoing issue on TC.


----------



## HansZimmer

composingmusic said:


> There’s a number of things I find strange about this statement. You speak of “composers who can make a substantial living from music,” and I see you’ve only listed film composers. There are a large number of composers who can make a credible living from composing who aren’t film composers.
> 
> This post also seems to assume there aren’t any people here who can make a living from composing, but this is false. Myself and @mikeh375 are both professional composers and we’ve both stated this here multiple times.
> 
> In any case, I don’t think it’s fair to say that the only people who have credible views. Gatekeeping opinions is something I’m generally quite wary of.


John Williams is not simply a professional composer, but a professional composer of the Champions League. He has the world record of Oscar nominations. On the other hand, Alfred Newman has the world record of musical Oscars winnings. Unless John Williams and Alfred Newman write in this forum, it's obvious that there isn't any composer of the film industry who he's more credited than John Williams and Alfred Newman.

Not even Hans Zimmer can judge the work of John Williams. John Williams, on the other hand, can judge the work of Hans Zimmer.

Keep in mind that I'm only applying the logic of DaveM. If the opinions of credited composers are more relevant, then no one here can judge John Williams, but only be judged by him.


----------



## composingmusic

DaveM said:


> I’m always skeptical about anecdotal reports supporting a given position. Anyway, regardless of ‘functional differences’, some contemporary classical music is so obscure as to be less accessible to a substantial segment of listeners than some film music.
> 
> Any reference to ‘superiority’ opens a can of worms. Which classical music are your friends referring to? CP era? All? And what is their experience with film music? I find some film music that has melody and harmony ‘better’ than contemporary music that doesn’t.


The reason I brought this anecdotal evidence up in the first place was HansZimmer’s post, which my post is a reply to. See here: 



> If the composers who are able to make a substantial living with composition are the ones with credible opinions, then we should ask John Williams, Hans Zimmer, Randy Newman, Thomas Newman and so on... to give their opinions about what the members of Talkclassical have written in this discussion instead of asking the members of Talkclassical to give their opinion about John Williams, Hans Zimmer, Randy Newman and so on...


I thought I made it clear that there’s a variety of views among these colleagues of mine. Some of them do have experience in film, others don’t. What they do have in common is professional composition experience. Again, their personal subjective opinions concerning their preferences in film music vary, but generally they see a difference in function between contemporary classical music and film music.


----------



## composingmusic

HansZimmer said:


> John Williams is not simply a professional composer, but a professional composer of the Champions League. He has the world record of Oscar nominations. On the other hand, Alfred Newman has the world record of musical Oscars winnings. Unless John Williams and Alfred Newman write in this forum, it's obvious that there isn't any composer of the film industry who he's more credited than John Williams and Alfred Newman.
> 
> Not even Hans Zimmer can judge the work of John Williams. John Williams, on the other hand, can judge the work of Hans Zimmer.


I’ve said this before, but limiting who’s allowed to have opinions on other peoples’ work and limiting who’s allowed to pass judgment on what sets a dangerous precedent.


----------



## Nate Miller

HansZimmer said:


> The point is that you are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts. You wrote that in film music there are only tunes, not pieces. You also wrote that film music can not stand on its own.
> 
> Can you explain why the first piece is a piece while the second piece is only a tune? Can you explain why the second piece can not OBJECTIVELY stand on its own in respect to the first piece? Can you explain why your greater interest for the first piece is not simply a personal thing but something of universal relevance, at the point that it should play a role when it comes to objective classification?


sorry buddy, I'm not interested in a game of "gotcha"

I'm just a musician. 

I said what I said and I'll say it again if you like, but film music just doesn't do it for me.

sorry


----------



## DaveM

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> It's strange how this false dichotomy of "atonal contemporary cm vs. tonal accessible fm" keeps finding its way into comments all the time, even on that Guardian essay - on both "sides", and all by posters who really know better (with the exception of Paul "film music stopped at Wagner / 1890" Franz, that troll lol).


It’s not a false dichotomy if some ‘tonal accessible fm’ sounds more like centuries of CP era classical music than some contemporary classical music. There are reasons why classical-like film music should remain in the film music classification, but the sound of the music is not always a reliable measure of the distinction.


----------



## composingmusic

Simon Moon said:


> I have been wanting to post this exact thing for weeks!
> 
> It is not just on this thread. It is an ongoing issue on TC.


Yes, agreed. I have continuously said that there isn’t a clear divide between “accessible” music and what people here are referring to as “avant-garde” music (side note, the late Penderecki, when asked, said that the term “avant-garde” has become essentially meaningless as a stylistic descriptor because of the stylistic plurality of recent concert music). Yes, there is some music that is closer to common practice tonality, and some that is highly chromatic, but to make this a dichotomy is doing a disservice to the huge range of aesthetics that don’t neatly fit either of these categories. It’s more of a broad spectrum.


----------



## composingmusic

DaveM said:


> It’s not a false dichotomy if some ‘tonal accessible fm’ sounds more like centuries of CP era classical music than some contemporary classical music. There are reasons why classical-like film music should remain in the film music classification, but the sound of the music is not always a reliable measure of the distinction.


There’s an enormously broad spectrum of contemporary classical music out there. To try to pin it down into either tonal music or avant-grade music paints an inaccurate picture of what’s out there.


----------



## Forster

If it were to be conceded that film music does indeed belong to the category of CM, its best examples could be judged and ranked by the TC membership in exactly the same way as are the symphonies, masses and quartets of Beethoven, Bach and Shostakovich.

I doubt that many examples would reach the top tiers.


----------



## eljr

Forster said:


> I doubt that many examples would reach the top tiers.


Nothing reaches the top tiers that is not old and stale so I agree with you.


----------



## mikeh375

Nate Miller said:


> *I'm just a musician.*


Don't denigrate yourself Nate. You just might have more clout in this thread than lowly pro composers....oh unless you're a drummer or a viola player obviously.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

DaveM said:


> It’s not a false dichotomy if some ‘tonal accessible fm’ sounds more like centuries of CP era classical music than some contemporary classical music.





composingmusic said:


> Yes, agreed. I have continuously said that there isn’t a clear divide between “accessible” music and what people here are referring to as “avant-garde” music (side note, the late Penderecki, when asked, said that the term “avant-garde” has become essentially meaningless as a stylistic descriptor because of the stylistic plurality of recent concert music). Yes, there is some music that is closer to common practice tonality, and some that is highly chromatic, but to make this a dichotomy is doing a disservice to the huge range of aesthetics that don’t neatly fit either of these categories. It’s more of a broad spectrum.





composingmusic said:


> There’s an enormously broad spectrum of contemporary classical music out there. To try to pin it down into either tonal music or avant-grade music paints an inaccurate picture of what’s out there.




That, plus obviously FM (symphonic, electronic, and etc.) uses post-Common-Practice stylistics all the time - usually in the context of horror, surrealism, certain kinds of mysticism, or futuristic elements etc.

Some say things like "it's rarer", or "not the default", but I'm not even sure about that - in certain genres, it does seem ubiquitous and very much the default.


And absolutely everyone's heard tons of such examples, so I'm not telling anyone anything new here, and no one really has any excuse to make such statements either lol






DaveM said:


> There are reasons why classical-like film music should remain in the film music classification, but the sound of the music is not always a reliable measure of the distinction.


Well yes, and that obviously includes all the post-tonal stuff that tends to be associated with "avant-garde" / New Music / etc. - whenever you hear something with that kind of sound, it could be "contemporary CM" as well as from a movie scene; probably about 50-50.


----------



## HansZimmer

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> Bot only remembered that bit after being reminded of it lol - bet that sentient Google bot wouldn't have let that happen...


Yes, but after I wrote my observation the BOT corrected itself.

After a long chat with ChatGPT, I came to the conclusion that it's more clever than most humans and if we were all like ChatGPT this discussion would have been much shorter. The reason for which this discussion is so long is that too many persons confuse their PERSONAL OPINIONS for ABSOLUTE TRUTHS and therefore they think that their personal opinions are relevant when it comes to objective classification.
ChatGPT has not emotions, so it just explains the objective differences between A and B without adding anything that doesn't have to do with the question.

How many other times will I have to reply to users who say that film music can not stand on its own and that it's quality is inferior?

Some pages have been consumed to attack Hans Zimmer and his score for The Lion King. ChatGPT gave me a sensible reply to the supercontroversial question "Between the score of The Lion King composed by Hans Zimmer and the third symphony of Beethoven, which one is better and why?"

----------------------------------

_It is not appropriate or productive to evaluate the score of a film such as The Lion King and a symphony by Ludwig van Beethoven in terms of which is "better," as these are two very different types of music that serve different artistic and aesthetic purposes.

The Lion King is a popular animated film that was released in 1994, and the score was composed by Hans Zimmer. The score is an integral part of the film, and it is designed to support and enhance the emotional impact of the story and the characters.

Beethoven's Symphony No. 3 in E flat major, also known as the "Eroica," is a classical symphony that was composed in the early 19th century. It is a highly accomplished and influential work that is considered one of Beethoven's greatest symphonies.

Both the score of The Lion King and Beethoven's Symphony No. 3 are examples of skilled and effective musical compositions, but they serve different purposes and are intended to be experienced and appreciated in different contexts. It is not productive or meaningful to compare the two works in terms of which is "better," as this ignores the unique artistic and aesthetic qualities of each piece._

----------------------------------


I like especially the underlined part, because it says essentially "Why do you ask which one is better between two different works? They are different, so they both add choices in the galaxy of music without taking anything away from each other!".

I wish that more people would understand, like me and ChatGPT, that between two composers/pieces, it's not necessary that one of the two wins. Humans are obsessed by competitions. The reality is that both composers add something to the galaxy of music, and then everyone has his personal tastes and he can simply listen to his prefered pieces/artists without the need to win against other people.


----------



## HansZimmer

composingmusic said:


> I’ve said this before, but limiting who’s allowed to have opinions on other peoples’ work and limiting who’s allowed to pass judgment on what sets a dangerous precedent.


I agree, infact my opinion is that the opinions of the composers are not more relevant than the opinions of other persons. The only relevant thing in a discussion are the arguments that you provide. I'm not a musical expert, but I've brought sensible arguments in the discussion... and I'm still waiting for replies to some valid questions and observations.


----------



## HansZimmer

Nate Miller said:


> sorry buddy, I'm not interested in a game of "gotcha"
> 
> I'm just a musician.
> 
> I said what I said and I'll say it again if you like, but film music just doesn't do it for me.
> 
> sorry


This would be relevant in a discussion with the title "What do you think of film music? Do you like it?". Why don't you simply reply to the question without adding irrelevant details about your personal tastes?


----------



## HansZimmer

Forster said:


> If it were to be conceded that film music does indeed belong to the category of CM, its best examples could be judged and ranked by the TC membership in exactly the same way as are the symphonies, masses and quartets of Beethoven, Bach and Shostakovich.
> 
> I doubt that many examples would reach the top tiers.


An other Argumentum ad populum. Why are the charts so relevant for you? Why don't you ask to the persons in the new generations which one is better between Beethoven and 50cent? It's funny that many of you use arguments ad popolum when you know that for many people out there classical music is totally irrelevant.

Why should I care about charts? The people out there like Rihanna? So what?? The people here think that there isn't any single film score which is as good as the best concert works? So what??

In my personal charts, there are concert works, incidental suites for theatre and incidental suites for cinema at the top. No discrimination! So what?
I don't see why the supposed biased and senseless discrimination made by a supposed majority of people should be relevant for me.


----------



## composingmusic

HansZimmer said:


> This would be relevant in a discussion with the title "What do you think of film music? Do you like it?". Why don't you simply reply to the question without adding irrelevant details about your personal tastes?


Isn’t the point of this discussion for people to discuss their opinions on the matter? If someone says they prefer one thing over another, is it not possible to simply prefer something without having to provide some kind of elaborate argument as to why they prefer it?


----------



## composingmusic

HansZimmer said:


> Yes, but after I wrote my observation the BOT corrected itself.
> 
> After a long chat with ChatGPT, I came to the conclusion that it's more clever than most humans and if we were all like ChatGPT this discussion would have been much shorter. The reason for which this discussion is so long is that too many persons confuse their PERSONAL OPINIONS for ABSOLUTE TRUTHS and therefore they think that their personal opinions are relevant when it comes to objective classification.
> ChatGPT has not emotions, so it just explains the objective differences between A and B without adding anything that doesn't have to do with the question.
> 
> How many other times will I have to reply to users who say that film music can not stand on its own and that it's quality is inferior?
> 
> Some pages have been consumed to attack Hans Zimmer and his score for The Lion King. ChatGPT gave me a sensible reply to the supercontroversial question "Between the score of The Lion King composed by Hans Zimmer and the third symphony of Beethoven, which one is better and why?"
> 
> ----------------------------------
> 
> _It is not appropriate or productive to evaluate the score of a film such as The Lion King and a symphony by Ludwig van Beethoven in terms of which is "better," as these are two very different types of music that serve different artistic and aesthetic purposes.
> 
> The Lion King is a popular animated film that was released in 1994, and the score was composed by Hans Zimmer. The score is an integral part of the film, and it is designed to support and enhance the emotional impact of the story and the characters.
> 
> Beethoven's Symphony No. 3 in E flat major, also known as the "Eroica," is a classical symphony that was composed in the early 19th century. It is a highly accomplished and influential work that is considered one of Beethoven's greatest symphonies.
> 
> Both the score of The Lion King and Beethoven's Symphony No. 3 are examples of skilled and effective musical compositions, but they serve different purposes and are intended to be experienced and appreciated in different contexts. It is not productive or meaningful to compare the two works in terms of which is "better," as this ignores the unique artistic and aesthetic qualities of each piece._
> 
> ----------------------------------
> 
> 
> I like especially the underlined part, because it says essentially "Why do you ask which one is better between two different works? They are different, so they both add choices in the galaxy of music without taking anything away from each other!".
> 
> I wish that more people would understand, like me and ChatGPT, that between two composers/pieces, it's not necessary that one of the two wins. Humans are obsessed by competitions. The reality is that both composers add something to the galaxy of music, and then everyone has his personal tastes and he can simply listen to his prefered pieces/artists without the need to win against other people.


I find it strange that you’re using ChatGPT to formulate arguments and to provide evidence that composers are influenced by Marxism in another post. Why not go and research the literature instead? 

Yes, Marxist thinking did influence a lot of 20th century artists, but it is far from the only philosophy of its time.


----------



## composingmusic

mikeh375 said:


> Don't denigrate yourself Nate. You just might have more clout in this thread than lowly pro composers....oh unless you're a drummer or a viola player obviously.


Percussionists and violists are awesome, just saying!


----------



## Nate Miller

composingmusic said:


> Percussionists and violists are awesome, just saying!


but sadly drummers and viola players are the butts of so many musician jokes. Like "what do you call someone who hangs out with musicians? - a drummer" that sort of thing

but I've been told that the people who make up all the viola jokes are actually violin players with nothing better to do on a Saturday night, so there you go


----------



## composingmusic

Nate Miller said:


> but sadly drummers and viola players are the butts of so many musician jokes. Like "what do you call someone who hangs out with musicians? - a drummer" that sort of thing
> 
> but I've been told that the people who make up all the viola jokes are actually violin players with nothing better to do on a Saturday night, so there you go


That’s true. Percussionists also have an incredibly tough job, and honestly they’re some of the most flexible people I know. Not to mention having to move ridiculous quantities of instruments around…

Accordion is also underrated in my view. And viola is a lovely instrument. It’s true that many violists started off as violinists (there’s many that didn’t though), and I think this has something to do with violinists making jokes about them.


----------



## HansZimmer

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> You created this thread, you want opinions from other posters, no?


The OPINION of the users about the score of Avalon has already been asked in my GAME.

Talkclassical best film score award - 1991

As you can see, no one voted for Avalon, not even me. So, if we don't consider it as the best film score of the 1990, we don't even consider it as the best piece of the last 300 years... but is it trash? Is it horrible?

Many users in this forum have radical opinions. Three users voted "horrible" to the "Haffner Serenade" of Mozart.

Mozart - KV 250 - Serenade No. 7 ("Haffner") with pictures of beatiful landscapes

I don't take so much seriously the opinions of the users of this forum, and not because they are not entitled to their personal tastes, but because their yardstick for me is obscure. It's also irrelevant, when it comes to decide what to put in my personal playlist.

My games and polls are simply games. They are simply a pretext to listen/discover music and discuss about it.


All that said: let's pretend that I ask the users their opinion about Avalon for a second time and many of them say that it sucks.

1) What's the point?

2) Why the personal opinion of the users of this forum should be more relevant than the one of PROFESSIONAL COMPOSERS who gave a Oscar nomination for "Best original score" to Avalon? And how exactly the opinion of the majority of this forum would be more relevant than the opinion of the user which thanked me for helping him/her to discover the score of Avalon, which it was added in his/her personal playlist?



> You can say whatever pleases you about my understanding of classical music but you would be wrong. I am not the one claiming clearly inferior music belongs with the likes of Beethoven's symphonies or Chopin's Nocturnes or Shostakovich's string quartets, to give just a few examples.


The nazists put the inferior music of Schoenberg in the basket of "degenerate music".



> Neither you, nor anyone else, has made any coherent argument why film music should be considered classical,


Are you joking? This discussion if full of examples.

We can start with this example.

Why is this classical music?






Why is this NOT classical music?


----------



## mikeh375

Nate Miller said:


> but sadly drummers and viola players are the butts of so many musician jokes. Like "what do you call someone who hangs out with musicians? - a drummer" that sort of thing
> 
> but I've been told that the people who make up all the viola jokes are actually violin players with nothing better to do on a Saturday night, so there you go


The culprit who supplied me with many viola jokes told with such glee over beer was a good friend of mine (he died a few years ago), who happened to be the founding viola player with the Arditti 4tet.
Still it's not all viola and drummer jokes, for example..
Why did I find a soprano slumped outside my front door?
Because she couldn't find the key to come in with.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Forster said:


> If it were to be conceded that film music does indeed belong to the category of CM, its best examples could be judged and ranked by the TC membership in exactly the same way as are the symphonies, masses and quartets of Beethoven, Bach and Shostakovich.
> I doubt that many examples would reach the top tiers.


Ask the inhabitants of the planet Thraa, who are not educated from youth to believe "Bach, Mozart, Beethoven are too holy to be categorized with someone like Williams".


----------



## composingmusic

mikeh375 said:


> The culprit who supplied me with many viola jokes told with such glee over beer was a good friend of mine (he died a few years ago), who happened to be the founding viola player with the Arditti 4tet.
> Still it's not all viola and drummer jokes, for example..
> Why did I find a soprano slumped outside my front door?
> Because she couldn't find the key to come in with.


You’ve reminded me of something funny that I haven’t thought of in a while: 








TRUMPET ANGST


(update because I changed some of the gifs)




www.tumblr.com


----------



## Nate Miller

mikeh375 said:


> The culprit who supplied me with many viola jokes told with such glee over beer was a good friend of mine (he died a few years ago), who happened to be the founding viola player with the Arditti 4tet.
> Still it's not all viola and drummer jokes, for example..
> Why did I find a soprano slumped outside my front door?
> Because she couldn't find the key to come in with.



being a guitar player, I'm aware of the plethora of guitar player jokes out there, too. I think my favorite is:

Q: How do you get a guitar player to turn down?
A: put a sheet of music in front of him!


----------



## mikeh375

composingmusic said:


> You’ve reminded me of something funny that I haven’t thought of in a while:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TRUMPET ANGST
> 
> 
> (update because I changed some of the gifs)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.tumblr.com


excellent.


----------



## composingmusic

Nate Miller said:


> being a guitar player, I'm aware of the plethora of guitar player jokes out there, too. I think my favorite is:
> 
> Q: How do you get a guitar player to turn down?
> A: put a sheet of music in front of him!


My main instrument is piano, and there aren’t that many pianist jokes… although one of my favourites is the pianist movement of the Carnival of the Animals: “How did they get here? Who knows, but listen to them (badly) practicing scales!”


----------



## Nate Miller

composingmusic said:


> My main instrument is piano, and there aren’t that many pianist jokes… although one of my favourites is the pianist movement of the Carnival of the Animals: “How did they get here? Who knows, but listen to them (badly) practicing scales!”


no, there's not many piano player jokes at all.

I dont believe the rest of the ensemble would dare, to be honest


----------



## mmsbls

TC has had several music joke threads, but here is a wonderful site for viola jokes. Two of my favorites:

What's the difference between a viola and a coffin?
The coffin has the dead person on the inside.

What's the difference between a dead skunk in the road and a crushed viola in the road?
Skid marks before the skunk. 

There's a long TC thread with general music jokes - The most incredibly lame classical music jokes. I love many by member Lunasong.


----------



## Highwayman

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> DON'T CALL ME PAL, BUDDY


HE`S NOT YOUR BUDDY, FRIEND!


----------



## DaveM

composingmusic said:


> There’s an enormously broad spectrum of contemporary classical music out there. To try to pin it down into either tonal music or avant-grade music paints an inaccurate picture of what’s out there.


Well, I didn‘t ‘_pin it down into either tonal music or avant-garde music’_ which is why I used the word ‘some’ twice in my post. It would be nice if people would read posts closely before responding or adding a ‘Like’ to the response.

Also, some people seem confused about the kind of contemporary (alleged) classical music I have an issue with. Here’s an example you are familiar with and seem to find clever. And it should be easy to distinguish it from a lot of atonal music that I may not particularly like, but don’t have an issue with:


----------



## Luchesi

mikeh375 said:


> Don't denigrate yourself Nate. You just might have more clout in this thread than lowly pro composers....oh unless you're a drummer or a viola player obviously.


I think he's a guitarist and I think they're closer to the tones. That's what's special about guitarists. Pianists are so overly descriptive


----------



## mikeh375

composingmusic said:


> My main instrument is piano, and there aren’t that many pianist jokes… although one of my favourites is the pianist movement of the Carnival of the Animals: “How did they get here? Who knows, but listen to them (badly) practicing scales!”


 Well tbh, piano humour is a black and white issue....(ok I'm leaving).


----------



## mikeh375

Luchesi said:


> I think he's a guitarist and I think they're closer to the tones. That's what's special about guitarists. Pianists are so overly descriptive


I wonder where that leaves me. I started out on jazz guitar before getting into the piano...


----------



## Forster

HansZimmer said:


> An other Argumentum ad populum. Why are the charts so relevant for you? Why don't you ask to the persons in the new generations which one is better between Beethoven and 50cent? It's funny that many of you use arguments ad popolum when you know that for many people out there classical music is totally irrelevant.
> 
> Why should I care about charts? The people out there like Rihanna? So what?? The people here think that there isn't any single film score which is as good as the best concert works? So what??
> 
> In my personal charts, there are concert works, incidental suites for theatre and incidental suites for cinema at the top. No discrimination! So what?
> I don't see why the supposed biased and senseless discrimination made by a supposed majority of people should be relevant for me.


The charts are not relevant for me.

My point, which you have clearly missed, is that if you want film music to be _considered _classical, it must be _comparable _with classical: that is, it must be subject to the same exercises in comparison that CM is endlessly subject to. This is not an argument about quality, but about the inevitable consequence of accepting the idea that FM is CM.

However, I would offer an argument about quality as well. Even those with the most subjectivist approach to the business of comparisons (which are odious, as we all know) would recognise that there is some merit in the fact that Beethoven, Bach and Mozart generally come top of the polls, regardless of one's own personal preferences. And the best example of FM - whether it be Steiner, Herrmann, Grusin, Goldsmith, Morricone, Barry, Gray, Arnold, Zimmer, Revell, Horner (etc ad nauseam) - is _not _comparable with Beethoven's 9th, Mozart's Jupiter or Bach's St Matthew Passion.

There. I've said it.



HansZimmer said:


> Are you joking? This discussion if full of examples.


This discussion has been "full" of the same few of examples of film music (and generally poor quality example at that) BUT absent of _cogent argument_ as to _why _they should be considered "CM", other than they "sound like it".

[For the record, let me restate what I said at the outset. Firstly, I have no objection to the thin idea that if some FM has been composed in the style of CM, it could be considered CM. I have also said (as have a number of others) that I fail to see _why _this is so important, and no cogent argument has been offered there either. Secondly, there is some great film music, some great pop music, some great rock music, some great prog, some great jazz, some great folk...and let them remain great within their own genres. It is unnecessary and inappropriate to compare 50Cent with Beethoven.]


----------



## hammeredklavier

Forster said:


> However, I would offer an argument about quality as well. *Even those with the most subjectivist approach to the business of comparisons (which are odious, as we all know) would recognise that there is some merit* in the fact that Beethoven, Bach and Mozart generally come top of the polls, regardless of one's own personal preferences. And the best example of FM - whether it be Steiner, Herrmann, Grusin, Goldsmith, Morricone, Barry, Gray, Arnold, Zimmer, Revell, Horner (etc ad nauseam) - is _not _comparable with Beethoven's 9th, Mozart's Jupiter or Bach's St Matthew Passion.


It's strange to me you're suggesting this; after all your responses in the subjectivity vs. objectivity threads, where you've denied on many occasions the validity of "objective superiority" implied by polls regarding such popular composers and works. (Correct me if I have the wrong impression about your "stance".)

I for one don't see what merit is there, other than the fact some things tend to be more famous or popular than others (depending on who the audiences are), and the fact we in our circles tend to "beatify" artist figures with "myths" (similar to how InsideTheScore, a typical "influencer" of classical music on youtube, does: _"In the 1700s, Johann Sebastian Bach, had defined the system of Western classical tonality"_. www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yZ4vtpxQXw&t=56s) and spread them. I'm not arguing anything is overrated here. But "images" like that built in people's minds since childhood tend to have an effect on them in their judgements on things, which they can mistake for "objectivity".

For example, it is easier to criticize repeats in a lesser-known composer as repetitive than criticizing such cases in Bach similarly. Because Bach (at least we've been told that) is supposed to be the origin and summit of contrapuntal art or something of the sort in our minds.
Sequential Repetitions in Bach: www.youtube.com/watch?v=thQqdGOoZ3o.
Composers after Bach have pointed out things like the lack of operatic drama in Bach (which I think matters even in fugal writing). Among them were famously Berlioz and Tchaikovsky. Maybe they were the "child pointing out the nudity of the emperor". (I'm just saying it's subjective.)

Also, by your logic, the electronic music of Stockhausen, Xenakis, Babbitt, for example, (similar to how DaveM has described), is in many quarters (outside of niche circles) seen as belonging in the same category as the experimental music of the Beatles, for example, rather than the stereotypical image of "conventional classical music" (orchestral, tonal, voice-leading, etc). It could be just a minor semantics issue.


----------



## Forster

hammeredklavier said:


> It's strange to me you're suggesting this; after all your responses in the subjectivity vs. objectivity threads, where you've denied on many occasions the validity of "objective superiority" implied by polls regarding such popular works. (Correct me if I have the wrong impression about your "stance".)


No, you have me right on my stance re "objective superiority": I dont believe that the superiority of one composition over another can be proven, absolutely and objectively. What you misunderstand is my stance on "subjective 'superiority' ". I am just as entitled to my subjective opinions as anyone else about which composers I hold dearest (using criteria which are personal to me) and to recognise that many other people hold the same composers and compositions dear, (using whatever criteria are personal to them). And that such coincidence of subjective opinions carries some weight towards an argument that the composers who come to the top of the pile do indeed have something going for them which is more universally recognised than those who seem only to have niche or minority or passing appeal.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Forster said:


> And that such coincidence of subjective opinions carries some weight towards an argument that the composers who come to the top of the pile *do indeed have something going for them which is more universally recognised* than those who seem only to have niche or minority or passing appeal.


But that still doesn't tell us objectively whether or not they're sentimental or superficially pleasing, for instance. Consider the fact that Mozart's 40th and Beethoven's 5th are enjoyed and delightfully commented on by the same "supposedly unintelligent" masses (the billions on youtube) who go to videos of Pachelbel's Canon and comment on them similarly. Maybe (blinded by our own fanboyism of such works), we like to delude ourselves in our circles with the wishful thinking "It's not _pop classical_ cause it's a symphony.", "Academics and experts can't be biased in any way."


----------



## mikeh375

DaveM said:


> Well, I didn‘t ‘_pin it down into either tonal music or avant-garde music’_ which is why I used the word ‘some’ twice in my post. It would be nice if people would read posts closely before responding or adding a ‘Like’ to the response.
> 
> Also, some people seem confused about the kind of contemporary (alleged) classical music I have an issue with. Here’s an example you are familiar with and seem to find clever. And it should be easy to distinguish it from a lot of atonal music that I may not particularly like, but don’t have an issue with:


The Sciarrino is clearly a technical, musical and aesthetic paradigm in composition that is quite the opposite to the traditional canons sentiment and therefore I do understand your reluctance in accepting this kind of piece Dave. Even so, to my ears it's clear that this is a child of developments stemming from tradition whilst pushing the aural/timbral exploration of sound and physicality for the player/instrument further still. And surely that's the point, one obviously isn't supposed to listen to the Scarrino with a view to being 'moved' in the old way. This music comes across to me as it was intended, that of an evocation. One that uses a kind of sound design approach by exploring an almost tribal, rhythmic and visceral sound via the more technically esoteric percussive capabilities of a cylindrical tube with holes in it. It's 'sentiment' or purpose is revealed in its title and in that regard - and even in some technical ways too - I see clear parallels with final part of 'The Rite' for in many ways, the sentiment and the way it is depicted have similarities.

This music is evocation but not using a 'refined' expression in the way we might understand the term (although it is certainly a primal expression imo). I'd suggest that It needs to be heard with the 'correct' paradigmatic attitude for ears and mind (that's not meant to be derogatory or preachy to anybody, nor superior in any way). In other words, this kind of music quite often needs to be listened to without the usual listening baggage in order to be fully appreciated and then perhaps even get transported elsewhere for a while.


----------



## HansZimmer

DaveM said:


>


Give me more of that inferior music of film scores, please!


----------



## HansZimmer

Forster said:


> The charts are not relevant for me.


Replace charts with imaginary polls in this forum in which, according to you, film music would be judged as inferior in respect to concert works.



> However, I would offer an argument about quality as well. Even those with the most subjectivist approach to the business of comparisons (which are odious, as we all know) would recognise that there is some merit in the fact that Beethoven, Bach and Mozart generally come top of the polls, regardless of one's own personal preferences. And the best example of FM - whether it be Steiner, Herrmann, Grusin, Goldsmith, Morricone, Barry, Gray, Arnold, Zimmer, Revell, Horner (etc ad nauseam) - is _not _comparable with Beethoven's 9th, Mozart's Jupiter or Bach's St Matthew Passion.
> 
> There. I've said it.


It's always the same boring argument ad popolum.

"Most users in this forum think that the music of Bach, Mozart and Beethoven is superior than the one of the major composers of Hollywood, and so it's true that it is"

"Hitler won democratic elections, so he was right".


Eventhough I agree that many Mozart's pieces are excellent like the best film scores, I'm not sure about Bach, for the reasons explained by the video of @hammeredklavier: my nice musical ears perceive that there is a lot of melodic repetition in many pieces of Bach. If you value melodic elaboration more than other kind of eleborations, you can give solid arguments in support of the superiority of the music of Alan Menken in respect to the music of Bach.

I can accept a discussion about objective elements used as yardstick only if we accept that the melodies and colors are the main course and the rest is the side dish. Otherwise it doesn't make sense for me to start a debate, because without shared values there is no objectivity.



> This discussion has been "full" of the same few of examples of film music (and generally poor quality example at that)


The nazists put the poor quality music of Schoenberg in the basket of "degenerate music".

Almost all of the examples that I provided in this discussion are film scores which were nominated at the Oscars, so the musical jury of the Academy Awards doesn't use your yardstick apparently.



> BUT absent of _cogent argument_ as to _why _they should be considered "CM", other than they "sound like it".


Infact my whole argument begins and ends in this observation. If it sounds like rock, it's rock. If it sounds like classical music, it's classical music.

I don't care if someone want to use contorted definitions, but don't accuse Classic FM of doing anything objectively wrong.


----------



## Forster

hammeredklavier said:


> But that still doesn't tell us objectively whether or not they're sentimental or superficially pleasing, for instance.


Nor does it need to. It's you who's raising the question of objectivity, not me.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

It's only objective if MauLer says so.


----------



## Forster

HansZimmer said:


> "Hitler won democratic elections, so he was right".


Now you're just desperate.

I'm expressing my personal opinion about how FM would be rated by those for whom rating is significant. I'm not advancing an argument that this is proof of objective superiority, even though I happen to agree that Beethoven's 9th is better than any film score so far offered in this thread.

The rest of your post is spurious.


----------



## Enthusiast

HansZimmer said:


> Eventhough I agree that many Mozart's pieces are excellent like the best film scores, I'm not sure about Bach, for the reasons explained by the video of @hammeredklavier: my nice musical ears perceive that there is a lot of melodic repetition in many pieces of Bach. If you value melodic elaboration more than other kind of eleborations, you can give solid arguments in support of the superiority of the music of Alan Menken in respect to the music of Bach.


There we have it. The greats are at best as good as today's Hollywood hacks and are often less good. Does this confirm that some film music buffs who compare film music with classical music are actually not that in sympathy with classical music? Belittling Mozart and Bach to big up hacks is all I needed to read to have my suspicions about this never ending argument confirmed.


----------



## mikeh375

^^^^ yes indeed @Enthusiast . Menken > Bach..well its absurd to compare the two but if we must....naaah.


----------



## Forster

HansZimmer said:


> Replace charts with imaginary polls in this forum


Eh? Why? It was you who referred to 'charts' in the first place.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

I think the "anti-Bach statements" here were deferring to Tchaikovsky


----------



## HansZimmer

Enthusiast said:


> There we have it. The greats are at best as good as today's Hollywood hacks and are often less good. Does this confirm that some film music buffs who compare film music with classical music are actually not that in sympathy with classical music? Belittling Mozart and Bach to big up hacks is all I needed to read to have my suspicions about this never ending argument confirmed.


OBJECTIVE ARGUMENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mozart was a musical genius for objective reasons.

Speaking of his music, there are objectively adventurous melodies, but we still have to determine if the melodies are also pleasant (there are not objective criterias).
...............................................................................................

SUBJECTIVE ARGUMENTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I like music that is melodically adventurous.

The music of Mozart is melodically adventuruous and to my ears the melodies are also plesant
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I think that many users in this discussion have a problem in separating objectivity from subjectivity, and therefore they present their personal opinions as if they were facts. If many persons in a community share subjective values, doesn't mean that their values are objective, so the argument ad popolum is not valid. Furthermore the shared subjective values change if you change community (Why don't we have the same discussion in the forum of John Williams?).

That said, the world of classical music is vast and not all composers wrote music with adventurous melodies like Mozart. I will tend to appreciate more the composers with the same compositional philosophy of Mozart.

Many film scores composers write tonal and melody focused music and in that regard they are more mozartic than other classical music composers who were/are not so much focused on melodies.
I still have to explore a lot of material inside the world of film scores, but in my limited basket I judge Alan Menken as the best melodist.

It's not that I prefer film scores to concert works. It's that this is not a relevant discrimination for my SUBJECTIVE parameters. Infact, my main discrimination is between "melodically elaborated music" Vs "melodically poor music". Speaking of the first category, there are film scores as well as concert works that are suited for my personal tastes. Now, if you want, you are free to explain what exactly is wrong in my evaluation and why exactly should I use the senseless discrimination between film music and concert music instead of my meaningful discrimination between melodically elaborated music and melodically poor music.

Finally, who decide who are THE GREAT?? Alan Menken won eight musical oscars in only a few years and he's the man with most musical Oscars after Alfred Newman. In youtube there are persons who call him "The Mozart of the Disney".
So, who say that Alan Menken has not yet entered the list of THE GREATS? Two or three users in a forum who are biased towards film music?


----------



## composingmusic

DaveM said:


> Well, I didn‘t ‘_pin it down into either tonal music or avant-garde music’_ which is why I used the word ‘some’ twice in my post. It would be nice if people would read posts closely before responding or adding a ‘Like’ to the response.
> 
> Also, some people seem confused about the kind of contemporary (alleged) classical music I have an issue with. Here’s an example you are familiar with and seem to find clever. And it should be easy to distinguish it from a lot of atonal music that I may not particularly like, but don’t have an issue with:


Ok but you clearly stated that the "false dichotomy between atonal contemporary cm vs. tonal accessible fm" is not a false dichotomy. That’s what I was referring to. I do think it’s a false dichotomy, because there’s so many types of contemporary classical music.


----------



## Enthusiast

HansZimmer said:


> Finally, who decide who are THE GREAT?? Alan Menken won eight musical oscars in only a few years and he's the man with most musical Oscars after Alfred Newman. In youtube there are persons who call him "The Mozart of the Disney".
> So, who say that Alan Menken has not yet entered the list of THE GREATS? Two or three users in a forum who are biased towards film music?


The Oscars are hardly a measure of any worth but commercial worth.


----------



## HansZimmer

Enthusiast said:


> The Oscars are hardly a measure of any worth but commercial worth.


No, this is false. It would be if the premiums were given based on the number of sales. It doesn't work like this. There are juries of experts for each branch who must decide to which films give the nominations by evaluating the artistic merits.
So, for the "Best original score" there is a jury of composers who must decide to which films give the nominations by evaluating the artistic merits of the music.

Once you have the nominations for each Oscar, all judges of each branch can vote between the five options for each Oscar.

I don't see where is exactly the commercial evaluation. It's an artistic evaluation.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ I'll stick to my point and nothing you say above goes to show me wrong. It's just that you think I am.


----------



## HansZimmer

Enthusiast said:


> ^ I'll stick to my point and nothing you say above goes to show me wrong. It's just that you think I am.


No, I showed you that you are wrong because the number of sales is not a parameter for the Academy Awards, so I don't see what do the commercial merits have to do with the evaluation process.

The Guinness World Record and the charts speak about the commercial merits, not the Academy Awards.


Of course, sometimes (not always) there are intersections between the two things, for the simple fact that if a product is considered artistically good than there is a chance that it's also promoted and sold, like the music of Mozart.


----------



## HansZimmer

Just a simple example. The film Fast & Furious has had a relevant commercial success. Why hasn't it received any single Oscar nomination, if the commercial success is so relevant in the evaluation process of The Academy Awards?

Why has the film "Avalon" got a nomination for "Best original score", despite the fact that it's not a popular film?

Just because there are intersections between Oscar nominations and popularity, doesn't mean that the artstic merits are not evaluated and the judges simply give away prizes to the first idiot who is able to sell a film.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

hammeredklavier said:


> and the fact we in our circles tend to "beatify" artist figures with "myths" (similar to how InsideTheScore, a typical "influencer" of classical music on youtube, does: _"In the 1700s, Johann Sebastian Bach, had defined the system of Western classical tonality"_. www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yZ4vtpxQXw&t=56s) and spread them.


Hm so that's a slight bit of a hack channel then isn't it? He seems to be conflating "tension" with "dissonance", among other things.




> For example, it is easier to criticize repeats in a lesser-known composer as repetitive than criticizing such cases in Bach similarly. Because Bach (at least we've been told that) is supposed to be the origin and summit of contrapuntal art or something of the sort in our minds.
> Sequential Repetitions in Bach: www.youtube.com/watch?v=thQqdGOoZ3o.


Are there comparable repetitions written by others that have been criticized (for being repetitive)?


In this case it wouldn't seem like a more reasonable critique than calling sth like an alberti bass or tremolo repetitive - since those sequences are mostly functioning as texture/accompaniment to the melody/themes in the other voices, as well as ornamentations of a descending melodic line.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

Enthusiast said:


> The Oscars are hardly a measure of any worth but commercial worth.


Fundamentally _academic _awards as their name implies, the Oscars have been accused of being just about anything from being corrupted by factors like popularity / commercial success, to being biased elitist gatekeepers reluctant to acknowledge anything outside of "pretentious" "Oscar bait", to being "influenced by social politics" to being a "Hollywood elite auto-circlejerk" by various voices;

I myself don't know either way and haven't followed them much, so _shrug_ idk


----------



## HansZimmer

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> Fundamentally _academic _awards as their name implies, the Oscars have been accused of being just about anything from being corrupted by factors like popularity / commercial success


Try to give a reply to my post 2'556. 

The people accuse always, but to demonstrate a point of view is a different thing.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

HansZimmer said:


> Try to give a reply to my post 2'556.


Well, don't know much about how the Oscars work, and haven't seen any of the F&Fs so far either, so can't say much there;
some of course do attribute the lack of Oscars for F&F to the Academy's elitist snobbery or sth, but I've no idea either way.


----------



## HansZimmer

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> Well, don't know much about how the Oscars work, and haven't seen any of the F&Fs so far either, so can't say much there;
> some of course do attribute the lack of Oscars for F&F to the Academy's elitist snobbery or sth, but I've no idea either way.


The problem is that you can't accuse the Academy Awards of being commercial and snob/elitist at the same time.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

Well yeah, that was my point too (though it's conceivable that they may fall into either trap some of the time, or be running some kind of double practice etc. - but it's all theoretical from where I stand, so; could be that none of those accusations are true at all, that's also possible).


----------



## DaveM

composingmusic said:


> Ok *but you clearly stated that the "false dichotomy between atonal contemporary cm vs. tonal accessible fm" is not a false dichotomy.* That’s what I was referring to. I do think it’s a false dichotomy, because there’s so many types of contemporary classical music.


That is a disingenuous distortion and misrepresentation of my response. You purposely leave out the part of my sentence (in bold below) that was the whole point of my response. The reason I used the word ‘some’ is specifically because there are ‘so many types of contemporary music’.

This is the post I was originally responding to:



YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> It's strange how this false dichotomy of "atonal contemporary cm vs. tonal accessible fm" keeps finding its way into comments all the time..


This was my response:



DaveM said:


> It’s not a false dichotomy *if some ‘tonal accessible fm’ sounds more like centuries of CP era classical music than some contemporary classical music.*


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

I like film music in sonata-form, but not if the movie is about a serial killer...that keeps me nervous for a week...not right...


----------



## composingmusic

DaveM said:


> That is a disingenuous distortion and misrepresentation of my response. You purposely leave out the part of my sentence (in bold below) that was the whole point of my response. The reason I used the word ‘some’ is specifically because there are ‘so many types of contemporary music’.
> 
> This is the post I was originally responding to:
> 
> It's strange how this false dichotomy of "atonal contemporary cm vs. tonal accessible fm" keeps finding its way into comments all the time..
> 
> This was my response:
> 
> “It’s not a false dichotomy if some ‘tonal accessible fm’ sounds more like centuries of CP era classical music than some contemporary classical music.”


Calling it a false dichotomy implies that there are more options than the two options of atonal contemporary or tonal/classical. That’s what a false dichotomy means: that there are other options. I agree with this assessment; there’s a large variety of contemporary music out there, and much of it doesn’t fit neatly into either of these categories. That’s why I’m calling it a false dichotomy.

You’ve argued that calling it a false dichotomy is incorrect, and that’s what I was responding to. But when I responded to this, you claim I’m distorting your statement. Yes, I see you’ve used the word “some” but having some music that’s different from other music doesn’t necessarily imply a dichotomy. 

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say by first claiming that this isn’t a false dichotomy, and then backtracking on that when I disagree with that statement.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

DaveM said:


> That is a disingenuous distortion and misrepresentation of my response. You purposely leave out the part of my sentence (in bold below) that was the whole point of my response. The reason I used the word ‘some’ is specifically because there are ‘so many types of contemporary music’.
> 
> This is the post I was originally responding to:
> 
> 
> 
> This was my response:


Not aware of the extent to which common practice style* still keeps being written in CM / CHM / opera, however FM makes use of "both" all the time - the general tendency of associating it with "primarily" tonality or whatnot, whether in a positive or negative way, doesn't seem accurate to me from all I've seen;
that was my main point.


EDIT: One might enhance that with "purely", since NM often mixes tonality / common practice style with, well, neíther;
FM too, but it certainly often has wide stretches of nothing but tonality.


----------



## Forster

HansZimmer said:


> I think that many users in this discussion have a problem in separating objectivity from subjectivity, and therefore they present their personal opinions as if they were facts.


I think one user for sure wants to present their personal opinion as fact: that "classical" FM is CM.



HansZimmer said:


> "Most users in this forum think that the music of Bach, Mozart and Beethoven is superior than the one of the major composers of Hollywood, and so it's true that it is"


That wasn't what I said, nor, afaicr, is it what anyone else said.



HansZimmer said:


> Almost all of the examples that I provided in this discussion are film scores which were nominated at the Oscars, so the musical jury of the Academy Awards doesn't use your yardstick apparently.


Well they wouldn't use my yardstick, would they? They're judging a music's quality in its role as supporting the visual image. My yardstick is the quality of film music as standalone concert music.



HansZimmer said:


> don't accuse Classic FM of doing anything objectively wrong.


I wasn't. I have no objection to Classic FM doing what it wishes to appeal to its audience.


----------



## DaveM

mikeh375 said:


> The Sciarrino is *clearly a technical, musical and aesthetic paradigm in composition that is quite the opposite to the traditional canons sentiment *and therefore I do understand your reluctance in accepting this kind of piece Dave. Even so, to my ears it's clear that *this is a child of developments stemming from tradition whilst pushing the aural/timbral exploration of sound and physicality for the player/instrument further still. And surely that's the point, one obviously isn't supposed to listen to the Scarrino with a view to being 'moved' in the old way. *This music comes across to me as it was intended, that of an evocation. *One that uses a kind of sound design approach by exploring an almost tribal, rhythmic and visceral sound via the more technically esoteric percussive capabilities of a cylindrical tube with holes in it..*


IMO, This describes an entirely different category of music. I have always assumed that the intention of composers from all the various classical music eras was, in the end, to entertain listeners. Even though the music changed substantially in recent years, the composers of contemporary music who wanted to diverge from music of the CP era (think Schoenberg earlier to later Penderecki just as examples) still wanted to appeal to audiences expecting music that still held to some parameters traditionally associated with classical music.

I don’t believe works such as the Sciarrino work fit any definition of classical music. They are experiments in sound; essentially attempts to extract otherwise unexpected random sounds from instruments. I have my doubts that entertaining listeners is a priority. Also, I’m not a classical music composer, but I bet, under a pseudonym, I could call myself a composer, create a collection of screeching string sounds, random wind instrument sounds and whatnot and give it a name and someone here would think it was an interesting contemporary work. That’s where a line has been crossed.

Anyway, to bring this back to the OP, IMO if the Sciarrino work is included under the category of classical music, then it makes it more difficult to exclude some film music.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

It's so hilarious that some posters think film music is as good as, or better, than the music of Bach or Beethoven. Sorry but just because you don't understand the depths of Bach's or Beethoven's music, it does not mean that it is comparable to film music. I'm reminded of a blind person trying to convince those who can see that stick men is better art than Monet (or pick your favorite painter).


----------



## pianozach

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> And then when it's covered by Marilyn Manson or sampled by Rihanna, I think it's still mostly known as "originally by Soft Cell" (at the very least) - even though in the latter's case it's a new song with a new title, it's pretty much a semi-cover:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, "cover versions" are of course significantly changed from their original, as this as well as the Tambourine Man examples show:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are there any total 1:1 covers out there at all, that aren't
> -by tribute acts
> -YTers and/or low-levels/amateurs?
> 
> Maybe a closer comparison would be transcriptions/arrangements/etc. such as Chopin-Godowsky, all the Liszt transcriptions, and so on - with those, the original composer is loudly acknowledged along with the one providing the new version.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This of course becomes relevant in rock vs. pop discussions where the rock fans start emphasizing how the other team's favorite stars "didn't even write their own stuff lololol" - although as far I'm aware they do about as often as they don't.


Until *Rock and Roll*, it actually was fairly rare for "artists" to write their own songs. That was left to professional songwriters.

I'm not really sure who to credit that change to. It's rather easy to credit the *Beatles* as making it cool to be their own songwriters, but most of their first handful of albums were 1/3 to 1/2 covers (Their film soundtracks were the exceptions). But *Dylan* was certainly writing the majority of his own material, although he'd started as a folk artist, where that was fairly common (and just as common to recycle old folk songs). The Blues artists as well might be writing their own material.

Before that you might site *Buddy Holly*, or *Bill Haley* as being major Rock and Roll songwriters.


----------



## DaveM

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> It's so hilarious that some posters think film music is as good as, or better, than the music of Bach or Beethoven..


I don‘t think some posters have gone to that extreme. I hope not. Maybe I missed it.


----------



## hammeredklavier

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> It's so hilarious that some posters think film music is as good as, or better, than the music of Bach or Beethoven. Sorry but just because you don't understand the depths of Bach's or Beethoven's music, it does not mean that it is comparable to film music.


Why must we indulge in the dogma that people who aren't moved by them are "simply too stupid to understand"? Explain to us the objective depths of this, for example-
youtube.com/watch?v=FwZsDzGY1XA&t=44m44s (Hammerklavier sonata played by Barenboim; timestamped at 44:44)


----------



## hammeredklavier

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> I'm reminded of a blind person trying to convince those who can see that stick men is better art than Monet (or pick your favorite painter).


Are you saying that something like this -
www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7w-IeNR9ko (Morricone: Gabriel's Oboe.)
is comparable to stick men? Compared to, for example,
www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PxMEwMmVpc (Moonlight sonata orchestral/choral arrangement)


----------



## Forster

hammeredklavier said:


> "simply too stupid to understand"


TwoFlutes didn't say, "simply too stupid".


----------



## mikeh375

DaveM said:


> IMO, This describes an entirely different category of music. I have always assumed that the intention of composers from all the various classical music eras was, in the end, to entertain listeners. Even though the music changed substantially in recent years, the composers of contemporary music who wanted to diverge from music of the CP era (think Schoenberg earlier to later Penderecki just as examples) still wanted to appeal to audiences expecting music that still held to some parameters traditionally associated with classical music.
> 
> I don’t believe works such as the Sciarrino work fit any definition of classical music. They are experiments in sound; essentially attempts to extract otherwise unexpected random sounds from instruments. I have my doubts that entertaining listeners is a priority. Also, I’m not a classical music composer, but I bet, under a pseudonym, I could call myself a composer, create a collection of screeching string sounds, random wind instrument sounds and whatnot and give it a name and someone here would think it was an interesting contemporary work. That’s where a line has been crossed.
> 
> Anyway, to bring this back to the OP, IMO if the Sciarrino work is included under the category of classical music, then it makes it more difficult to exclude some film music.


Well being reasonable, Im sure a case could be made for both our positions on the status of this piece and others as it relates to the canon. I get it from your pov and yet I see a musical thread and logical development throughout the 20thC that leads to a work like this, cementing its relation to the past. The one thing I will say is that you use the adjective 'random' a little too liberally imo when we talk about AG and atonality (as in Boulez rather than Schoenberg). Nothing could be further than the truth in the Sciarrino for the writing for flute displays a comprehensive knowledge of the instrument and its capabilities as well as a clear - quite obvious really - musical process and form, at least that's my impression of the piece. Obviously ymmv, but what is not in doubt is that in order to create your "screeching" sounds, you'd need a lot of prior study in order to use them.

So I just don't see a line crossed in the Sciarrino, quite the opposite but we can happily disagree on that along with the rest of it of course.


----------



## HansZimmer

mikeh375 said:


> ^^^^ yes indeed @Enthusiast . Menken > Bach..well its absurd to compare the two but if we must....naaah.


Is it absurd to have different tastes in respect to yours?

I won't provide any proof about the fact that the music of Alan Menken is better than the one of Bach, because I don't have to justify my personal tastes. However, if you have scientific evidence that the music of Bach is better and I'm wrong, then ring my doorbell.

I'll also wait for scientific evidence in regards to the fact that a hypotical invidual who sees one or more film music composers as the highest achievements of classical music he would be objectively wrong.

Until that point, any argument related to the quality of film music to reject it from the category of classical music won't have any objective validity.


----------



## eljr

HansZimmer said:


> Is it absurd to have different tastes in respect to yours?
> 
> I won't provide any proof about the fact that the music of Alan Menken is better than the one of Bach, because I don't have to justify my personal tastes. However, if you have scientific evidence that the music of Bach is better and I'm wrong, then ring my doorbell.
> 
> I'll also wait for scientific evidence in regards to the fact that a hypotical invidual who sees one or more film music composers as the highest achievements of classical music he would be objectively wrong.
> 
> Until that point, any argument related to the quality of film music to reject it from the category of classical music won't have any objective validity.


Quick question. Why do you bother?


----------



## Forster

@DaveM 



HansZimmer said:


> I won't provide any proof about the fact that the music of Alan Menken is better than the one of Bach, because I don't have to justify my personal tastes. However, if you have scientific evidence that the music of Bach is better and I'm wrong, then ring my doorbell.


This latest builds on an earlier exchange between HansZimmer and hammeredklavier, following my claim that the traditional top three CM composers did write "better" music than the best of the top FM composers.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

DaveM said:


> I don‘t think some posters have gone to that extreme. I hope not. Maybe I missed it.


See post 2542. There were others before it too, which I am too lazy to search.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

hammeredklavier said:


> Why must we indulge in the dogma that people who aren't moved by them are "simply too stupid to understand"? Explain to us the objective depths of this, for example-
> youtube.com/watch?v=FwZsDzGY1XA&t=44m44s (Hammerklavier sonata played by Barenboim; timestamped at 44:44)


Why can't you read what I posted without injecting your own and incorrect message into my post?


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

hammeredklavier said:


> Are you saying that something like this -
> www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7w-IeNR9ko (Morricone: Gabriel's Oboe.)
> is comparable to stick men? Compared to, for example,
> www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PxMEwMmVpc (Moonlight sonata orchestral/choral arrangement)


The Morricone piece is kinda nice but I would not want to listen to it again.

The Moonlight sonata should not be arranged for an orchestra/chorus - it doesn't sound nearly as good as the original piano version.


----------



## Luchesi

Forster said:


> No, you have me right on my stance re "objective superiority": I dont believe that the superiority of one composition over another can be proven, absolutely and objectively. What you misunderstand is my stance on "subjective 'superiority' ". I am just as entitled to my subjective opinions as anyone else about which composers I hold dearest (using criteria which are personal to me) and to recognise that many other people hold the same composers and compositions dear, (using whatever criteria are personal to them). And that such coincidence of subjective opinions carries some weight towards an argument that the composers who come to the top of the pile do indeed have something going for them which is more universally recognised than those who seem only to have niche or minority or passing appeal.


"I dont believe that the superiority of one composition over another can be proven, absolutely and objectively."

Take two scores and try.

Compare a symphony to a nursery song.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

DaveM said:


> IMO, This describes an entirely different category of music. I have always assumed that the intention of composers from all the various classical music eras was, in the end, to entertain listeners. Even though the music changed substantially in recent years, the composers of contemporary music who wanted to diverge from music of the CP era (think Schoenberg earlier to later Penderecki just as examples) still wanted to appeal to audiences expecting music that still held to some parameters traditionally associated with classical music.
> 
> I don’t believe works such as the Sciarrino work fit any definition of classical music. They are experiments in sound; essentially attempts to extract otherwise unexpected random sounds from instruments. I have my doubts that entertaining listeners is a priority. Also, I’m not a classical music composer, but I bet, under a pseudonym, I could call myself a composer, create a collection of screeching string sounds, random wind instrument sounds and whatnot and give it a name and someone here would think it was an interesting contemporary work. That’s where a line has been crossed.


-It's pretty much a percussion/drum solo, and certainly could be translated into one. A drum solo like this _would_ be played for "entertainment".

-One of the images/scenarios it can be said to evoke, would be that of a creeping (predator?) insect, moving around and displaying danger colors every now and then.
Other tense or creepy imagery may come to mind as well;
that, or just the abstract impression it makes on its own - both are typically recognized as entertaining/engaging by listeners.

For that reason, this or something similar could also easily end up as a soundtrack for some kind of suspense movie scene (or an "Asian" MA duel, for related reasons; etc.) - one that aims to be engaging/entertaining, of course (some say not all "art films" do that either).



-Extracting unusual sounds from instruments, especially ones perceived as cool or aesthetical or expressive (as these all are) typically does provide entertainment.
In this case you're doubting whether there's any sense or structure to it otherwise - if there isn't, it could be considered "sound art and not music", or an instrumental "tech display rather than a piece", and so on;

well, can't claim to have gotten a hang of its entire structure, or every single rhythmic / pitch choice made in there, but there are clearly tension-creating structures and patterns in there that don't need much of commentary to understand - so clearly it's far from 100% "random" and follows obvious patterns known from percussion solos or program music.




> Anyway, to bring this back to the OP, IMO if the Sciarrino work is included under the category of classical music, then it makes it more difficult to exclude some film music.


Well there is film music that sounds like this, so that's also a factor.

Other than that, idk, instinctively I'd categorize sth like this as "New Music (i.e. belonging to the experimental/AG "classical category") with exotic folk influences", but, while examining its relations and similarities to various other compositions/genres is interesting and useful, arguing over whether to put it in the "classical" category "along with the Common Practice stuff", yes or no, seems more like a waste of time imo


An explicit statement of this counting as Classical while a tonal common-practice FM piece not so much, probably would need some argumentation and extra stated definitions;
the notion that it doesn't share various features with tonal CM that tonal FM does, is a given anyway of course.






DaveM said:


> I don‘t think some posters have gone to that extreme. I hope not. Maybe I missed it.


Well, don't know either way, and not a primary preoccupation for me right now _shrug_


----------



## Luchesi

mikeh375 said:


> I wonder where that leaves me. I started out on jazz guitar before getting into the piano...


Yeah, I haven't kept up with guitar technique. It's too difficult an instrument. 

I want to play accompaniment under a melody line, but that's quite advanced and I'm too impatient (when a piano is so much easier all around).


----------



## composingmusic

mikeh375 said:


> I wonder where that leaves me. I started out on jazz guitar before getting into the piano...


Back re. piano, “overly descriptive” (checks notes)… yeah, that describes me pretty well 🤣


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

hammeredklavier said:


> Why must we indulge in the dogma that people who aren't moved by them are "simply too stupid to understand"? Explain to us the objective depths of this, for example-
> youtube.com/watch?v=FwZsDzGY1XA&t=44m44s (Hammerklavier sonata played by Barenboim; timestamped at 44:44)


Not familiar with this piece (despite its fame), but the playing's kinda really sloppy there isn't it? Doubly so during that leap section at 44:57.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

Ok, clicked on the first related link to this Valentina Lisitsa performance, and it's certainly miles better in accuracy, fluency, and general musical convincing-ness (though Barenboim - tbf obviously well into a live recital and seems quite exhausted - appears to have more color and expression in some of the slower/easier bits):

Time stamp in question is at 35:10





plus listened to about 5 minutes leading up to that, as well as several minutes of the sonata's opening (both performances).


1st movement starts losing me around 1:00 with the G major section, and those final 10 minutes still sound like a Frankenstein's monster of a composition even with Lisitsa's fluent playing - though not perfect, since it seems like some of the details get flubbed a bit etc.

Would have to look for some kinda even better performance (in technical accuracy as well as sound quality, in addition to interpretation choices) to see how convincing this piece can get / what it sounds like at its best.


----------



## DaveM

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> Ok, clicked on the first related link to this Valentina Lisitsa performance, and it's certainly miles better in accuracy, fluency, and general musical convincing-ness (though Barenboim - tbf obviously well into a live recital and seems quite exhausted - appears to have more color and expression in some of the slower/easier bits):..


You must not be familiar with Barenboim (and as well unfortunately, as you say, the sonata). This video is from a (now) famous live 2006 video series of all the Beethoven Piano Sonatas. He looks the way he always looks which isn’t exhaustion. He does sweat a lot. Always has.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

DaveM said:


> You must not be familiar with Barenboim. This video is from a (now) famous live 2006 video series of all the Beethoven Piano Sonatas. He looks the way he always looks which isn’t exhaustion. He does sweat a lot. Always has.


I've seen him play some Mozart sonatas when younger (and those were controlled "studio" performances too) - very controlled, accurate, crisp and elegant playing, looked relaxed as well.

Just assumed that this wasn't his 2006 self at his best, cause it was a live performance and apparently not the opening of that recital either.
However it's also possible that he wasn't tired at all, and he simply wasn't up to that technical challenge in general (at the very least at that particular age) - can't know for sure, and my familiarity with him is indeed extremely limited as of now.


----------



## Forster

Luchesi said:


> Compare a symphony to a nursery song.


Why? One is a complex piece aimed at a sophisticated adult audience - and would probably make a rubbish learning song for the nursery. Frere Jacques, on the other hand, makes for a great symphonic theme!


----------



## HansZimmer

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> It's so hilarious that some posters think film music is as good as, or better, than the music of Bach or Beethoven. Sorry but just because you don't understand the depths of Bach's or Beethoven's music, it does not mean that it is comparable to film music. I'm reminded of a blind person trying to convince those who can see that stick men is better art than Monet (or pick your favorite painter).


There isn't any war between concert music and film music and I don't understand why do you want to create it. I don't have to determine which is better between the two, since for me is not a meaningful discrimination.


----------



## HansZimmer

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> I think the "anti-Bach statements" here were deferring to Tchaikovsky


What do you mean?


----------



## janxharris

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> It's so hilarious that some posters think film music is as good as, or better, than the music of Bach or Beethoven. Sorry but just because you don't understand the depths of Bach's or Beethoven's music, it does not mean that it is comparable to film music. I'm reminded of a blind person trying to convince those who can see that stick men is better art than Monet (or pick your favorite painter).


You don't think this forces you to define incontrovertibly the meaning of each and every instance of such Bachian / Beethovenian depth? I, too, think there is great depth in many Beethoven pieces, but I wouldn't presume that others would / should have the same reaction.

Is your understanding of film music definitive?


----------



## HansZimmer

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> Are there comparable repetitions written by others that have been criticized (for being repetitive)?


Of course. @Luchesi for example wrote that this piece of John Williams is not classical music because there are repetitions, but with this observation he showed that he's not aware of the repetitions that there are in classical music.
Infact the piece here below it's a fugue (or better said, a "fugal march", as stated by an other user) and fugues are almost always monothematic, which means that you will hear a simple subject repeated many times.







Try to compare the melodic variety of this fugue composed by Mozart at the age of 10.







...with the one of the symphony No. 6 that he composed one year later.







The fugue is not bad because the subject is quite memorable, but in many fugues the subject is rudimental at the point that it's forgettable.

The reason for which I like Mozart is that most of his pieces are written in the sonata form, in the ternary form or in the rondò form. All these forms are multithematic by nature, and therefore more interesting for people who like melodic elaboration. In Mozart's music, the production of things like "fugue", "prelude and fugue", and so on... is very limited, while in the music of Bach there are entire books and works based on this kind of writing and some of them are his most celebrated works.

There are people (this forum included) who only like romantic music and who don't like baroque music. For these people Bach might be irrelevant.
There are people, like me, who prefer music which is melodically evoluted. For us there are probably better composers than Bach.

The preferences of people are almost always based on stylistic preferences. You might prefer Alan Menken in respect to Bach for the simple fact that he composes romantic style orchestral music, or for the simple fact that he composes melody focused music. You don't have to justify your stylistic preferences in any way and we must be happy for the fact that classical music offers thousands (???) of composers (including Alan Menken... or James Horner, or John Williams) and not only Bach.

Classical music is richer if it offers many different options (including the cinematic classical music) and there is no reason for which the persons inside the audience of classical music have to be forced to stay all around two or three composers and there is no reason to call "ignorant" the people who prefer minor composers/works. If someone thinks that the world of classical music must be a world of "fashions" then it means that he wants to transform classical music in popular music.
There isn't also any reason to try to expel from classical music the artists you don't like (including the composers of cinematic classical music). Just listen to the artists you like.


----------



## Forster

While we're at it, let's define 'depth'. For me (this is my opinion, not a rigorously evidenced argument, I add for the benefit of those who struggle to distinguish between the two) no piece of music is, in itself, 'deep' (in the sense of carrying some profundity of meaning).

Any piece of music can, however, provoke profound thoughts and feelings in the listener. Yes, even film music, and no, not everyone will be so provoked by Bach.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

HansZimmer said:


> _"I think the "anti-Bach statements" here were deferring to Tchaikovsky"_
> 
> What do you mean?


This post here Why do many people think that classical music composed... (the same that also brought up the "criticism of repetitions" point) - to the extent it even is aiming to "drag down Bach", it's not in relation to "FM composers" but rather within the CM canon sphere, referring to views by Tchaikovsky and Berlioz;

making the supposed "CM vs. FM" tribal narrative about this thread in posts like this:



Enthusiast said:


> There we have it. The greats are at best as good as today's Hollywood hacks and are often less good. Does this confirm that some film music buffs who compare film music with classical music are actually not that in sympathy with classical music? Belittling Mozart and Bach to big up hacks is all I needed to read to have my suspicions about this never ending argument confirmed.


fictitious, from the looks of it.


----------



## HansZimmer

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> The Morricone piece is kinda nice but I would not want to listen to it again.


Are your personal preferences the word of god? Everyone in this discussion has preferences between a piece and an other one, but not all users think that their PERSONAL preferences are the words of god.
It seems to me that many arguments of the opponents in this discussion have been basically "I don't like film music/I don't think that it's artistic and my personal preferences are the word of god. Since my personal preferences are not subjective, but they are the word of god, they must play a role in a classification that should be based in quite objective criterias".


----------



## hammeredklavier

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> This post here Why do many people think that classical music composed... (the same that also brought up the "criticism of repetitions" point) - to the extent it even is aiming to "drag down Bach", it's not in relation to "FM composers" but rather within the CM canon sphere, referring to views by Tchaikovsky and Berlioz;
> making the supposed "CM vs. FM" tribal narrative about this thread in posts like this:


How else then would one refute statements like "Bachian depth is unquestionable"? People in this thread have so far made arguments to the effect of ""Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Shostakovich, are the best" in all classical, contemporary, film music combined, (so film music cannot be classical)", as if they aren't "apples and oranges". You can't blame me for the movement of the discussion in that direction. And I said clearly- I wasn't criticizing anything as overrated. I was just describing physical observations and historical facts (ie. counterexamples to Bach admirers in history). For instance, the same phrase repeated, once per bar, for over 40 times, is clearly, a physical phenomenon that everyone can see objectively. How one takes or interprets such a thing aesthetically is subjective.


----------



## eljr

Enthusiast said:


> There we have it. The greats are at best as good as today's Hollywood hacks and are often less good. Does this confirm that some film music buffs who compare film music with classical music are actually not that in sympathy with classical music? Belittling Mozart and Bach to big up hacks is all I needed to read to have my suspicions about this never ending argument confirmed.


Honest, this post made me lol. 

I am so thankful my ears, since early adulthood, always have been unshackled from such need of tribal superiority.


----------



## Forster

HansZimmer said:


> many arguments of the opponents in this discussion have been





hammeredklavier said:


> People in this thread have so far made arguments to the effect of "


You might both advance your arguments better if you cited specific posts by specific members, rather than made vague assertions about what people are alleged to have said when, quite possibly, they haven't.


----------



## Aries

The music of the Baroque, Classical, Romantic, and Neoromantic periods are primarily different. It would be much more helpful to highlight the stylistic differences rather than speak of quality differences that are secondary. Neoromantic music has qualities Baroque music does not have and vice versa.


----------



## pianozach

HansZimmer said:


> Of course. @Luchesi for example wrote that this piece of John Williams is not classical music because there are repetitions, but with this observation he showed that he's not aware of the repetitions that there are in classical music.
> Infact the piece here below it's a fugue (or better said, a "fugal march", as stated by an other user) and fugues are almost always monothematic, which means that you will hear a simple subject repeated many times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try to compare the melodic variety of this fugue composed by Mozart at the age of 10.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...with the one of the symphony No. 6 that he composed one year later.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fugue is not bad because the subject is quite memorable, but in many fugues the subject is rudimental at the point that it's forgettable.
> 
> The reason for which I like Mozart is that most of his pieces are written in the sonata form, in the ternary form or in the rondò form. All these forms are multithematic by nature, and therefore more interesting for people who like melodic elaboration. In Mozart's music, the production of things like "fugue", "prelude and fugue", and so on... is very limited, while in the music of Bach there are entire books and works based on this kind of writing and some of them are his most celebrated works.
> 
> There are people (this forum included) who only like romantic music and who don't like baroque music. For these people Bach might be irrelevant.
> There are people, like me, who prefer music which is melodically evoluted. For us there are probably better composers than Bach.
> 
> The preferences of people are almost always based on stylistic preferences. You might prefer Alan Menken in respect to Bach for the simple fact that he composes romantic style orchestral music, or for the simple fact that he composes melody focused music. You don't have to justify your stylistic preferences in any way and we must be happy for the fact that classical offer thousands (???) of composers (including Alan Menken... or James Horner, or John Williams) and not only Bach.
> 
> Classical music is richer if it offers many different options (including the cinematic classical music) and there is no reason for which the persons inside the audience of classical music have to be forced to stay all around two or three composers and there is no reason to call "ignorant" the people who prefer minor composers/works. If someone thinks that the world of classical music must be a world of "fashions" then it means that he wants to transform classical music in popular music.
> 
> There isn't also any reason to try to expel from classical music the artists you don't like (including the composers of cinematic classical music). Just listen to the artists you like.


Right on.

I'm reminded of the Musical Theatre "war" between fans of *Andrew Lloyd Webber* and *Stephen Sondheim*.

Stylistically their individual musical foci are inherently different. 

*Lloyd Webber* writes beautiful melodies that you can hum leaving the theatre, accompanied usually by simple chords (major & minor triads and triads with an added note, or a non-triad bass), which makes them very accessible to the average person.

*Sondheim* loves shifting and subtle chord structures and complex arrangements. He also writes his own lyrics which are almost always poetic and quite excellent.

Is one better than the other? No.

*Lloyd Webber* hits: Phantom of the Opera, Evita, Jesus Christ Superstar, Joseph and the Amazing Technicolour Dreamcoat, Cats, Sunset Boulevard

*Sondheim* hits: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum, Sweeney Todd the Demon Barber of Fleet Street, Into the Woods, Company, Sunday in the Park with George, A Little Night Music, Follies. Sondheim was also the lyricist for the highly successful West Side Story and Gypsy.

They've both had their share of flops too.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

HansZimmer said:


> Are your personal preferences the word of god? Everyone in this discussion has preferences between a piece and an other one, but not all users think that their PERSONAL preferences are the words of god.
> It seems to me that many arguments of the opponents in this discussion have been basically "I don't like film music/I don't think that it's artistic and my personal preferences are the word of god. Since my personal preferences are not subjective, but they are the word of god, they must play a role in a classification that should be based in quite objective criterias".


Oh my, what we have here is a failure to differentiate an opinion from a fact ("the word of God"). I will let you decide which one is mine.

Your "argument" for considering film music classical in this thread can be summarized as "I like film music and it sounds like classical music to me so it should be considered classical". What objective criteria have you brought into your argument? If you have, I have missed them.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

hammeredklavier said:


> _"This post here Why do many people think that classical music composed... (the same that also brought up the "criticism of repetitions" point) - *to the extent it even is *aiming to "drag down Bach", it's not in relation to "FM composers" but rather within the CM canon sphere, referring to views by Tchaikovsky and Berlioz;
> making the supposed "CM vs. FM" tribal narrative about this thread in posts like this:"_
> 
> How else then would one refute statements like "Bachian depth is unquestionable"? People in this thread have so far made arguments to the effect of ""Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Shostakovich, are the best" in all classical, contemporary, film music combined, (so film music cannot be classical)", as if they aren't "apples and oranges". You can't blame me for the movement of the discussion in that direction. *And I said clearly- I wasn't criticizing anything as overrated.* I was just describing physical observations and historical facts (ie. counterexamples to Bach admirers in history).


Given how those top composers' reputation is primarily built on the verdicts by other composers (categorized as classical) and academics etc., dissenting statements from such composers or academics probably are the best way to counter those kinds of monolithic views.


However my point was simply that that post, "to the extent it even did" aim at questioning Bach's status, did this in an intra-CM context while citing other CM composers - as opposed to somehow "dragging down Bach to lift up FM composers" as portrayed by "Enthusiast", and I think a few others.

HZ has corrected that misrepresentation as well.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

janxharris said:


> You don't think this forces you to define incontrovertibly the meaning of each and every instance of such Bachian / Beethovenian depth? I, too, think there is great depth in many Beethoven pieces, but I wouldn't presume that others would / should have the same reaction.
> 
> *Is your understanding of film music definitive?*


Well, it is my understanding, the understanding of a random poster on an online forum. I'll let you decide how much weight it carries.

And yes, if I wanted to make a stronger point, I would select a few typical examples and provide some analysis and compare with example from film music ... but that is way too much work for how much I care about this topic.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

Enthusiast said:


> There we have it. The greats are at best as good as today's Hollywood hacks and are often less good. Does this confirm that some *film music buffs* who compare film music with classical music are actually not that in sympathy with classical music? Belittling Mozart and Bach to big up hacks is all I needed to read to have my suspicions about this never ending argument confirmed.


What about kinosseurs de musique pour Filmé though?


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

HansZimmer said:


> There isn't any war between concert music and film music and I don't understand why do you want to create it. I don't have to determine which is better between the two, since for me is not a meaningful discrimination.


A war? Started by my claim that film music is inferior to the symphonies of Beethoven, Brahms, Sibelius, etc. ? Why, I certainly am not that belligerent.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

Aries said:


> The music of the Baroque, Classical, Romantic, and Neoromantic periods are primarily different. It would be much more helpful to highlight the stylistic differences rather than speak of quality differences that are secondary. Neoromantic music has qualities Baroque music does not have and vice versa.


In the most immediate context of this thread, comparing the most similar and comparable FM vs. concert/opera/etc. examples would probably make the most sense - primarily in terms of those era styles, as well as various other characteristics.

Some of the juxtapositions posted here (like that Morricone / Moonlight arrangement one) haven't quite done that - though they may have had their own reasons for those choices.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Well, it is my understanding, the understanding of a random poster on an online forum. I'll let you decide how much weight it carries.
> 
> And yes, if I wanted to make a stronger point, I would select a few typical examples and provide some analysis and compare with example from film music ... but that is way too much work for how much I care about this topic.


Well that's fair enough, but it's also true that that kind of thing would really be the only thing worth posting here - since otherwise it's just a bunch of "liked this / didn't like that" or, when not even that, mostly just generic tribal bickering.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> Well that's fair enough, but it's also true that that kind of thing would really be the only thing worth posting here - since otherwise it's just a bunch of "liked this / didn't like that" or, when not even that, mostly just generic tribal bickering.


I suspect that no matter how much analysis I post, the proponents of film music are going to dismiss it as "just my preference" and use Oscar nominations to elevate film music to the same heights.


----------



## EvaBaron

Good film music can trigger the same emotions that make good classical music so appealing, like a feeling of epicness, melancholy, etc. Which doesn’t necessarily mean that film music is classical music, but I thought it was worth pointing out anyway


----------



## Forster

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Why, I certainly am not that belligerent.


Oh Yes You Are!!

(Is panto season still with us?)


----------



## HansZimmer

Forster said:


> You might both advance your arguments better if you cited specific posts by specific members, rather than made vague assertions about what people are alleged to have said when, quite possibly, they haven't.


You have followed the entire discussion and you pretend that you haven't read the many pretentious statements written by some users, including your own?



> If it were to be conceded that film music does indeed belong to the category of CM, its best examples could be judged and ranked by the TC membership in exactly the same way as are the symphonies, masses and quartets of Beethoven, Bach and Shostakovich.
> 
> I doubt that many examples would reach the top tiers.





> This discussion has been "full" of the same few of examples of film music (and generally poor quality example at that)


----------



## Luchesi

Forster said:


> Why? One is a complex piece aimed at a sophisticated adult audience - and would probably make a rubbish learning song for the nursery. Frere Jacques, on the other hand, makes for a great symphonic theme!


Ah yes. That old chestnut. It's a song that doesn't need any chords, like many children’s songs. You can play it all with ONE droning bass note. This makes it a mysterious and simple song that's fun to play or sing.

You go up the major third twice, and then you go up the minor third twice, (your brain loves this ambiguous juxtaposition, you're like a kitten chasing a shiny object) and then you end up at the highest singable point of the scale (for the 1400s) and you go down the pentatonic pattern (your brain gets a ‘confusing’ ride with that, but it’s fleeting) until you come to the two heavy beats at the end of the song - which might utilize the dominant chord, but it doesn't have to.
Wake up and say the prayers in the correct schedule, at the correct hour (it's like building huge bonfires to stop the sun from continuing south).

In the third movement of his First, Mahler changes it to the minor, and he seems to be saying remember how the children sing this innocently - but this is how Nature sings it back to them. Some experts speculate that Mahler wanted the Jewish sound to come through.. balancing the Jewish and the Church’s worldviews.


----------



## Forster

HansZimmer said:


> you pretend that you haven't read the many pretentious statements written by some users, including your own?


Well, obviously, nothing I've said has been pretentious - IMO. Much of what you've said has been tendentious - IMO.


----------



## janxharris

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Well, it is my understanding, the understanding of a random poster on an online forum. I'll let you decide how much weight it carries.
> 
> And yes, if I wanted to make a stronger point, I would select a few typical examples and provide some analysis and compare with example from film music ... but that is way too much work for how much I care about this topic.


Just to be clear, your statement that some don't understand Beethovenian depth is just an opinion? It's not fact? - both the depth _and_ the not understanding it?

If it's not fact then you aren't defining the meaning nor depth of it and nor is you understanding of film music definitive.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

janxharris said:


> Just to be clear, your statement that some don't understand Beethovenian depth is just an opinion? It's not fact? - both the depth _and_ the not understanding it?
> 
> If it's not fact then you aren't defining the meaning nor depth of it and nor is you understanding of film music definitive.


I was referring very specifically to the question if my understanding of film music is definitive.


----------



## janxharris

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> I was referring very specifically to the question if my understanding of film music is definitive.


Okay...so you don't want to reply re Beethoven's depth and some not understanding it?


----------



## HansZimmer

Forster said:


> Well, obviously, nothing I've said has been pretentious - IMO. Much of what you've said has been tendentious - IMO.


It wouldn't be pretentious in a discussion which asks your opinion about the piece/suite A. In a discussion where there is a debate about an objective classification it's pretentious to use your personal tastes as arguments, or the personal tastes of more persons as an argument, because it means that you are elevating your personal tastes to the status of objectivity.

You can't use the argument "film music can not stand on its own" or "film music is not music of quality" to argument in favour of the idea that it's not classical music, because they are only personal opinions.


----------



## HansZimmer

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> I suspect that no matter how much analysis I post, the proponents of film music are going to dismiss it as "just my preference" and use Oscar nominations to elevate film music to the same heights.


I suspect that you would select an example of a superelaborate piece of classical music and an example of a trivial piece of film music to conclude that classical music is technically superior than film music.

A part from the high risk of the logical fallacy called Cherry picking, you still have to demonstrate that "more elaborated" means "better"... and this would be probably the hardest part.

IMO it would be more useful to establish which is the line above which we can consider the elaboration "sufficient" to consider a piece respectable. I've already established that a lot of the film scores nominated at the Oscars are above the line and therefore is respectable music. The preference between the pieces above the line is subjective and a supercomplex piece is not necessarily better than a decently elaborated piece (someone might even support the idea that with philosohpy of "keep things simple" you produce better music, that the quality of music is in the notes that you DON'T PLAY and not in the notes that YOU PLAY).
The artists of galant music (Mozart included) were trying to keep music more simple in respect to the late baroque era, because they had different aesthetical ideas. Was their music inferior?

To compose music of quality means to be able to select THE RIGHT NOTES, not AS MANY NOTES AS POSSIBLE.


----------



## Forster

HansZimmer said:


> It wouldn't be pretentious in a discussion which asks your opinion about the piece/suite A. In a discussion where there is a debate about an objective classification it's pretentious to use your personal tastes as arguments, or the personal tastes of more persons as an argument, because it mean that you are elevating your personal tastes to the status of objectivity.
> 
> You can't use the argument "film music can not stand on its own" or "film music is not music of quality" to argument in favour of the idea that it's not classical music, because they are only personal opinions.


Actually, I can use any argument I wish. We're all here expressing our opinions and personal preferences. No one is putting forward an "objective" argument either way.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

janxharris said:


> Okay...so you don't want to reply re Beethoven's depth and some not understanding it?


I do. Yes, my opinion is that if someone thinks film music is as good as Beethoven's symphonies, for example, then they likely don't see the depth in Beethoven's music. By depth, I mean the structure of the music, the development of themes, the phrasing, rhythmic (syncopation, accents, layers of different note densities) and how these are used to put together a piece of music that flows from first note to last logically and coherently. If all people hear in music is melody and harmony then I can see how this can be the case.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> I suspect that no matter how much analysis I post, the proponents of film music are going to dismiss it as "just my preference" and use Oscar nominations to elevate film music to the same heights.





TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> I do. Yes, my opinion is that if someone thinks film music is as good as Beethoven's symphonies, for example, then they likely don't see the depth in Beethoven's music. By depth, I mean the structure of the music, the development of themes, the phrasing, rhythmic (syncopation, accents, layers of different note densities) and how these are used to put together a piece of music that flows from first note to last logically and coherently. If all people hear in music is melody and harmony then I can see how this can be the case.


Well, some are gonna dismiss it, others will look at it, and yet others will "put it on their list" etc. - and you can always reuse that analysis in some other context, like on another thread here etc.

But yeah prb lots of other things to do, as always lol


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

Luchesi said:


> Ah yes. That old chestnut. It's a song that doesn't need any chords, like many children’s songs. You can play it all with ONE droning bass note. This makes it a mysterious and simple song that's fun to play or sing.
> 
> You go up the major third twice, and then you go up the minor third twice, (your brain loves this ambiguous juxtaposition, you're like a kitten chasing a shiny object) and then you end up at the highest singable point of the scale (for the 1400s) and you go down the pentatonic pattern (your brain gets a ‘confusing’ ride with that, but it’s fleeting)


Wait the 5-6-5-4-3 - 1 is called a pentatonic pattern, despite the 4? Not expert in terminology, and also trying to see what might be weird sounding about that phrase rn lol



> until you come to the two heavy beats at the end of the song - which might utilize the dominant chord, but it doesn't have to.


That's the giants/Fafner / Knusperhexe theme too lol




> In the third movement of his First, Mahler changes it to the minor, and he seems to be saying remember how the children sing this innocently - but this is how Nature sings it back to them. Some experts speculate that Mahler wanted the Jewish sound to come through.. balancing the Jewish and the Church’s worldviews.


Ah, should check that out.


Think the opening phrase was used in that "Jesus, man!" scene / end credits too?


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

HansZimmer said:


> I suspect that you would select an example of a superelaborate piece of classical music and an example of a trivial piece of film music to conclude that classical music is technically superior than film music.
> 
> A part from the high risk of the logical fallacy called Cherry picking, you still have to demonstrate that "more elaborated" means "better"... and this would be probably the hardest part.
> 
> IMO it would be more useful to establish which is the line above which we can consider the elaboration "sufficient" to consider a piece respectable. I've already established that a lot of the film scores nominated at the Oscars are above the line and therefore is respectable music. The preference between the pieces above the line is subjective and a supercomplex piece is not necessarily better than a decently elaborated piece (someone might even support the idea that with philosohpy of "keep things simple" you produce better music, that the quality of music is in the notes that you DON'T PLAY and not in the notes that YOU PLAY).
> The artists of galant music (Mozart included) were trying to keep music more simple in respect to the late baroque era, because they had different asthetical ideas. Was their music inferior?
> 
> To compose music of quality means to be able to select THE RIGHT NOTES, not AS MANY NOTES AS POSSIBLE.


That's a lot of assuming on your part without any justification.

But I agree with your last sentence. Not sure why you would assume that I think the greater the number of notes the better the music. I haven't posted anything to give an indication that I value music with more notes over music with less notes. I mean that is the most ridiculous criterion to use to evaluate the quality of music; no one knowing anything about music would choose that.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> Well, some are gonna dismiss it, others will look at it, and yet others will "put it on their list" etc. - and you can always reuse that analysis in some other context, like on another thread here etc.
> 
> But yeah prb lots of other things to do, as always lol


It is not worth the effort. We have been through this same exercise in the "objectivism vs subjectivism" in music discussions. I can try to show why I think Beethoven's 3rd symphony is better music than the soundtrack to The Lord of the Rings but I will have to resort to personal preferences for tight symphonic structures and elaborate and ingenious thematic development that reward the listener over many repeated listenings over music that is written to support visual images and enhance the emotional experience of the watcher.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> It is not worth the effort. We have been through this same exercise in the "objectivism vs subjectivism" in music discussions. I can try to show why I think Beethoven's 3rd symphony is better music than the soundtrack to The Lord of the Rings but I will have to resort to personal preferences for tight symphonic structures and elaborate and ingenious thematic development that reward the listener over many repeated listenings over music that is written to support visual images and enhance the emotional experience of the watcher.


Well ultimately most of the analysis or semi-analysis posted in this thread is gonna get lost in the flood either way - largely, at least; 

however there's various sub-topics here (incl. the one you're referring to here) that would have more potential if extracted into their own threads elsewhere (if they haven't been already).


----------



## janxharris

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> I do. Yes, my opinion is that if someone thinks film music is as good as Beethoven's symphonies, for example, then they likely don't see the depth in Beethoven's music. By depth, I mean the structure of the music, the development of themes, the phrasing, rhythmic (syncopation, accents, layers of different note densities) and how these are used to put together a piece of music that flows from first note to last logically and coherently. If all people hear in music is melody and harmony then I can see how this can be the case.


I assumed you were going frame this as fact - thus, perhaps, justifying your use of 'hilarious'. Humans can and do hear music very differently do they not? No matter how much we analyse music in the way you suggest (and I'm not saying we shouldn't - I think it is good thing to do so), it's still a leap to conclude that it therefore has depth. 'Depth' to me implies that the music is dealing with some fundamental philosophical question of human life...but, of course, it takes a mind that perceives the music with some degree of similarity to the composer before it will be described in such a way. Others could have a totally different take on the same piece.

We could, for example, ask (and it has been and is still asked) did Beethoven overdo the famous motif we hear in the 5th symphony? It has not been a problem for me - but I have heard some say it is.

Some have posted about film music hack work (yes, I can agree), but what about 18th century cadential clichés? Depending on _one's focus_, such things can be problematic.


----------



## Luchesi

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> Wait the 5-6-5-4-3 - 1 is called a pentatonic pattern, despite the 4? Not expert in terminology, and also trying to see what might be weird sounding about that phrase rn lol
> 
> 
> 
> That's the giants/Fafner / Knusperhexe theme too lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, should check that out.
> 
> 
> Think the opening phrase was used in that "Jesus, man!" scene / end credits too?


You're right. It's not. But the pattern with the 4 is a more 'confusing' trick of a game for the brain.
It seems that the process is very fast, unless it's just a memory that it calls up. I imagine a brain hearing different sounds and making rapid interconnections, then when we’re satisfied that we got it logical, our brains reward us with chemicals.
[/QU


----------



## hammeredklavier

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> I do. Yes, my opinion is that if someone thinks film music is as good as Beethoven's symphonies, for example, then they likely don't see the depth in Beethoven's music. By depth, I mean the structure of the music, the development of themes, the phrasing, rhythmic (syncopation, accents, layers of different note densities) and how these are used to put together a piece of music that flows from first note to last logically and coherently. If all people hear in music is melody and harmony then I can see how this can be the case.


It's subjective. There are people (even on this forum: Why don't I like Beethoven?) who are not moved one bit by Beethoven's style of writing, but at the same time highly value Rodrigo and Takemitsu (who are supposed to be objectively "nothing" compared to Beethoven like how Williams is, according to you).

There are characteristics of Beethoven described by Bernstein in this video (although Bernstein explains later in the video why he still values Beethoven's music, even with all these characteristics of Beethoven) that people perceive differently.


----------



## hammeredklavier

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> the structure of the music, the development of themes, the phrasing, rhythmic (syncopation, accents, layers of different note densities) and how these are used to put together a piece of music that flows from first note to last logically and coherently.


Debussy doesn't do those things either.




"The music of Calude Debussy represents a divergence from the German school of music composition. The Germanic approach emphasizes form and structure, while the French approach emphasizes color, texture, mood, and atmosphere."

"Star Wars Score Analysis" (the playlist; 40 videos in all): www.youtube.com/watch?v=0z0V_7esOHE&list=PLTppbPjPyBSQXb8o_1HEhDe0FcBh-jiKW


----------



## Aries

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> I do. Yes, my opinion is that if someone thinks film music is as good as Beethoven's symphonies, for example, then they likely don't see the depth in Beethoven's music. By depth, I mean the structure of the music, the development of themes, the phrasing, rhythmic (syncopation, accents, layers of different note densities) and how these are used to put together a piece of music that flows from first note to last logically and coherently. If all people hear in music is melody and harmony then I can see how this can be the case.


I agree with you what you said about the structure. And this is not just a Beethoven thing. The structure of music was systematically better or higher developed in the common practise period compared to todays film music and neoromantic (or other non-avantgarde) concert music. (I simply ignore avant-garde music here, because it has no use dealing with it.)

This decline in structure is a important thing to detect, not difficult imo, but undermentioned.

That does not mean that the new tonal music (whether for film or concert) does not have its own advantages. Imo the new music has a more prepossessing language. But how this works in detail need to be examined.


----------



## Aries

hammeredklavier said:


> Debussy doesn't do those things either.
> 
> "The music of Calude Debussy represents a divergence from the German school of music composition. The Germanic approach emphasizes form and structure, while the French approach emphasizes color, texture, mood, and atmosphere."


Imo film music and new tonal concert works often apply exactly this impressionistic philosophy. It does not necessarily sound like Debussy (most of the time it sound different), but this mentioned approch is applied: Less form and structure, more color, texture, mood, and atmosphere. Who do others think about this?


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

hammeredklavier said:


> Debussy doesn't do those things either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The music of Calude Debussy represents a divergence from the German school of music composition. The Germanic approach emphasizes form and structure, while the French approach emphasizes color, texture, mood, and atmosphere."
> 
> "Star Wars Score Analysis" (the playlist; 40 videos in all): www.youtube.com/watch?v=0z0V_7esOHE&list=PLTppbPjPyBSQXb8o_1HEhDe0FcBh-jiKW


And I would argue that for this reason Beethoven is teh much better composer than Debussy.

However, Debussy isn't just amorphous color, texture, mood and atmosphere. In fact lots of his music has internal structure that holds the piece together. You're a fan of Bernstein's analyses of music. Here is one where he talks about the Faun. Bernstein calls it "a masterpiece of structure"


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

hammeredklavier said:


> It's subjective. There are people (even on this forum: Why don't I like Beethoven?) who are not moved one bit by Beethoven's style of writing, but at the same time highly value Rodrigo and Takemitsu (who are supposed to be objectively "nothing" compared to Beethoven like how Williams is, according to you).
> 
> There are characteristics of Beethoven described by Bernstein in this video (although Bernstein explains later in the video why he still values Beethoven's music, even with all these characteristics of Beethoven) that people perceive differently.


What is subjective is one's _reaction _to Beethoven's music. The greatness of Beethoven's music is objective, as much as anything in art can be seen as objective.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

janxharris said:


> I assumed you were going frame this as fact - thus, perhaps, justifying your use of 'hilarious'. Humans can and do hear music very differently do they not? No matter how much we analyse music in the way you suggest (and I'm not saying we shouldn't - I think it is good thing to do so), it's still a leap to conclude that it therefore has depth. 'Depth' to me implies that the music is dealing with some fundamental philosophical question of human life...but, of course, it takes a mind that perceives the music with some degree of similarity to the composer before it will be described in such a way. Others could have a totally different take on the same piece.
> 
> We could, for example, ask (and it has been and is still asked) did Beethoven overdo the famous motif we hear in the 5th symphony? It has not been a problem for me - but I have heard some say it is.
> 
> *Some have posted about film music hack work (yes, I can agree), but what about 18th century cadential clichés? *Depending on _one's focus_, such things can be problematic.


I dislike both equally. I don't like all of classical music and some of it can be quite banal and dull.


----------



## hammeredklavier

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> And I would argue that for this reason Beethoven is teh much better composer than Debussy.
> 
> However, Debussy isn't just color, texture, mood and atmosphere. In fact lots of his music has internal structure that holds the piece together. You're a fan of Bernstein's analyses of music. Here is one where he talks about the Faun. Bernstein calls it "a masterpiece of structure"


Bernstein does use the word "architecture", but the meaning can depend on the context. He discusses how tonal ambiguity resolves over the process of a 10 minute orchestral miniature. (The fact remains a lot of things Debussy wrote are French-style miniatures of "atmosphere, color, mood").
One could just as describe Williams in such a manner about his use of leitmotifs.


----------



## composingmusic

I don't agree that Debussy's music has less form and structure. Sure, it's not following exactly the formal conventions of common practice form, but to say that it doesn't have structure is inaccurate. 

If we examine Debussy's La cathédrale engloutie, which @hammeredklavier has posted a video of this here (and yes, I know that the statement about German vs. French styles does come from this same video), there's a very clear structure to this piece. The video does hint at some of these aspects of the structure.

Here's a link to the video: 




The piece actually begins at around 0:37. As the analysis has pointed out, the piece starts out with a G in the bass, over which there is a series of ascending G pentatonic chords. These exact same chords are then repeated over F, then E (voice leading down – and this is on a mid-ground structural layer rather than immediate foreground). Debussy has also engineered the G pentatonic chords so they end up on an E sonority, and then he uses this to move to a solitary E over a few octaves. From here he moves to a melodic line that's somewhat tonally ambiguous (could be heard as either C sharp minor or E major), and introduces an A sharp. The melodic line eventually returns back to an E, and then the bass note moves down to a D (again, longer term voice leading). From here, we get the same G pentatonic chords from the beginning, but over a C bass note (the bass voice has yet again moved down stepwise – 1:40 is the time stamp). 

At 1:49 the texture opens up in B pentatonic. The right hand chords are directly connected to the opening G pentatonic chords, but they've been filled in with richer harmonies. What's also interesting to consider is that the fundamental bass note has now shifted from a G to B, so that's a third relationship over a much larger time span. Proportionally, the opening 15 bars have now taken up roughly a fourth of the piece time wise. Then at bar 19, the harmony shifts abruptly to E flat (another third relationship if we respell it as a D sharp). Note how the right hand notes could be respelled as D sharps and A sharps, and this sonority is a common chord between B pentatonic and E flat major. As the video has pointed out, the harmony is almost fully pentatonic here. The texture thickens and we start getting scalar lines in the left hand. 

At 2:15 (bar 22), Debussy pulls another third relationship modulation. We're back in G now, with a hybrid of the opening chords and a transposed version of the B pentatonic chords. Debussy has also taken the left hand scalar passage in octaves from bar 20 onwards and moved it into the right hand on top of the pentatonic chords. These scales then move down in the bass, and Debussy uses this diatonic scalar motion to build up tension to bar 28. The arrival at bar 28 also feels like a V-I motion, because it's resolving from G major (with an added F, so it really feels like a dominant 7th chord) to C major. 

This is a partial analysis of the first third or so of the piece – I think you get a pretty good idea of how Debussy's using multiple structural layers and transforming material from this (or at least, hopefully I've articulated some of these points).


----------



## Forster

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> as much as anything in art can be seen as objective.


And how much is that? 

Fascinating as the discussion comparing Beethoven and Debussy is, suggesting that one's "structure" is better than the other is nonsensical, and certainly not "objective".


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

Luchesi said:


> You're right. It's not. But the pattern with the 4 is a more 'confusing' trick of a game for the brain.
> It seems that the process is very fast, unless it's just a memory that it calls up. I imagine a brain hearing different sounds and making rapid interconnections, then when we’re satisfied we got it logical, our brains reward us with chemicals.
> [/QU


Ah you mean like the brain expects a 6-5-3 and gets confused by the added 4?

Hm, probably does happen sometimes - can't really relate to that though, maybe if I heard some tune that does 6-5-3 and then creates such an expectation for Jacob? Sth Asian maybe?
Currently that just makes me think of the Toreador lol, so yeah I'm on a different wavelength there it looks.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> I dislike both equally. I don't like all of classical music and some of it can be quite banal and dull.


??!


----------



## Luchesi

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> Ah you mean like the brain expects a 6-5-3 and gets confused by the added 4?
> 
> Hm, probably does happen sometimes - can't really relate to that though, maybe if I heard some tune that does 6-5-3 and then creates such an expectation for Jacob? Sth Asian maybe?
> Currently that just makes me think of the Toreador lol, so yeah I'm on a different wavelength there it looks.


Yes, the pentatonic pattern might already be in memory, in the right key, IDK. But if it isn't, how are the frequencies recognized in pure relationships with the rest of the song? You're right I think, the conception is shifted in a flash, very quickly and beneath our conscious notice, with the added 4.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

Luchesi said:


> But if it isn't, how are the frequencies recognized in pure relationships with the rest of the song?


Not quite sure what that means? The tonic (and maybe 5th too) in the bass provides the orientation obviously.

Or maybe the kids think it's phrygian lol


----------



## Luchesi

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> Not quite sure what that means? The tonic (and maybe 5th too) in the bass provides the orientation obviously.
> 
> Or maybe the kids think it's phrygian lol


It's difficult on this bare level to describe what's going on, as the brain discriminates between notes and the important notes. If you've never heard the tune before, how does it get 'familiar' so quickly. 

Yes, Stop the Hate (STH), I believe we're the only intelligent beings within 20 million trillion miles.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

hammeredklavier said:


> Bernstein does use the word "architecture", but the meaning can depend on the context. He discusses how tonal ambiguity resolves over the process of a 10 minute orchestral miniature. (The fact remains a lot of things Debussy wrote are French-style miniatures of "atmosphere, color, mood").
> One could just as describe Williams in such a manner about his use of leitmotifs.


I don't see the similarities in structure between Debussy's Faun and Williams' use of the Imperial March leitmotif. I'm not even sure what you're trying to show here. Debussy's music is clearly classical and has a clear structure that holds the pieces together. Yes, it relies more on atmosphere and color but it isn't without form.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Forster said:


> And how much is that?
> 
> Fascinating as the discussion comparing Beethoven and Debussy is, suggesting that one's "structure" is better than the other is nonsensical, and certainly not "objective".


One invariably has to resort to using personal values about music to assess the quality of it. If I say Beethoven's 3rd symphony is better music than Frosty The Snowman song, I would have to acknowledge that I value well-structured and elaborately-developed themes that show a supreme mastery of the musical language more than catchy Christmas carols. But that is a subjective criteria by which to judge music, even though many would agree that it makes sense.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> ??!


???


----------



## hammeredklavier

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> I don't see the similarities in structure between Debussy's Faun and Williams' use of the Imperial March leitmotif. I'm not even sure what you're trying to show here. Debussy's music is clearly classical and has a clear structure that holds the pieces together. Yes, it relies more on atmosphere and color but it isn't without form.


Heck, improvisations with tonal schemes can be thought to have structure; (a lot of such have been formally labelled "fantasies", in classical music). The point is that Debussy doesn't do motivic development like Beethoven; doing things like Beethoven is not a requirement for music to be classical, just as doing things like Debussy is not a requirement. Leitmotifs that constantly develop and give different shades of feeling throughout the overall structure of "intro - conflict - resolution" —It could be argued all Monteverdi does is a series of recitatives, choruses, ritornelli by comparison. Maybe we're judging "incidental music" (dictionaries include "film" in their definition) by the wrong yardsticks.


----------



## composingmusic

hammeredklavier said:


> Heck, improvisations with tonal schemes can be thought to have structure; (a lot of such have been formally labelled "fantasies", in classical music). The point is that Debussy doesn't do motivic development like Beethoven; doing things like Beethoven is not a requirement for music to be classical, just as doing things like Debussy is not a requirement. Leitmotifs that constantly develop and give different shades of feeling throughout the overall structure of "intro - conflict - resolution" —It could be argued all Monteverdi does is a series of recitatives, choruses, ritornelli by comparison. Maybe we're judging "incidental music" (dictionaries include "film" in their definition) by the wrong yardsticks.


Motivic is far from the only way to create structures. See my comment on how Debussy is creating structural hierarchy on multiple different structural levels, while taking recognisable material and transforming it. I don’t think it would be feasible to expect someone to do something this structurally complex and structurally tight in an improvisation, just saying.


----------



## hammeredklavier

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> One invariably has to resort to using personal values about music to assess the quality of it. If I say Beethoven's 3rd symphony is better music than Frosty The Snowman song, I would have to acknowledge that I value well-structured and elaborately-developed themes that show a supreme mastery of the musical language more than catchy Christmas carols. But that is a subjective criteria by which to judge music, even though many would agree that it makes sense.


I'm not trying to make anything seem overrated, but think of it this way— what if those so-called "greats" were really just gifted entertainers (just in a different way from Williams), and regardless of how good and well-thought-out their work can be shown to be by analysis, the "sentiments" expressed are "outdated" and are inevitably "niche" today? This article by Denk on the Goldbergs (npr.org/sections/deceptivecadence), for example, made me ponder such questions (I'm not saying Denk is the ultimate arbiter on matters of Bach, or suggesting Bach is overrated in any way, with this). In such a perspective, wouldn't the things seem like "apples and oranges"?


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

Luchesi said:


> It's difficult on this bare level to describe what's going on, as the brain discriminates between notes and the important notes. If you've never heard the tune before, how does it get 'familiar' so quickly.
> 
> Yes, Stop the Hate (STH), I believe we're the only intelligent beings within 20 million trillion miles.


Ah, hm, maybe it's deja-vu - woah. 
Who knows!


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

hammeredklavier said:


> I'm not trying to make anything seem overrated, but think of it this way— what if those so-called "greats" were really just gifted entertainers (just in a different way from Williams), and regardless of how good their work can shown to be by analysis, the "sentiments" expressed are "outdated"? This article by Denk on the Goldbergs (npr.org/sections/deceptivecadence), for example, made me ponder such questions (I'm not saying Denk is the ultimate arbiter on matters of Bach, or suggesting Bach is overrated in any way).
> 
> "Bach takes us out of this darkest place with a blaze of light, five variations each more ecstatic than the last. How much happier am I supposed to get? The capstone of these is the Quodlibet, with its good humor and generosity of spirit, reenacting (so they say) Bach family parties where they would mash up various tunes, dazzle each other with contrapuntal mastery. Now, the words of the tunes are perhaps jokes, references that we can probably no longer get; everyone has their own idea what it all means. This lost joke which no one agrees about is the last laughing straw for me."​


I am the ultimate arbiter of what music I like and what I don't like. If everyone in the world started saying Bach is outdated and we should start listening to Glass instead, it would not change anything in my preference. Now, consider this: I have access to all the music in the world from ancient airs to current pop and I choose to listen to Bach over the vast majority of modern music. Why? Did someone tell me to? Am I brainwashed by the classical music snobs? No. I choose to listen to Bach because his music stimulates me emotionally and intellectually much more than modern music. Not all of Bach but his keyboard music when played on the piano, including, no, especially, The Goldbergs, is as good as music gets to my ears, inside family jokes lost on me or whatever notwithstanding.


----------



## Forster

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> If I say Beethoven's 3rd symphony is better music than Frosty The Snowman song,


And it's only here that you might even consider making such a statement. Presuming you have nothing against Frosty The Snowman per se, you would accept that it's a perfectly acceptable tune for humming along to in the shops at Christmas, but falls short of expectation when you're wanting something more than a hummable festive song. In other words, you honour the idea that form and function determine quality and usefulness.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

I think the whole "objective level vs. personal values" dilemma can be resolved by simply instead posing the question:
"What is X good_ at_?"

And that would include all kinds of things, from any kind of "objective" trait (like e.g. symmetry), to the appeal to / effect on a particular mindset/mood/expectation in a listener.

And then whose Y is holier than everybody else's, can be sort of discussed as an aside lol



These same kinds of debates are ranging out there over movies and film criticism, particularly lately in connection to the MauLer crew - and the same "solution" is applicable to those as well.


----------



## Forster

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> MauLer crew


??


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

Forster said:


> ??


Movie critic YTer, does podcasts with his regular guests/buddies etc. - known for talking about objective vs. subjective all the time, and trying to establish some kind of "objective quality" system based primarily on plot consistency / script supremacy.


----------



## janxharris

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> I dislike both equally. I don't like all of classical music and some of it can be quite banal and dull.


Yet you would have to affirm such 18th century composers (at least Mozart and Haydn) as objectively great since you have done so already with Beethoven. Isn't this a contradiction? - you dislike film music just as much you said.


----------



## Forster

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> Movie critic YTer, does podcasts with his regular guests/buddies etc. - known for talking about objective vs. subjective all the time, and trying to establish some kind of "objective quality" system based primarily on plot consistency / script supremacy.


Thanks. Does he 'rage' or 'praise' a range of movies, or does he focus only on sci-fi/fantasy? It seems not, from my first glance at his channel. That would suggest to me - thinking about the OP under consideration - that we'd end up talking only about one or two composers again.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

Forster said:


> Thanks. Does he 'rage' or 'praise' a range of movies, or does he focus only on sci-fi/fantasy? It seems not, from my first glance at his channel. That would suggest to me - thinking about the OP under consideration - that we'd end up talking only about one or two composers again.


There's definitely a focus on "blockbuster genre franchises", but I don't know his/their full range atm.


----------



## HansZimmer

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> I do. Yes, my opinion is that if someone thinks film music is as good as Beethoven's symphonies, for example, then they likely don't see the depth in Beethoven's music. By depth, I mean the structure of the music, the development of themes, the phrasing, rhythmic (syncopation, accents, layers of different note densities) and how these are used to put together a piece of music that flows from first note to last logically and coherently. If all people hear in music is melody and harmony then I can see how this can be the case.


I don't care about form, to be honest. For me the music of quality is the one which is emotionally powerful. The quality that I see in the music of Beethoven and Mozart is the emotional power and IMO their music would be great even if it wouldn't follow rigid forms (sonata, ternary, rondò,...).

There are probably examples of film music that follow these forms, but I don't care and I won't use the form as argument, as for me it's irrelevant in the determination of quality. I also think that in incidental music in general doesn't make sense to follow mathematical forms, because the progression of melody/harmony/rythm must follow the narrative, not mathematical schemes.
If I wanted to argument about the quality of film music I would explain how the composers use clever techniques to reach the highest level of expressivity and to give a strong emotional impact: I think that the film music composers are an excellence in regard to this.

That said, I don't see why all the classical music composers should use the compositional approach of Beethoven to be valid composers. It looks a bit Beethoven centric your point of view (or germanic centric, or classical period centric, if you prefer). Is innovation not a part of the artistry? Is any classical music composer supposed to copy Beethoven, instead of creating his own language and his own qualities?


----------



## HansZimmer

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> And I would argue that for this reason Beethoven is teh much better composer than Debussy.


I think that your view of music is monodimensional.


----------



## fbjim

I do not know why it's necessary to compare Debussy against Beethoven as if they're in competition.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

janxharris said:


> Yet you would have to affirm such 18th century composers (at least Mozart and Haydn) as objectively great since you have done so already with Beethoven. Isn't this a contradiction? - you dislike film music just as much you said.


Sure, Mozart and Haydn are great. It's not like all they wrote was cadential cliches.

And my statement about film music needs a slight correction: film music has its place, which is in films to support the story. I find it not worth listening to outside the context of films, for the vast majority of cases,


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Forster said:


> And it's only here that you might even consider making such a statement. Presuming you have nothing against Frosty The Snowman per se, you would accept that it's a perfectly acceptable tune for humming along to in the shops at Christmas, but falls short of expectation when you're wanting something more than a hummable festive song. In other words, you honour the idea that form and function determine quality and usefulness.


Indeed I do. And going back to the seminal topic of this thread, film music's usefulness is in films, not as standalone music one would listen to the way one does with a Beethoven symphony, for example.


----------



## Forster

Surely "Beethoven" and "Debussy" are simply being used as representative examples of "significant composers with great reputations as writers of what is largely accepted as CM". No one is seriously focusing on these two individuals and making specific comparisons with FM...are they?


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Let's not get distracted by my Beethoven example. It was just an example and I could have used Bach or Sibelius or Debussy(big fan of his music even if I like Beethoven better) or Chopin or any number of other established greats of CM.


----------



## Aries

Forster said:


> Surely "Beethoven" and "Debussy" are simply being used as representative examples of "significant composers with great reputations as writers of what is largely accepted as CM". No one is seriously focusing on these two individuals and making specific comparisons with FM...are they?


I am making a comparison between Debussy and film music. Debussy and most film music have both a impressionistic approch in comparison to Beethoven.


----------



## fbjim

Which film music? Does John Carpenter's theme to Assault on Precinct 13 have a similar approach to Debussy?


----------



## HansZimmer

hammeredklavier said:


> Bernstein does use the word "architecture", but the meaning can depend on the context. He discusses how tonal ambiguity resolves over the process of a 10 minute orchestral miniature. (The fact remains a lot of things Debussy wrote are French-style miniatures of "atmosphere, color, mood").
> One could just as describe Williams in such a manner about his use of leitmotifs.


Can I suggest that in film music not necessarily you see the transformation of the leitmotif in the single piece and that you have to listen to the full suite in order to see how a leitmotif is used ans transformed throughout the suite? It's a tiring job, because a suite can be as long as a hour or even more, and I doubt that the people who are biased towards film music have ever listened to an entire suite.
Maybe they have, but the point is an other one: to say that the value of classical music is all inside determined compositional practices as the one described in the last paragraph is a monodimensional view.

I'm not a composer, but I have studied a bit things like the sonata form and it looks too much like a cooking recipe to my eyes. It doesn't loook so much original to put always the notes inside a predetermined square.
Were Beethoven and Mozart good composers BECAUSE they put the notes in a square or DESPITE of this? I'd opt for the second: their music is emotionally powerful DESPITE the fact that it's squared. It's a bit like to say that an artist is good DESPITE the fact that he's in prison with a limited freedom of movement.

I think that you are right that in some film scores you can see some references to forms of the classical period, but IMO the fact that the film music composers can put the notes inside a circle, or inside a triangle, or inside a star, or when they want, inside a square like the composers of the classical period, is a point in their favor and not a something which belittles their music.

Now, do we want to speak about the emotional power of the music of the major film music composers and how they use clever technique to reach the highest level of expressivity and builiding very effective dramatic arcs? This is IMO where you see their excellence in musical composition.


----------



## fbjim

Sonata form shouldn't be thought of as a square that composers compressed their music into. It was the opposite - it developed as a consequence of composers attempting to introduce elements of drama and narrative into abstract music, while still maintaining a level of thematic coherence. 

In fact IIRC it wasn't until far after the classical period where the "rules" of Sonata form were actually written out.


----------



## Luchesi

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> One invariably has to resort to using personal values about music to assess the quality of it. If I say Beethoven's 3rd symphony is better music than Frosty The Snowman song, I would have to acknowledge that I value well-structured and elaborately-developed themes that show a supreme mastery of the musical language more than catchy Christmas carols. But that is a subjective criteria by which to judge music, even though many would agree that it makes sense.


Subjective conclusions often differ widely among all types of listeners, therefore what can they tell us? What's reliable? And of course, what's confusing?

We're impressed by a composer. We have a funny need to know how he did what he did. What's that about? We want to know his different works so we don't miss something significant, perhaps. It's all from the objective facts in the scores. What else is there?? Nobody says what else there is, or I missed it..


----------



## Aries

fbjim said:


> Which film music? Does John Carpenter's theme to Assault on Precinct 13 have a similar approach to Debussy?


It is not classical music, it has not Debussys personal style, and it does not have the bluriness and modernist aspect of historical french impressionism. But there are some impressionistic aspects to it:





At 0:35 an instrument enters which is used in an impressionistic way. After 1-2 minutes the piece gets repetitive and focused on the transmission of a mood. The soft repetitive ending is also impressionistic. A composer like Beethoven would have played around much more with motives and development. So the piece has impressionistic traits, but there are obviously many differences to Debussy who was impressionistic as well.


----------



## HansZimmer

fbjim said:


> Sonata form shouldn't be thought of as a square that composers compressed their music into. It was the opposite - it developed as a consequence of composers attempting to introduce elements of drama and narrative into abstract music, while still maintaining a level of thematic coherence.
> 
> In fact IIRC it wasn't until far after the classical period where the "rules" of Sonata form were actually written out.


At some point in this discussion I wrote that the sonata form forced the composers of the classical period to be creative, because the exposition is projected to force you in writing more themes (Theme 1 - Transition - Theme 2 - Coda) and the in the development section the themes are transformed (and sometimes new themes are also inserted in the development).
So it's not that I don't see the point of such forms, but I also wrote that the modern composers (whether they write concert works or film music) don't necessarily have to follow such rigid forms, but this doesn't mean that they shouldn't take inspiration from the thematic creativity that similar forms have produced.

Take for example the closure of this Oscar winning score of Alan Menken. Once the melody leave a theme, it doesn't never return to the same exact theme. When a theme is reprised, it's varied in different ways in respect to the previous episodes.
It's not written in the sonata form, but this doesn't mean that it continously repeat a static theme. In reality, if it was written in the sonata form, the themes would be repeated three times in the same way.

The form is not squared/symmetric, so someone who likes symmetry might say that it's a bad composition, but I personally don't care of things like symmetry. You might even support the idea that without symmetry a composition is less predictable.

The reason for which the score won the Oscar is that many persons (including myself and the judges of the Academy Awards) consider the themes and their orchestrations as stunningly beatiful and the composition in general as emotionally impactful, especially the two climaxes after the minute 3:48 (the second one just before the closure of the piece). Of course not everyone will like the music, but I don't think that there is any piece of music that is liked by everyone (not even the fifth symphony of Beethoven).
That said, my approach as a listener is 1 minute of analysis Vs 120 minutes of listening and I think that it's the most natural approach to music, unless you don't want to learn composition.
I think that some people simply try to rationalize why they like something, so they use analytical arguments, but the analytical observations don't really explain why they are moved by the music.


----------



## fbjim

What I'm saying is that classical period composers were not taught a rigid sonata form and attempted to compress their music to fit in it. Composers like CPE Bach and Haydn innovated in their use of motivic development to produce musical narrative and drama, and sonata form emerged as a result of that.


----------



## Forster

HansZimmer said:


> The reason for which the score won the Oscar is that many persons (including myself and the judges of the Academy Awards)


The reason the film won was because it best met the criteria applying at the time.

It's interesting to note what Wiki records on the subject.



> Following the wins of four Walt Disney Feature Animation films in six years from 1990 to 1995 (_The Little Mermaid_, _Beauty and the Beast_, _Aladdin_, and _The Lion King_) during a period called the Disney Renaissance, it was decided to once again split the Best Original Score category by genres, this time by combining comedies and musicals together. As Alan Bergman, *the chairman of the Academy's music branch said, "People were voting for the songs, not the underscores. We felt that Academy members outside the music branch didn't distinguish between the two. So when a score like The Lion King is competing against a drama like Forrest Gump, it's apples and oranges – not in the quality of the score, but in the way it functions in the movie. There's a big difference.*"[5] The category was therefore split into Best Original Dramatic Score and Best Original Musical or Comedy Score in 1996. This change proved unpopular in the other branches of the Academy as Charles Bernstein, chairman of the Academy's rules committee, noted that "no other Oscar category depended on a film's genre" and "the job of composing an underscore for a romantic comedy is not substantially different from working on a heavy drama."[5] This split was reverted in 2000.
> 
> In 2020, rules were changed to require that a film's score include a minimum of 60% original music. Franchise films and sequels must include a minimum of 80% new music.[6] In 2021, the rules were changed again, lowering the minimum percentage of original music from 60% to 35% of the total music in the film.[7]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_Award_for_Best_Original_Score#cite_note-7

Even the Academy can't make up its mind what the criteria should be, nor even the title of the awards. Here are the rules for the 2023 awards:

95aa_music_rules.pdf (oscars.org) 

Here are some extracts:



> I. CATEGORIES A. Original Score: An original score is *a substantial body of music that serves as original dramatic underscoring* and is written specifically for the motion picture by the submitting composer(s).





> II. ELIGIBILITY A. The work must be *the result of a creative interaction between the filmmaker(s) and the composer(s) *and/or songwriter(s) who have been engaged to work directly on the motion picture.





> B. A score must be *created specifically for the eligible feature-length motion picture* and comprise a minimum of 35% of the total music in the film.
> C. In cases such as *sequels and franchises from any media, the score must consist of more than 80% newly composed music which does not contain any pre-existing themes* borrowed from previous scores in the franchise.
> D. The work *must be recorded for use in the motion picture prior to any other usage*, including public performance or exploitation through any media whatsoever





> IV. VOTING A. Works shall be *judged on their effectiveness, craftsmanship, creative substance and relevance to the dramatic whole, and only as presented within the motion picture. Extended, revised, enhanced or alternate versions outside of the film shall not be considered*.


So, whatever the audience thinks, it's clear to the academy and the FM composers what the rules are.


----------



## Forster

Aries said:


> Debussy and most film music


So, you're still claiming to have a handle on "most film music" even though we already established that you don't - at least, not in its rightful context, supporting the movie.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

fbjim said:


> What I'm saying is that classical period composers were not taught a rigid sonata form and attempted to compress their music to fit in it. Composers like CPE Bach and Haydn innovated in their use of motivic development to produce musical narrative and drama, and sonata form emerged as a result of that.


Well the "sonata form" emerged out an earlier loose baroque form (where the "development" flew into a reprise of the "exposition's" latter half).


----------



## DaveM

Returning to something to do with the OP:

Since the same few composers and/or works keep being mentioned in this long thread, these are some works that have never been mentioned (some of the composers have also never been mentioned) to show that some soundtrack works can be appreciated alone even if one is not familiar with the movie. They are in my library of movie theme music edited into suites on 15 CDRs over the last 2+ decades.

In addition, for the most part, these are fully fleshed out works, not some snippets. And they are works for the period of circa 1985 to 2010 as I have mentioned in the past. There is more to film music than the ‘old’ film music before the 80s and the same 2 or 3 composers frequently mentioned.

William Ross: Tuck Everlasting, Main Theme (2002)





Christopher Young: Something the Lord Made, Main Theme (HBO movie 2004)





Richard Marvin: U571, Main Theme (2000)





William Ross: My Dog Skip, Main Title (2000)





Randy Edelman: Gods and Generals (2003)


----------



## HansZimmer

Forster said:


> The reason the film won was because it best met the criteria applying at the time.
> 
> It's interesting to note what Wiki records on the subject.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_Award_for_Best_Original_Score#cite_note-7


The choice of splitting the award has been criticized and someone might suspect that the real reason of it is that the Disney was winning too many musical awards. Between 1996 and 1999 the scores of the Disney animated films were placed inside the award "Best original musical or comedy score" and they went on winning the award, so the great dramatic films of Hollywood didn't have to compete with the Disney. It was a mafia maneuver.

It's not difficult to understand the difference between the underscore and the songs, so it was only an excuse IMO. Even if it was true that the judges outside the musical branch used to confuse the songs with the underscore, it would be still true that the score was nominated by the musical branch, which means that the composers recognized the artistic value of the underscore.



> Even the Academy can't make up its mind what the criteria should be, nor even the title of the awards. Here are the rules for the 2023 awards:
> 
> 95aa_music_rules.pdf (oscars.org)
> 
> Here are some extracts:
> 
> So, whatever the audience thinks, it's clear to the academy and the FM composers what the rules are.


Infact I posted the original score, not a concert arrangement. I think that the original score contains good music. What's the point?


----------



## Aries

Forster said:


> So, you're still claiming to have a handle on "most film music" even though we already established that you don't - at least, not in its rightful context, supporting the movie.


You don't need to know a "substantial amount" of something exactly in order to make projections about the whole thing. Think about opinion polls. They ask like 1000 people to make projections about the whole electorat. What I call an impressionistic tendency in film music is quite pronounced, so I think I know enough of it to make this particular assessment. In some cases it is less pronounced like in the case of John Williams or Bernard Herrmann. Their approch seems more german.


----------



## mikeh375

DaveM said:


> Returning to something to do with the OP:
> 
> Since the same few composers and/or works keep being mentioned in this long thread, these are some works that have never been mentioned (some of the composers have also never been mentioned) to show that some soundtrack works can be appreciated alone even if one is not familiar with the movie. They are in my library of movie theme music edited into suites on 15 CDRs over the last 2+ decades.
> 
> In addition, for the most part, these are fully fleshed out works, not some snippets. And they are works for the period of circa 1985 to 2010 as I have mentioned in the past. There is more to film music than the ‘old’ film music before the 80s and the same 2 or 3 composers frequently mentioned.
> 
> William Ross: Tuck Everlasting, Main Theme (2002)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christopher Young: Something the Lord Made, Main Theme (HBO movie 2004)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Richard Marvin: U571, Main Theme (2000)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> William Ross: My Dog Skip, Main Title (2000)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Randy Edelman: Gods and Generals (2003)


The Chris Young is quite lovely overall. I remember some session players telling me that he can write wonderful lush tunes but had got himself pigeon-holed into writing horror.


----------



## Forster

HansZimmer said:


> What's the point?


Yes indeed, what's the point? 



Aries said:


> You don't need to know a "substantial amount" of something exactly in order to make projections about the whole thing.


Of course. You can have an opinion on anything you like, whether you know anything about it or not.


----------



## Bulldog

I continue to maintain that the music composed for a movie is best characterized as film music because its function is to enhance a movie's enjoyment by the audience. Some of it is classical, some jazz, some pop, some hip-hop/rap, but all of it is film music which is a very large category.


----------



## Aries

Forster said:


> Of course. You can have an opinion on anything you like, whether you know anything about it or not.


Humans would die without justified prejudices, projections and common sense, did you know that?

Also this forum thread is no scientific publication, so statements are allowed to be more risky. Preliminary theses in exchange with others are important for gaining truth. When you are 95% sure about something, why not stating it even in a provocative way? It can be a good way to gain knowledge. Others can argue agianst it and you can learn from it. But your post are rather useless in this regard.


----------



## HansZimmer

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Oh my, what we have here is a failure to differentiate an opinion from a fact ("the word of God"). I will let you decide which one is mine.
> 
> Your "argument" for considering film music classical in this thread can be summarized as "I like film music and it sounds like classical music to me so it should be considered classical". What objective criteria have you brought into your argument? If you have, I have missed them.


My argument is not "I like film music and so it's classical music". It's an unhonest way to report my arguments.

My arguments are focused in instruments, language, aesthetic and techniques.
I've posted an article: Cinematic Classical - Music genre



> *Cinematic Classical*
> 
> This genre describes the style of orchestral compositions generally associated with soundtracks to modern high-budget films, games, and other non-live media. It has its roots in Western Classical Music, particularly late Romanticism, taking inspiration from the dramatism, large orchestra, use of leitmotif, and emotiveness of the genre. There is also a notable influence from Modern Classical, with its common focus on atmosphere and texture over melody. Additionally, non-classical sources such as Traditional Folk Music, Jazz and modern popular music are often incorporated into the orchestral setting, generally to set the location, themes or time period of the accompanying media. The style is played with a large symphonic orchestra, with additional modern and non-Western instruments included if required by the composer. Whilst this form of music is associated strongly with soundtracks, not every example of it is a soundtrack, and not every orchestral soundtrack fits this style.
> 
> The development of synchronised sound allowed full symphony orchestras to accompany films, not bound by the size of a cinema. Most films of the period of the 1930s and 1940s were scored with a combination of Easy Listening and operatic romanticism, particularly influenced by Richard Wagner and Richard Strauss. Some early examples exist of scores beginning to fuse romantic and modern classical for dramatic effect however, such as Wolfgang Zeller's score to the 1932 horror film _Vampyr_.
> 
> The 1950s was the decade where mainstream soundtracks begun to move away from pure romanticism, into the more modern and eclectic approach described by this grouping. In this period, composers such as Miklós Rózsa begun using musicological research to inform their works to create soundtracks that would fit better with a film's setting. Composers who studied with or were influenced by avant-garde modern classical composers also began to emerge. They used new techniques like atonality, unresolved dissonance and even Serialism in their works, though not to the extent that the soundtrack would be inaccessible to the general public. Particularly influential from this time were Bernard Herrmann's works for filmmaker Alfred Hitchcock, including _Vertigo_ and _Psycho_.
> 
> This approach to orchestral music became the standard. For example, Ennio Morricone's soundtrack to _Il buono, il brutto, il cattivo [The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly]_ fuses melodic symphonic orchestral sections with tense, dissonant modernism and non-classical sources that indicate location such as Mexican Folk Music and Western music, creating the widely known sound of Spaghetti Western. John Williams fused the sweeping late period romanticism of 'Golden Age' Hollywood scores with melodic symphonic bombast, sections of 20th century atonality and dissonant cluster chords. The incorporation of some Electronic elements into the orchestral setting became common as synthesizers and digital technology became more widely accessible, for example Wendy Carlos's soundtrack to _TRON_. Minimalism was another important later influence on the style, with Hans Zimmer's soundtrack to _Inception_ very clearly showing the incorporation of the genre in its repetitive nature under the Epic Music style. Note, however, that not all modern orchestral soundtracks fit this style, such as the score to _The Shining_ which is more purely derived from avant-garde modern classical, and the score to _The Age of Innocence_ which returns to classical romanticism to fit its setting.
> 
> Whilst mostly associated with films, the style can be found in other media. In television, the style is used mostly in cinematic, fictional series, with examples including _Star Trek_, _Game of Thrones_ and _Lost_. Video games were initially bound by their technical limitations, though attempts were made to recreate the style in certain adventure games such as _I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream_. Later, pre-recorded soundtracks were made possible, which allowed for orchestral soundtracks, with examples of this style being found in games such as _Halo 3_ and _Shadow of the Colossus_.



Finally, to add something new to the discussion, I will also ask ChatGPT about it.

*Has original classical ever been composed for a film score? If yes, give me ten examples.*

_Yes, many classical compositions have been written specifically for film scores. Here are ten examples of original classical compositions that were created for films:_


_"Also sprach Zarathustra" by Richard Strauss - This famous classical piece was used as the main theme for the film 2001: A Space Odyssey._
_"Jaws" by John Williams - This iconic score was written for the film Jaws and features a simple, repeating melody that has become synonymous with the film._
_"The Godfather" by Nino Rota - This classical composition was written for the film The Godfather and has become one of the most iconic and widely recognized film scores in history._
_"Out of Africa" by John Barry - This beautiful and evocative score was written for the film Out of Africa and won an Academy Award for Best Original Score._
_"The Planets" by Gustav Holst - This classical suite was used as the score for the film The Invasion of the Body Snatchers._
_"Requiem for a Dream" by Clint Mansell - This powerful and emotional score was written for the film Requiem for a Dream and features a mix of classical and electronic elements._
_"E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial" by John Williams - This memorable and sentimental score was written for the film E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial and has become one of Williams' most iconic works._
_"The Red Balloon" by Michel Legrand - This beautiful and whimsical score was written for the film The Red Balloon and features a mix of classical and jazz elements._
_"The Elephant Man" by John Morris - This moving and poignant score was written for the film The Elephant Man and helped to enhance the emotional impact of the film._
_"The Truman Show" by Philip Glass - This minimalist and atmospheric score was written for the film The Truman Show and helped to create a sense of unease and mystery_.


----------



## Forster

I see ChatGPT is as unreliable as the OP.


----------



## HansZimmer

Forster said:


> I see ChatGPT is as unreliable as the OP.


Why?


----------



## Forster

HansZimmer said:


> Why?


Really? You've checked the list and see no errors in it?


----------



## HansZimmer

Forster said:


> Really? You've checked the list and see no errors in it?


The only error I see is that in the list there also examples of classical music USED in films and not only example of ORIGINAL classical music COMPOSED SPECIFICALLY for film scores. However, the BOT explicitly uses the word "USED", so it's only a partial error. What else?

In the website there is the notice that the BOT might make some mistakes sometimes, but this doesn't mean that he understands nothing. After a lot of testing, I see it as more reliable than most humans. Afterall, has ben trained with extensive material, including content of books.

However, why do you say that I'm not reliable?


----------



## HansZimmer

*What is cinematic classical? (ChatGPT)*

"Cinematic classical" is a term that is often used to describe classical music that is used in film scores or that is inspired by film music. This type of music is characterized by its use of traditional classical music forms and techniques, such as melody, harmony, and counterpoint, but may also incorporate elements of other musical styles, such as electronic music or popular music. Cinematic classical music is often used to underscore or enhance the emotional impact of a film, and can range from sweeping, epic pieces to intimate and introspective melodies. Some well-known examples of cinematic classical music include the scores of John Williams, Hans Zimmer, and Alexandre Desplat.


----------



## HansZimmer

*Are symphonic film scores a form of neoromantic music? (ChatGPT)*

_Symphonic film scores can sometimes be classified as neoromantic music, which is a term used to describe music that is influenced by the Romantic musical tradition but that is composed in a more contemporary style. Neoromantic music often incorporates elements of traditional Romantic music, such as sweeping melodies, rich harmonies, and elaborate orchestration, but may also incorporate elements of other musical styles, such as electronic music or popular music.

Not all symphonic film scores would necessarily be classified as neoromantic music, as the term is generally used to describe music that is more closely aligned with the Romantic musical tradition. However, many symphonic film scores do draw on elements of Romantic music and could be considered neoromantic in nature. Some well-known examples of neoromantic film scores include the scores of John Williams, Hans Zimmer, and Alexandre Desplat._


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Delete. Not as funny as I initially thought.


----------



## fbjim

well among other issues I'm virtually certain a chatbot is not a reliable musicological source


----------



## composingmusic

Also Sprach Zarathustra was not originally written for a film, to start off...


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

fbjim said:


> well among other issues I'm virtually certain a chatbot is not a reliable musicological source


OP is grasping at straws.


----------



## Forster

HansZimmer said:


> why do you say that I'm not reliable?


Your argumentation, your analogies, your inability to accommodate others' arguments, your reliance on a handful of examples...



HansZimmer said:


> the BOT explicitly uses the word "USED", so it's only a partial error


But at the top of the list it says 



HansZimmer said:


> Here are ten examples of original classical compositions that were created for films:


----------



## hammeredklavier

Forster said:


> Your argumentation, your analogies, your inability to accommodate others' arguments, your reliance on a handful of examples...


This seems unfair. There have been several good points made in support of his position, which kept getting ignored by the opposing side. For instance,


YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> But when the director is also the composer (John Carpenter) then it suddenly becomes something entirely different, and we're supposed to give his scores 100 times more weight than to those by non-director composers?


----------



## Forster

hammeredklavier said:


> There have been several good points made in support of his position,


By other people.


----------



## hammeredklavier

------------


----------



## Luchesi

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> I am the ultimate arbiter of what music I like and what I don't like. If everyone in the world started saying Bach is outdated and we should start listening to Glass instead, it would not change anything in my preference. Now, consider this: I have access to all the music in the world from ancient airs to current pop and I choose to listen to Bach over the vast majority of modern music. Why? Did someone tell me to? Am I brainwashed by the classical music snobs? No. I choose to listen to Bach because his music stimulates me emotionally and intellectually much more than modern music. Not all of Bach but his keyboard music when played on the piano, including, no, especially, The Goldbergs, is as good as music gets to my ears, inside family jokes lost on me or whatever notwithstanding.


"I am the ultimate arbiter of what music I like and what I don't like."

But we're here to help you.😾😻🙀


----------



## hammeredklavier

Forster said:


> your reliance on a handful of examples.


Mozart is also only a "handful of examples" from the Classical period, but is everything musical from that period "classical music"? If so, is it all "timeless"?


----------



## Luchesi

delete delete

*Erasure* is a form of found poetry or found object art created by erasing words from an existing text in prose or verse and framing the result on the page as a poem


----------



## Luchesi

According to Kurt London, film music "began not as a result of any artistic urge, but from a dire need of something which would drown the noise made by the projector.

That's harsh.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Luchesi said:


> According to Kurt London, film music "began not as a result of any artistic urge, but from a dire need of something which would drown the noise made by the projector.
> 
> That's harsh.


I can see this, especially in the early silent movies era; plus there had to be something to fill the sound void.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Regardless of what we think of the respective quality of music composed for film compared to undisputed classical music, I think the biggest differentiator is the way in which the music is intended to be listened to. CM is designed to be listened to on its own - with the listeners devoting their full attention to it - contemplated, and to elicit a subjective response in each of its listeners. Film music, on the other hand, is meant to accompany moving pictures_,_ to provide an objective commentary to the visual action. Take away that imagery, the music loses much of its meaning and appeal.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

^^Article quote b8 lol


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

HansZimmer said:


> Of course. @Luchesi for example wrote that this piece of John Williams is not classical music because there are repetitions, but with this observation he showed that he's not aware of the repetitions that there are in classical music.
> Infact the piece here below it's a fugue (or better said, a "fugal march", as stated by an other user) and fugues are almost always monothematic, which means that you will hear a simple subject repeated many times.


Ah, ok - don't remember that particular comment, however such an argument (esp. if not qualified by anything additional) indeed doesn't seem to make any sense.



There are two different separate kinds of "repetitions" in that "Sequential Repetitions in Bach" video (i.e. the WTC1.4 excerpt):





One is the highlighted 8 8ths figure which is getting "counted" - functioning (a.o.) as an ornamentation (or think there's an alternate term for that?) of what would otherwise be descending/ascending whole notes, and providing general texture (in some instances, those 8ths briefly abandon this sequential figure and turn into short scales / arpeggios / harmonizing accompaniment);

i.e. a general baroque/counterpoint feature.



hammeredklavier said:


> For instance, the same phrase repeated, once per bar, for over 40 times, is clearly, a physical phenomenon that everyone can see objectively. How one takes or interprets such a thing aesthetically is subjective.




And the other is the repetition of the fugue theme(s) (the 8ths figure often doubling as an extension of one of those themes / or, in other passages, an extended theme itself, i.e. 1-2-3 - 4 - 5-4-5-6-5-4-3-5-4-...) - i.e. specifically a fugue trait, and the one appearing in the Resistance March.




So yes, someone using a basic "these few bars get repeated in different keys all the time" argument as some kind of self-sufficient criticism / "exclusion from CM" or whatnot, certainly hasn't thought things through;

and whoever said that too many sequentially repeated figures (or stationary ones for that matter) are an auto-disqualifier of some sort, the same applies in that case as well.


----------



## Forster

hammeredklavier said:


> Mozart is also only a "handful of examples" from the Classical period, but is everything musical from that period "classical music"? If so, is it all "timeless"?


What has this to do with my criticism of the OP's reliance on a handful of examples to make his case that "classical FM" should be regarded as CM? Nothing.

Just to be clear what my criticism means. The OP wants us to accept that classical FM should be regarded as CM - equal to it in quality and, in particular, emotional impact. So far, no-one, but no-one has objected to the idea that there is some film music that _sounds _like classical. Some of us have even accepted that, given a broad definition of CM, sure, count it as classical (it's no skin off our nose) and also that since such labels are of limited importance anyway, it matters not.

In fact, why does it matter? Who cares what Classic FM includes in its playlists? Who cares what an opinion piece in The Guardian from 2008 has to say on the matter?

The OP is silent on this, and instead, takes on those who've posted a clear resistance to the idea that classical FM is really classical. Their main objection to his argument is that FM is created in a different context, for a different purpose. For reasons best known to ourselves, we have hung around for 136 pages of this debate, trying to find out why the OP won't even acknowledge this counter-argument. Not only will he not acknowledge it, he produces the same few examples (March of the Resistance from Star Wars, Transformation from Beauty and the Beast) to say "But look, look - listen here - it's marvellous isn't it, equal in quality to CM so it must be CM," usually followed by, "Surely, if it quacks like a duck, it must be an oboe." (geddit?)

We've even seen it said that it's _better _than Bach, so it _must _be classical (even though it's Baroque say some hoho).

Now, we're expected to believe that if you ask a bot on the internet this oh-so-important question, the answer you get must be accepted as evidence in favour of the OP's assertion, despite the fact that ChatGPT cannot distinguish between John Williams and Gustav Holst. Asking real living members here who actually compose music for film and television isn't enough.



Aries said:


> When you are 95% sure about something, why not stating it even in a provocative way? It can be a good way to gain knowledge. Others can argue agianst it and you can learn from it. But your post are rather useless in this regard.


I'm not sure I follow this. If I'm 95% sure of something - say, that the soundtrack from Disney's 1991 _Beauty and the Beast_ makes an excellent accompaniment to a well-animated story, moves me emotionally and I have enjoyed it several times, own the DVD and am disappointed I didn't see it at the pictures when it first came out - I just say so. If I'm not sure of my "preliminary thesis" - that that OST is a good example of why such FM is CM - I might choose to be provocative to start, but not continue to provoke when its plain that my thesis doesn't hold much water (if any). I think if you're honest, you'll find that while some of my posts have been terse and perhaps impatient, I have also taken the trouble to post informatively, not least to try to persuade some members not to be so dismissive of FM when there is more to choose from than the hackneyed quotes from Williams and Zimmer.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

> Try to compare the melodic variety of this fugue composed by Mozart at the age of 10.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...with the one of the symphony No. 6 that he composed one year later.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The fugue is not bad because the subject is quite memorable, but in many fugues the subject is rudimental at the point that it's forgettable*.
> 
> *The reason for which I like Mozart is that most of his pieces are written in the sonata form, in the ternary form or in the rondò form. *All these forms are multithematic by nature, and therefore more interesting for people who like melodic elaboration. In Mozart's music, the production of things like "fugue", "prelude and fugue", and so on... is very limited, while in the music of Bach there are entire books and works based on this kind of writing and some of them are his most celebrated works.
> 
> [...]
> There are people, like me, who prefer music which is melodically evoluted. For us there are probably better composers than Bach.


Ok, but just because "fugues are among Bach's most celebrated works" doesn't mean he didn't also write
-concerto movements, and pieces in ternary form etc.
-fugue themes that were also prolonged + expressive and memorable - such as:





, i.e. the previous fugue, WTC1.3.

Or







-or highly melodious stuff like, well, this:






So I'm not sure I'm quite following this notion that "Bach is a less melody focused composer"?



> The preferences of people are almost always based on stylistic preferences. You might prefer Alan Menken in respect to Bach for the simple fact that he composes romantic style orchestral music, or for the simple fact that he composes melody focused music.




The basic parallels between this Suite aria and that Mozart symphony's 2nd movement illustrate this in a particularly concrete fashion:




cont.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

(Embedding seems to be better than links esp. for timestamp-heavy stuff like this - not least because there's no distracting ads this way;
however there's a 5-per-post limit, so, multiposting idk - going with that for now though.)



Openings:

4:22-4:30





6:05-6:21






"Exposition" ending lead-up (this is the proto sonata form obv.):

4:49-4:57





(
5:06-5:19 




)

6:32-6:47


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

And the "recapitulation" counterpart:

(
7:09-7:25




)

7:33-7:46





(8:40-)8:49-9:11







As seen by these direct comparisons, as well as the general juxtaposition between the 2 movements, Bach appears to be out-melodying Mozart here - certainly by the Romantic-era "continuous never-ending melody" standards.





(cont.)


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

Then the 2ndary theme from the 1st movement's recapitulation (starting at 3:28) features an ascending sequence that resembles the Air even more specifically:

3:35





8:24-8:36





A comparison between both segments' surroundings probably leads to a similar conclusion - although in this case it's comparing a slow movement to a fast movement, so the scope's a bit limited here.






The 3rd minuet(I think?) movement obviously has a noticeable dose of Baroque in it - except the "dance suite movement" type of Baroque, and not the fugue type Baroque;
and while it's got the segmented and symmetrical structure in line with the Classicist ideals, and that makes it strikingly different, I wouldn't say it's any more "melodic" than the two major-key Minuets from the Orchestral Suites - with which it also has certain specific parallels that help illustrate the point:


The "Minuet 1" (if it's still called that there?) features the same 4 notes/chords cadence (6-2'-7-1') as the opening phrase from the 4th Suite's Minuet I:

8:10 - 8:13:





17:04




As well as the "petite reprise" at the end (17:58).


The Bach example is going for longer continuous melodic segments there, and probably can be called "more melodic" in that sense (if one of them has to be).



(cont.)


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

And the B section ends in a way that resembles the ending of Minuet II from the 1st Suite (the concluding phrases are 4 - 3 - *3*-2-1 - '7 - *1* and 4 - *3* - 1 - 7' - *1*, respectively):

9:29





18:24-18:35





In this case it's _kind _of a counterexample, since Mozart is drawing out that chromatic bassline to build tension, while Bach goes for extra snappy staccato single note / 2 note bow leaps (or that's how these HIPerformances do it at least) - however both clearly come off as tension-building standout moments, and don't amount to making the entire suite number "less melodic" than its Mozart counterpart;










Finally, to bounce off another distant resemblance, here's a Bach concerto movement that starts with a somewhat similar series of descending scale phrases (as well as a comparable tone) as this same 3rd movement from the Mozart symphony:











With the possible exception of the sequential figures introduced to the oboe's solo parts at 11:42, both the tutti and solo themes seem to come off significantly more "melodious" in comparison to the Mozart counterpart.



All in all, with such counterexamples in mind, the monolithic sounding notion that "Bach/Baroque is less melodic than Mozart/Classicism" doesn't seem to really hold up, unless one specifically singles out the short-theme fugues in the former category.

And any analogous statements about, e.g., "Bach vs. his contemporaries" or "Baroque vs. Romanticism" may warrant another good look as well.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

Forster said:


> The OP is silent on this, and instead, takes on those who've posted a clear resistance to the idea that classical FM is really classical. Their main objection to his argument is that FM is created in a different context, for a different purpose. For reasons best known to ourselves, we have hung around for 136 pages of this debate, trying to find out why the OP won't even acknowledge this counter-argument.


The counter-argument is bringing up stage music, and the comparison between film and stage hasn't really been delved into and remains open as of now. 
(Some general descriptive statements about the composition process behind the latter "being more free" have been made, but nothing concrete enough.)


It looks like the notion that "classical = independent concert music" has a strong presence in many people's brains (incl. way outside this forum) even though most don't go with that definition consciously/officially.
So that continues being a rather big inconsistency.




> Not only will he not acknowledge it, he produces the same few examples (March of the Resistance from Star Wars, Transformation from Beauty and the Beast) to say "But look, look - listen here - it's marvellous isn't it, equal in quality to CM so it must be CM," usually followed by, "Surely, if it quacks like a duck, it must be an oboe." (geddit?)


Those 2 have just been reposted a few times most recently, but there's obviously been about a dozen of others


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

Forster said:


> Some of us have even accepted that, given a broad definition of CM, sure, count it as classical (it's no skin off our nose) and also that since such labels are of limited importance anyway, it matters not.
> 
> In fact, why does it matter? Who cares what Classic FM includes in its playlists? Who cares what an opinion piece in The Guardian from 2008 has to say on the matter?


If this all were in the context of some kind of collectively worked on project to create an online encyclopaedia about music/art, and the debate were about how to define the various genres and categories and thus structure the wiki, this would be a much more useful and no-nonsense thread - and probably one with a much more focused discussion style where things don't just get stated repeatedly and then overlooked/forgotten all the time etc.

However a good percentage of this thread as it exists here looks highly amygdala-driven, so that kinda stuff is expected to happen.


----------



## HansZimmer

fbjim said:


> well among other issues I'm virtually certain a chatbot is not a reliable musicological source


He has been trained with extensive material, including books.


*How doest ChatGPT works?*

ChatGPT is a conversational language model that uses machine learning techniques to generate human-like text. It is based on the GPT (Generative Pre-trained Transformer) architecture, which was developed by OpenAI.

The model is trained on a large dataset of text, such as books, articles, and websites, which allows it to learn the patterns and structures of human language. It then uses this knowledge to generate new text that is similar in style and content to the text it was trained on.

When ChatGPT is given a prompt or a question, it uses the information it has learned during the training process to generate a response. It does this by first encoding the prompt or question into a numerical representation, which is then passed through multiple layers of neural networks to generate a response.

The model also uses a technique called attention mechanism, which allows it to focus on certain parts of the input when generating its response. This allows the model to selectively draw on different parts of its knowledge when responding to different prompts or questions.

Additionally, ChatGPT can also be fine-tuned on specific task or domain to give better performance, by training the model on a smaller dataset that is related to the task or domain. This allows the model to learn more specialized information and improve its performance on that particular task.


----------



## HansZimmer

composingmusic said:


> Also Sprach Zarathustra was not originally written for a film, to start off...


Infact the BOT wrote that the piece has been USED in a film, not originally composed for a film. The mistake is in the fact that it gave me things that I didn't ask for. The iinformation are correct.


----------



## HansZimmer

Forster said:


> Your argumentation, your analogies, your inability to accommodate others' arguments, your reliance on a handful of examples...


My argumentation is based on the analysis of the musical genre, so it's correct.

If someone wrote that that a determined film score is not classical music because the composer doesn't run red lights, what should I reply? It's not that you have to confutate all the arguments: you can say that the argument is not valid. I don't have to confutate that John Williams doesn't run red lights: I can say that it's not a valid argument.


Tell me who in this discussion has given counterarguments based on the analysis of the musical genre? No one! Actually, some of the opponents have even admitted that different film scores have different styles and that a lot of them are in classical style.

The reality (as correctly written by @prlj) is that the musical genre of a piece doesn't change just because it has been composed for a film or a videogame, or because the composer must please the requests of a client. The pop songs composed for Top Gun don't change their genres just because they have been composed for a film. The rap song of Eminem, "Lose Yourself", doesn't change the genre just because it has been created for a film. A jazz composition doesn't become something else if created for a film.

Unless someone doesn't want to support the idea that "Lose Yourself" is not a rap song but "film music", then it's perfectly logical to say that the two following pieces are classical music song. Both Lose Yourself and the songs here below are also "film music" of course, a word that doesn't describe the genre of the music but the PURPOSE of its creation.
If you think that Lose Yourself is not a rap song or the songs here below are not classical music songs, then I expect an analysis of the musical genre, not other irrelevant arguments. If you use irrelevant arguments, I won't confutate them: I will simply say that they are not valid argument and I'll explain why, as I've done in this post.


----------



## HansZimmer

Luchesi said:


> According to Kurt London, film music "began not as a result of any artistic urge, but from a dire need of something which would drown the noise made by the projector.
> 
> That's harsh.


If the purpose is only to drown the noise of the projector, then John Williams, James Horner, Hans Zimmer, Alan Menken, John Barry and so on... are wasted talents. In a way, I think they are, because their wonderful music is covered by dialogues and noises. Furthermore, while you are concentrated in following the story, you don't notice so much the music.

This is why I'm happy of the concert events of film music: they are a way to revalue good music. "Now we can listen to the music without the distraction of the film" (John Williams before a concert).


----------



## HansZimmer

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Regardless of what we think of the respective quality of music composed for film compared to undisputed classical music, I think the biggest differentiator is the way in which the music is intended to be listened to. CM is designed to be listened to on its own - with the listeners devoting their full attention to it - contemplated, and to elicit a subjective response in each of its listeners. Film music, on the other hand, is meant to accompany moving pictures_,_ to provide an objective commentary to the visual action. Take away that imagery, the music loses much of its meaning and appeal.


----------



## composingmusic

HansZimmer said:


> Infact the BOT wrote that the piece has been USED in a film, not originally composed for a film. The mistake is in the fact that it gave me things that I didn't ask for. The iinformation are correct.


No, the bot very clearly says this: 

Yes, many classical compositions have been written specifically for film scores. Here are ten examples of original classical compositions that were created for films:


----------



## prlj

HansZimmer said:


> The reality (as correctly written by @prlj) is that the musical genre of a piece doesn't change just because it has been composed for a film or a videogame, or because the composer must please the requests of a client.


I could be wrong, but I don't think I said that. 

Not saying I agree or disagree, just so that it's attributed to the correct person.


----------



## composingmusic

composingmusic said:


> No, the bot very clearly says this:
> 
> Yes, many classical compositions have been written specifically for film scores. Here are ten examples of original classical compositions that were created for films:


On this subject, I must say I find using a bot as a reference source for musicological and historical data to be very strange. There’s quite a few inaccuracies in the data this bot has given. Instead of generating material with the bot, why not go actually look up these topics and see what people had to say on these subjects?


----------



## Aries

Forster said:


> The OP is silent on this, and instead, takes on those who've posted a clear resistance to the idea that classical FM is really classical. Their main objection to his argument is that FM is created in a different context, for a different purpose. For reasons best known to ourselves, we have hung around for 136 pages of this debate, trying to find out why the OP won't even acknowledge this counter-argument.


I can't speak for HansZimmer, but I don't think this is a counter argument, and I said it mulitple times, because classical music already includes music with different purposes to pure concert music like church music, opera music and ballet music. All these kind of musics support something non-musical (religion, plot and dance) like film music. When I said this, I got no answer.


----------



## Aries

composingmusic said:


> On this subject, I must say I find using a bot as a reference source for musicological and historical data to be very strange. There’s quite a few inaccuracies in the data this bot has given. Instead of generating material with the bot, why not go actually look up these topics and see what people had to say on these subjects?


You can actually conversate with ChatGPT, so it is not just a fixed text and you can ask more precisely and argue. On the other hand ChatGPT isn't really as mature and advanced as needed yet. 

There is also not really a truth for many subjects, so expecting the truth when you ask a human or bot is too much expectation. But you can expect ideas.

Before you go to an internet forum to ask something, it is actually already a good idea to conversate with ChatGPT about it. It can save a lot of time.


----------



## composingmusic

Aries said:


> You can actually conversate with ChatGPT, so it is not just a fixed text and you can ask more precisely and argue. On the other hand ChatGPT isn't really as mature and advanced as needed yet.
> 
> There is also not really a truth for many subjects, so expecting the truth when you ask a human or bot is too much expectation. But you can expect ideas.
> 
> Before you go to an internet forum to ask something, it is actually already a good idea to conversate with ChatGPT about it. It can save a lot of time.


I’m aware of how ChatGPT works regarding conversation. I know that it doesn’t generate a fixed text.

I also agree that expecting ChatGPT to be accurate is going to lead to problems. However, there were people here presenting arguments by ChatGPT as fact. This is what I was referring to.

If you’re looking for facts, a reliable source is important. This is why I was suggesting to look at musicological texts or historical sources when referring to events of the past rather than asking ChatGPT.

Perhaps ChatGPT can offer us ideas, but if we’re looking at, say, the influence of Marxism on 20th century music, or at music written specifically for films, it’s not going to take that much longer to type the query into Google and go do a bit of research rather than asking ChatGPT to come up with something…


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Aries said:


> I can't speak for HansZimmer, but I don't think this is a counter argument, and I said it mulitple times, because classical music already includes music with different purposes to pure concert music like church music, opera music and ballet music. All these kind of musics support something non-musical (religion, plot and dance) like film music. When I said this, I got no answer.


That is a very good point. I am not a fan of any of these sub-genres of classical music - for me pure abstract music reigns supreme. So what if we did admit film music with clear ties to classical music (eg. The Lord of the Rings soundtrack) to the genre of classical? For me, it would become another sub-genre of classical that I don't listen to. I think my main objection to including film music is that I think it is very inferior to abstract music but then so is ballet and opera.


----------



## janxharris

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Sure, Mozart and Haydn are great. It's not like all they wrote was cadential cliches.
> 
> And my statement about film music needs a slight correction: film music has its place, which is in films to support the story. I find it not worth listening to outside the context of films, for the vast majority of cases,


That sounds fair.
If I may, what work, that is considered great, do you struggle the most to appreciate? Since you allow for objectively great works then, I assume, you must consider this a failure on your part.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

janxharris said:


> That sounds fair.
> If I may, what work, that is considered great, do you struggle the most to appreciate? Since you allow for objectively great works then, I assume, you must consider this a failure on your part.


Tristan and Isolde or Parsifal don't do much for me. Yes, I acknowledge that there must be something great about them but I fail to see what it is. I have the same failure to appreciate opera in general.
Also, A German Requiem. I love Brahms' music but the Requiem bores me to death.


----------



## HansZimmer

composingmusic said:


> No, the bot very clearly says this:
> 
> Yes, many classical compositions have been written specifically for film scores. Here are ten examples of original classical compositions that were created for films:


Yes, and what I'm saying is that it's a partial error, because it says "Now I'll give a list of apples", but then in the list it includes also oranges, but it says that they are oranges. It doesn't say that they are apples.

You should note infact that it uses the expression "WRITTEN FOR" only when it's actually an original film score. When it comes to classical music USED in film scores, it uses the word "USED". That's why it's only a partial error. It doesn't say that these pieces of classical WERE WRITTEN FOR the film. It simply includes in the lists elements that don't belong to the list.


_"Also sprach Zarathustra" by Richard Strauss - This famous classical piece was used as the main theme for the film 2001: A Space Odyssey._
_"Jaws" by John Williams - This iconic score was written for the film Jaws and features a simple, repeating melody that has become synonymous with the film._
_"The Godfather" by Nino Rota - This classical composition was written for the film The Godfather and has become one of the most iconic and widely recognized film scores in history._
_"Out of Africa" by John Barry - This beautiful and evocative score was written for the film Out of Africa and won an Academy Award for Best Original Score._
_"The Planets" by Gustav Holst - This classical suite was used as the score for the film The Invasion of the Body Snatchers._
_"Requiem for a Dream" by Clint Mansell - This powerful and emotional score was written for the film Requiem for a Dream and features a mix of classical and electronic elements._
_"E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial" by John Williams - This memorable and sentimental score was written for the film E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial and has become one of Williams' most iconic works._
_"The Red Balloon" by Michel Legrand - This beautiful and whimsical score was written for the film The Red Balloon and features a mix of classical and jazz elements._
_"The Elephant Man" by John Morris - This moving and poignant score was written for the film The Elephant Man and helped to enhance the emotional impact of the film._
_"The Truman Show" by Philip Glass - This minimalist and atmospheric score was written for the film The Truman Show and helped to create a sense of unease and mystery_.

After an extensive testing, I've noticed that for some reasons the BOT make confusion with lists and specific details like dates., so you have to check and filter the lists and be careful with very specific details.

However, when it comes to generic information, it's a reliable source.

Some examples here below of questions which have objective answers and whose I know the correct anwser. This BOT is not an idiot only because it sometimes makes confusion with lists and specific details.


*Where should I start a business? Italy or Switzerland? (ChatGPT)*

There are pros and cons to starting a business in both Italy and Switzerland. Here are a few things to consider:

Location: Italy is a large country with a diverse and dynamic economy, while Switzerland is a smaller country with a highly developed and specialized economy. This can affect the potential market size and opportunities available to your business.

Cost: Starting a business in Switzerland can be more expensive due to higher costs of living and higher wages. However, Switzerland also has a lower corporate tax rate compared to Italy, which can be beneficial for businesses.

Regulation: Both countries have relatively stable and well-developed legal systems, but Switzerland is generally seen as having a more business-friendly regulatory environment.

Language: Italy has a strong local language and culture, while Switzerland is a multilingual country with four national languages (German, French, Italian, and Romansh). This can affect the ease of doing business and the potential market size for your business.

Ultimately, the best location for your business will depend on your specific goals, resources, and target market. It is important to carefully research and consider all of the relevant factors before making a decision.


*I want go to a concert. Bach, Mozart or John Williams?*

It ultimately depends on your personal preferences and the specific concert you are considering. Here are a few things to consider:

Bach: Johann Sebastian Bach was a German composer and musician of the Baroque period who is widely regarded as one of the greatest composers of all time. His music is known for its technical complexity, emotional depth, and intellectual rigor. If you are a fan of classical music and enjoy music that is structurally sophisticated and emotionally powerful, then a Bach concert might be a good choice for you.

Mozart: Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart was an Austrian composer and musician of the Classical period who is widely considered one of the greatest composers in the history of Western music. His music is known for its beauty, melody, and emotional expressiveness, and he wrote in a wide variety of genres, including symphonies, operas, chamber music, and piano music. If you enjoy music that is melodically and harmonically rich, then a Mozart concert might be a good choice for you.

John Williams: John Williams is an American composer and conductor who is best known for his film scores, particularly his work for the Star Wars and Harry Potter franchises. His music is known for its epic, sweeping melodies and its ability to evoke a wide range of emotions. If you are a fan of film music and enjoy music that is dramatic and emotionally impactful, then a John Williams concert might be a good choice for you.

Ultimately, the best choice for you will depend on your personal musical preferences and the specific concerts that are available in your area.


*Compare the social welfare system of Italy with the one of Switzerland.*

The social welfare systems of Italy and Switzerland are both comprehensive and cover a wide range of benefits and services for citizens, but there are some key differences between the two systems.

In Italy, the social welfare system is centralized and managed by the government through the National Social Security Institute (INPS). It provides coverage for pensions, health care, unemployment, disability, and family benefits. The pension system is based on a pay-as-you-go system and is funded by employee and employer contributions, as well as general revenue. The health care system is a mixed public-private system and is funded through a combination of general revenue, payroll taxes, and out-of-pocket payments. The unemployment benefit system is based on a sliding scale, with benefits generally lasting for up to 12 months.

In Switzerland, the social welfare system is decentralized and managed by the 26 cantons (states) and municipalities. It provides coverage for pensions, health care, unemployment, disability, and family benefits. The pension system is based on a three-pillar system, including a mandatory pay-as-you-go system, a mandatory funded system, and an optional private pension plan. The Health care system is primarily based on the private system, and citizens are required to buy their own insurance. The unemployment benefit system is based on a sliding scale and is financed by the cantons and municipalities, with the Federal government providing additional support.

In summary, both Italy and Switzerland have comprehensive social welfare systems that cover a wide range of benefits and services for citizens, but the systems are organized and financed differently. Italy has a more centralized system that is mostly financed by general revenue and payroll taxes, while Switzerland's system is more decentralized and relies more on private insurance and self-funding.


*Should I increase the volume of my system with the equalizer?*

Whether or not you should increase the volume of your system using an equalizer depends on the specific situation and your personal preferences. Here are a few things to consider:


If the volume of your system is too low and you are having trouble hearing the audio clearly, increasing the volume using the equalizer can be a good solution. However, it's important to note that increasing the volume too much can lead to distortion and damage to your speakers or ears.
If you're experiencing poor sound quality, it might be better to adjust the equalizer settings to balance the different frequencies and make the audio sound clearer, rather than increasing the volume.
If you're in a loud environment and need to increase the volume of your system to hear it over background noise, you may want to try using noise-cancelling headphones or earplugs to block out the noise.
It's also worth noting that when you increase the volume of your system, you should do it gradually, rather than turning it up to maximum. Listening to loud music can be damaging to your hearing and it can be a good idea to limit your listening time at high volume, you should also keep the volume at a moderate level to avoid damaging your ears.

In any case, it's important to use caution when adjusting the volume or equalizer settings on your system, and to be mindful of the potential risks to your hearing and equipment.


*My speakers produce unpleasant vibrations with the french horn. Which is the possible issue?*

There could be several reasons why your speakers are producing unpleasant vibrations when playing music featuring the French horn:


The volume is too high: If the volume is set too high, it can cause the speakers to produce distortion and unpleasant vibrations, especially when playing music that features instruments like the French horn that produce low-frequency sounds.
Room acoustics: The room where you're listening to the music can also be a factor. If the room has hard surfaces such as concrete walls, they can reflect and amplify low-frequency sounds and cause vibrations on speakers.
Equipment: The speakers themselves may not be able to handle the low-frequency sounds produced by the French horn, either due to their design or their current state (e.g. damage). They may be too small to handle the deep bass or they may have problems with the crossover or the driver.
Incorrectly set equalizer: The equalizer settings on your system may not be optimized for the music you're listening to, which can cause the speakers to produce unpleasant vibrations.
The recording: The recording itself may have an issue with the mixing and mastering of the horn section.
To correct these issues you can try to adjust the volume and EQ setting, you may also want to look into improving the acoustics of your listening room, or consider upgrading your speakers to a better quality model that is better suited to handle the low-frequency sounds of the French horn. If the issue persist, you may want to check on the recording and make sure it doesn't have any problem.


----------



## composingmusic

HansZimmer said:


> Yes, and what I'm saying is that it's a partial error, because it says "Now I'll give a list of apples", but then in the list it includes also oranges, but it says that they are oranges. It doesn't say that they are apples.
> 
> You should note infact that it uses the expression "WRITTEN FOR" only when it's actually an original film score. When it comes to classical music USED in film scores, it uses the word "USED". That's why it's only a partial error. It doesn't say that these pieces of classical WERE WRITTEN FOR the film. It simply includes in the lists elements that don't belong to the list.


This can still lead to problems, especially since it first states that these are all _written for _films. Yes, it does clarify it after but that's still misleading imo. 



HansZimmer said:


> However, when it comes to generic information, it's a reliable source.


You seem to have ignored everything I just said about actually researching the topic at hand, rather than asking ChatGPT, and I don't think ChatGPT is a reliable source. I've gone back and looked at some examples that Aries posted in another thread:



> _Hanns Eisler: Eisler was a German composer and political activist who was heavily influenced by Marxist thought. He is perhaps best known for his work on film scores and his collaboration with Bertolt Brecht._


This is an accurate statement. There is a lot of historical context to consider, which might be worth a read: https://holocaustmusic.ort.org/resistance-and-exile/hanns-eisler/



> Luigi Nono: Nono was an Italian composer who was active in the 20th century. He was influenced by Marxist theory and often used his music to critique capitalism and other social and political issues.


Yes, Nono was politically active and was influenced by Communist ideals. However, calling his views Marxist is reductive. I've read various sources on this and one of them states:
_Neo-Marxist aesthetics are ill-suited as a framework for understanding Nono’s materialist approach to music composition and, while making a connection between Nono and Gramsci is understandable as a result of his numerous references to the late Italian communist leader, Nono’s reading of Gramsci is mostly superficial. Rather, I believe a close reading of Nono’s writings reveals that his influences lie elsewhere, specifically the literary theory of Jean-Paul Sartre and the dramaturgy of Bertolt Brecht. It is by transposing progressive Modernist concepts from the work of these two figures to the discipline of music composition that Nono develops a left-wing political aesthetic distinct both the Socialist Realism of the communist East and the Adornian neo-Marxism of the capitalist West, a political aesthetic that I term Socialist Modernism._
This is a more nuanced and accurate view of Nono's politics and views. Source: Luigi Nono's Socialist Modernist Political Aesthetic: Transposing Sartre and Brecht



> George Gershwin: Gershwin was an American composer and pianist who is best known for his work in the jazz and Broadway genres. However, he was also influenced by Marxist theory and used his music to comment on issues related to race and class.


Again, similar issues with Nono. Yes, Gershwin did comment on issues of race and class, but I don't see any references to him being influenced directly by Marxism in my sources. 

This is why I'm saying one should be careful with ChatGPT: it can give partial truths that seem plausible, but fall apart when examined closer. Again, I think actually doing the research and reading into proper sources will be much better for forming a nuanced opinion about things.


----------



## fbjim

stop posting chatbot stuff good lord


----------



## composingmusic

fbjim said:


> stop posting chatbot stuff good lord


Yes. This.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Tristan and Isolde or


Even the overture and ze Liebestod?? (Only parts I've heard so far tbh - they're the complete bomb though)



> Parsifal don't do much for me.


Just in case this impression somehow ended up being influenced by particular performances (as sometimes happens), here's a good one in case you haven't heard it yet:





Also got lots of wobble-free upper register bass/baritone, something one doesn't necessarily hear all the time in more contemporary rom opera performance (unless maybe one knows where to look?).




> Yes, I acknowledge that there must be something great about them but I fail to see what it is.
> 
> I have the same failure to appreciate opera in general.


Guess the question here is "great compared to what", or in what sense etc. - always possible there's another opera (or concert work) "doing most of the same but better", while someone else who's rating it highly hasn't heard those other ones yet.


Also Parsifal works really well in audio-only format, incl. all the dialogue-ey bits - unlike the Nabucco/Rigoletto examples that I've posted here.
(However I don't Italian, so in this sense I don't have an even comparison here.)


----------



## Aries

composingmusic said:


> I’m aware of how ChatGPT works regarding conversation. I know that it doesn’t generate a fixed text.
> 
> I also agree that expecting ChatGPT to be accurate is going to lead to problems. However, there were people here presenting arguments by ChatGPT as fact. This is what I was referring to.


Yes, if ChatGPT says something that does not prove that it is true. Some answers are wrong, and it depends on the topic. Even if ChatGPT was better, imo it would be the privilege of mankind to define things.



composingmusic said:


> If you’re looking for facts, a reliable source is important. This is why I was suggesting to look at musicological texts or historical sources when referring to events of the past rather than asking ChatGPT.


What ChatGPT says needs to be checked, but just as the first step if you are looking for facts ChatGPT might still be best. It is good for a slow and individualized approch to a topic. For example if you want to have explained a difficult mathematical concept then full texts about it might by way to difficult. But with ChatGPT you can approch it slower and individualized to you, like if you had a personal teacher. You still have to check things it says. But you know exactly what you have to check.



composingmusic said:


> Perhaps ChatGPT can offer us ideas, but if we’re looking at, say, the influence of Marxism on 20th century music, or at music written specifically for films, it’s not going to take that much longer to type the query into Google and go do a bit of research rather than asking ChatGPT to come up with something…


You can't ask google such things. Google does not understand language. And Google will give you fixed text that rarely answer your question exactly. It is better to ask ChatGPT first and then check it with google.


composingmusic said:


> I've gone back and looked at some examples that Aries posted in another thread:


I posted it there, because I think marxist influence in avant-garde music is rather obvious, and I wanted to give an impression of that. There is of course more to say about each composer. And ChatGPT might even be wrong here and there, but it is hard to deny that there is overall a marxist influence in avant-garde music.

_


composingmusic said:



It is by transposing progressive Modernist concepts from the work of these two figures to the discipline of music composition that Nono develops a left-wing political aesthetic distinct both the Socialist Realism of the communist East and the Adornian neo-Marxism of the capitalist West, a political aesthetic that I term Socialist Modernism.

Click to expand...

_


composingmusic said:


> This is a more nuanced and accurate view of Nono's politics and views. Source: Luigi Nono's Socialist Modernist Political Aesthetic: Transposing Sartre and BrechtLuigi Nono's Socialist Modernist Political Aesthetic: Transposing Sartre and Brecht
> Luigi Nono's Socialist Modernist Political Aesthetic: Transposing Sartre and Brecht


Interessting that this marxist influence is supposed to be different to both Socialist Realism and Adornian neo-Marxism. But I would classify Luigi Nonos music as avant-garde. Compared to the adornian idea is a distintion within the avant-garde.



composingmusic said:


> Again, similar issues with Nono. Yes, Gershwin did comment on issues of race and class, but I don't see any references to him being influenced directly by Marxism in my sources.
> 
> This is why I'm saying one should be careful with ChatGPT: it can give partial truths that seem plausible, but fall apart when examined closer. Again, I think actually doing the research and reading into proper sources will be much better for forming a nuanced opinion about things.


Yeah, I can't find a direct marxist influence on him either. But doing this with Google, I am reminded how awkward it is to do it like this. So I just asked ChatGPT now if Gershwin was a marxist or influenced by marxism. And ChatGPT basically says no.


----------



## composingmusic

Aries said:


> You can't ask google such things. Google does not understand language. And Google will give you fixed text that rarely answer your question exactly. It is better to ask ChatGPT first and then check it with google.


No, google won't give you a directly written out answer. Instead, you'll get links to sources where people talk about these issues. If you want more scholarly sources, Google Scholar and JSTOR are good options. The point is to look up texts and then form your own opinions, which will end up being more nuanced and accurate than what ChatGPT spouts back instantaneously. 



Aries said:


> I posted it there, because I think marxist influence in avant-garde music is rather obvious, and I wanted to give an impression of that. There is of course more to say about each composer. And ChatGPT might even be wrong here and there, but it is hard to deny that there is overall a marxist influence in avant-garde music.


Is it obvious? I don't know about that. In the case of some composers, sure. But again, I think the issue is much more nuanced than you're making it out to be. Regarding "ChatGPT might be wrong here and there", it's inaccurate quite a lot of the time and that's why I don't think it's reputable source. Again, much better to do your own research.



Aries said:


> Yeah, I can't find a direct marxist influence on him either. But doing this with Google, I am reminded how awkward it is to do it like this. So I just asked ChatGPT now if Gershwin was a marxist or influenced by marxism. And ChatGPT basically says no.


Well, ChatGPT did say there was Marxist influence in Gershwin's work earlier, so... that's my point.


----------



## Forster

HansZimmer said:


> If someone wrote that that a determined film score is not classical music because the composer doesn't run red lights, what should I reply? It's not that you have to confutate all the arguments: you can say that the argument is not valid. I don't have to confutate that John Williams doesn't run red lights: I can say that it's not a valid argument.


A perfect example of flawed argumentation and poor analogy.


----------



## Kreisler jr

AFAIK, the "Western cultural marxists" of the mid-20th century disapproved of a lot of "socialist realist" music, such as the Soviet cultural bureaucracy liked. But their positions were more nuanced. AFAIK Adorno approved of Weill (the ca. 1930 German, probably not the 1940s Broadway) and Eisler that are comparably populist, certainly not avantgarde as e.g. Webern was in the 1930s. AFAIK the three main 2nd viennese school composers were politically more reactionary than socialist but this didn't prevent Adorno from finding free atonality the ideal way to compose music (Twelve tone was already problematic because lack of freedom).

And of course the positions to older classical music were also more nuanced.
The composer closest to Adorno's ideal of expressing the tensions and utopias of a historical epoch/society was probably Beethoven, not Schoenberg but this was of course a thing of the past. Nevertheless, they were not against performing Bach, Beethoven etc. and were quite convinced that this was among the best/more relevant music. However, the "abuse" of CM as a tool of preserving the societal (bourgeois) status quo was also noted (so they meet with many in this here forum who smell elitism around every corner).

Of course, the products of the 20th century "culture industry" (basically all popular culture since the 1930s) were much worse because here it was not an abuse (like with a Bach organ festival to make a city noteworthy for tourists that still had redeeming features because there is something indestructible about Bach that points beyond) but the intended use to keep people happy with an evening at the movies or a jazz club after being exploited in their meaningless day jobs.
FWIW, while I disagree in many respects (e.g. with their narrow viewpoint in music history and also with their marxism) with Adorno etc. I think a lot of their analysis of (mid-20th century) society and culture (incl "culture industry") was quite insightful. But they had no good suggestions for what to do instead and their wannabe descendants seem mostly clueless pawns that are best not even ignored


----------



## Aries

composingmusic said:


> No, google won't give you a directly written out answer. Instead, you'll get links to sources where people talk about these issues. If you want more scholarly sources, Google Scholar and JSTOR are good options. The point is to look up texts and then form your own opinions, which will end up being more nuanced and accurate than what ChatGPT spouts back instantaneously.


It is of course useful to read comprehensive general texts about topics. You will properly learn things you didn't know before that you are going to learn about them. It is good for proper and comprehensive knowledge. But with ChatGPT you have a second way to approch topics, that also has its advantages.



composingmusic said:


> Is it obvious? I don't know about that.


At least it is not difficult to detect.



composingmusic said:


> In the case of some composers, sure. But again, I think the issue is much more nuanced than you're making it out to be. Regarding "ChatGPT might be wrong here and there", it's inaccurate quite a lot of the time and that's why I don't think it's reputable source. Again, much better to do your own research.


My overall knowledge about marxism doesn't come from ChatGPT.

So the question is, is ChatGPT a good staring point for such research. I am not sure about that. What about just trying it? It is easy to get quality conversations within few minutes:



ChatGPT said:


> *Q: Was it an influential idea in art and classical music after World War II and the Holocaust that art and music should no longer be beautiful because of the events?*
> A: After World War II and the Holocaust, many artists and musicians felt a sense of despair and disillusionment with the world, and this is reflected in the art and music of the time. Some people felt that traditional notions of beauty were no longer appropriate or relevant in the wake of such devastating events, and instead turned to more experimental and avant-garde forms of expression as a way to grapple with the trauma and horror of the war.
> 
> In the realm of classical music, this led to the development of serialism and other forms of atonal and dissonant music, which rejected the traditional tonal harmony that had been the basis of Western music for centuries. Composers such as Arnold Schoenberg, Alban Berg, and Anton Webern were among the pioneers of this movement, which sought to break free from the constraints of traditional tonality and create a new, more expressive musical language.
> 
> Similarly, in the realm of visual art, there was a movement away from traditional representational art towards more abstract and non-representational forms. Artists such as Jackson Pollock, Mark Rothko, and Willem de Kooning became known for their abstract expressionist paintings, which sought to express the inner turmoil and emotional state of the artist, rather than depict any specific subject or scene.
> 
> That said, not all artists or musicians rejected the traditional notion of beauty or felt that art or music should no longer be beautiful because of the events. There are certainly many examples of classical music, visual art, or other form of expression that were created after WWII and Holocaust that aim at beauty, for some artists and musicians, the idea of beauty was still a powerful force in the world, one that could offer hope and solace in the face of tragedy.
> 
> Ultimately, different artists and musicians had different reactions to the events of WWII and the Holocaust, and there is a wide range of artistic styles and expressions that emerged in the years following the war.
> 
> *Q: Was there an marxist influenced ideology directed against beauty in music and art?*
> A: There have been various Marxist-inspired ideologies that have taken a critical stance towards traditional notions of beauty in art and music.
> 
> One notable example is the concept of "socialist realism," which was a style of art and literature that was officially endorsed by the Soviet government in the 1930s. The goal of socialist realism was to create art that depicted the socialist ideals and values of the state, and that was accessible to the general population. As such, it emphasized realism and positive imagery, and rejected avant-garde and abstract styles that were seen as elitist or difficult for the masses to understand.
> 
> Some Marxist theorists have also criticized the idea of beauty in art and music, arguing that it is a bourgeois concept that is used to distract the working class from the true nature of their oppression. They argue that art and music should serve a more political and social purpose, and that the focus on beauty is a way for the ruling class to maintain control and distract from the true issues at hand.
> 
> It is worth to note that these Marxist ideologies were more prominent in the Soviet Union, and socialist countries where the government had a strong control over the cultural sphere, and were generally considered to be more dominant in the 20th century. However, since the fall of the Soviet Union, these ideas have lost popularity and now are not as prominent in the artistic realm.
> 
> It is important to remember that Marxism is a complex and diverse ideology, not all artists or theorists who have been influenced by Marxism have necessarily taken the same approach towards art and beauty.
> 
> *Q: How much was the western idea against beauty in music and art influenced by marxism?*
> A: The rejection of traditional notions of beauty in art and music that emerged in the West after World War II and the Holocaust was influenced by a number of different factors, and Marxism was certainly one of them. However, it would be an exaggeration to say that Marxism was the main or exclusive influence.
> 
> There were a number of other factors that contributed to this shift away from traditional ideas of beauty in the Western art and music scene. The devastation and trauma of the war, as well as the subsequent emergence of the Cold War and the rise of the atomic bomb, had a profound impact on artists and musicians, and led many of them to question the values and assumptions of the pre-war era. Additionally, the rise of existentialism, which rejected the traditional concept of the individual's place in the world, also played a role in the change of artistic expression.
> 
> Many of the artists and musicians who rejected traditional notions of beauty in the post-war era were not necessarily explicit Marxists, but were instead reacting to the changing political and social landscape in a more general sense. The rejection of beauty in some cases can be also seen as a rejection of the idea that art should be pleasant, or that it should be created for the pleasure of others. Rather, it was seen as a medium for exploring deeper truths about the human condition, regardless of whether or not that made it 'beautiful' in a traditional sense.
> 
> In summary, while Marxism certainly influenced some Western artists and musicians in their rejection of traditional notions of beauty, it is not the only nor the most important influence that contributed to this shift in post-war art and music. It is important to take into consideration the variety of philosophical and social factors that were affecting the artistic expression.
> 
> *Q: Is it possible that the anti-beauty ideology and related ideas where actually the driving force and that this influenced western marxism the other way around?*
> A: It is certainly possible that the rejection of traditional notions of beauty in art and music that emerged in the Western art and music scene after World War II and the Holocaust influenced certain Marxist theorists, rather than the other way around.
> 
> The rejection of beauty in some sense can be seen as a rejection of the idea that art should be pleasant, or that it should be created for the pleasure of others. For some, it was about creating a more political and socially conscious art form, which would be more relatable to the working class and that would reflect the reality of the human condition.
> 
> Additionally, some philosophers and sociologists, who were not necessarily marxist, also rejected the idea of beauty in art and music. The idea of beauty being a tool of the ruling class to control the masses, and the idea of art being primarily political have been discussed by a variety of philosophers such as Theodor Adorno and Jean-Paul Sartre. The philosophies they developed, which are not specifically linked to marxism could have also influenced some marxist theorists.
> 
> It's important to remember that Marxism is a complex and diverse ideology and its influence on art, culture and society is multifaceted. Many thinkers and artists had a nuanced relationship with Marxism, and it is likely that in some cases, the rejection of traditional notions of beauty in art and music predates the rise of Marxism, and that it influenced some Marxists theorists and thinkers, rather than the other way around.


Feels like more useful than talking with humans to be honest.

It takes so long to find books about this exactly if they exist at all.


----------



## fbjim

No I don't think a chatbot is a good starting point for research. Good lord


----------



## composingmusic

Aries said:


> It is of course useful to read comprehensive general texts about topics. You will properly learn things you didn't know before that you are going to learn about them. It is good for proper and comprehensive knowledge. But with ChatGPT you have a second way to approch topics, that also has its advantages.


It's a highly flawed way of approaching topics and researching things for a number of reasons.



Aries said:


> So the question is, is ChatGPT a good staring point for such research. I am not sure about that. What about just trying it? It is easy to get quality conversations within few minutes:


I'm going to have to go through this later, but there's quite a lot of inaccuracies and oversimplifications in this. Yes, some things are correct, and it does give you a good list of names. But a lot of the accurate information you could just as well have found through googling and reading some more legitimate sources. Doing this is not nearly as difficult as you seem to think it is.



Aries said:


> Feels like more useful than talking with humans to be honest.
> It takes so long to find books about this exactly if they exist at all.


It doesn't have to be books. There's plenty of websites and scholarly research, and it isn't nearly as hard to find this as you seem to think it is. I'm not quite sure why you seem to think this is so difficult. 

For instance, starting with Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern: 

If I type _Schoenberg Berg Webern_ into Google, I immediately get these sources and more just on the first page of results:





Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern – Oh My! | In The Muse: Performing Arts Blog


This post shares news of and links to the Music Division's recent publications of a finding aid and research guides relevant to the composer Arnold Schoenberg and the Second Viennese School.




blogs.loc.gov









British Library







www.bl.uk




Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern: A Companion to the Second Viennese School: Simms, Bryan R.: 9780313296048: Amazon.com: Books (this is a book but you could search it on WorldCat and find availability in libraries there)








Proclaiming the mainstream: Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern (Chapter 9) - The Cambridge History of Twentieth-Century Music


The Cambridge History of Twentieth-Century Music - August 2004




www.cambridge.org






Project MUSE - Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern: A Companion to the Second Viennese School (review)



This took me under a minute to search and post all of these links.


----------



## DaveM

This thread may be setting a record or maybe several records..


----------



## Aries

composingmusic said:


> It's a highly flawed way of approaching topics and researching things for a number of reasons.
> 
> I'm going to have to go through this later, but there's quite a lot of inaccuracies and oversimplifications in this. Yes, some things are correct, and it does give you a good list of names. But a lot of the accurate information you could just as well have found through googling and reading some more legitimate sources. Doing this is not nearly as difficult as you seem to think it is.
> 
> 
> It doesn't have to be books. There's plenty of websites and scholarly research, and it isn't nearly as hard to find this as you seem to think it is. I'm not quite sure why you seem to think this is so difficult.
> 
> For instance, starting with Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern:
> 
> If I type _Schoenberg Berg Webern_ into Google, I immediately get these sources and more just on the first page of results:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern – Oh My! | In The Muse: Performing Arts Blog
> 
> 
> This post shares news of and links to the Music Division's recent publications of a finding aid and research guides relevant to the composer Arnold Schoenberg and the Second Viennese School.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blogs.loc.gov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> British Library
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bl.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern: A Companion to the Second Viennese School: Simms, Bryan R.: 9780313296048: Amazon.com: Books (this is a book but you could search it on WorldCat and find availability in libraries there)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proclaiming the mainstream: Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern (Chapter 9) - The Cambridge History of Twentieth-Century Music
> 
> 
> The Cambridge History of Twentieth-Century Music - August 2004
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cambridge.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Project MUSE - Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern: A Companion to the Second Viennese School (review)
> 
> 
> 
> This took me under a minute to search and post all of these links.


First of all we need to define what the topic is.

What I want to know is:

how much is avant-garde music influenced by political ideology?
how much is avant-garde an intended active instrument of political ideology?
how can the political ideology be described or if there are multiple: how is the distribution?
My previous assumption is that marxist ideology has such an influence to a degree. And this kicked off our conversation about this and ChatGPT.

The links you provided all have their own topics. I expect them to touch my topic just softly. I could of course read just everything, but how efficient is it? Eventually one should read proper treatises about topics, but there is a good chance that you can get a better idea about what to search for by talking to ChatGPT first. You can not just take what ChatGPT says as truth, but there is nontheless a lot of usefulness about it.

I just asked ChatGPT about literature recommendations. It gave me the following:


> Q*: Can you give me literature recommendations about this? *
> A: Certainly, here are a few books that address the relationship between Marxism and the rejection of traditional notions of beauty in art and music:
> 
> 
> "The Culture Industry: Selected Essays on Mass Culture" by Theodor Adorno - This book, written by a prominent member of the Frankfurt School of critical theory, examines the ways in which mass culture (including art and music) is used to control and manipulate the masses. Adorno argues that the culture industry creates false needs and that traditional concepts of beauty are used to maintain the status quo.
> "The Social Role of the Artist" by Herbert Marcuse - In this book, Marcuse, another member of the Frankfurt School, argues that art should serve a more political and social purpose and that the focus on beauty is a way for the ruling class to maintain control and distract from the true issues at hand. He also claims that art can contribute to social transformation.
> "Art and Revolution" by Ernst Fischer - This book provides a Marxist perspective on art and culture, and argues that art should be engaged with society and serve the interests of the working class. Fischer examines how art has been used to maintain the status quo and how it can be used for social change.
> "The Death of Art" by Harold Rosenberg - In this book, Rosenberg, an American art critic and philosopher, argues that abstract expressionism, an art movement that emerged in the United States after WWII, represented a new kind of art that rejected traditional notions of beauty and instead focused on the process and emotions of the artist. He provides a Marxist perspective, and claims that this art form is a means of challenging the status quo.
> "The Ideology of the Aesthetic" by Terry Eagleton - This book analyzes the history of Western ideas of beauty and art, and how they are used to legitimize social hierarchies. Eagleton provides a Marxist perspective, and also discusses how different forms of cultural production have been used to reproduce or challenge the dominant ideology.
> These books provide different perspectives on the relationship between Marxism and the rejection of traditional notions of beauty in art and music, and should give you a good starting point for further research.


A second problem becomes obvious: These authors often have their own agenda and do not report about the topic in a neutral way. And even if it is not an outright agenda, it is typical for humans to have their own personal thoughts and perspectives. To get more objective and neutral informations encyclopedias are a good option.


----------



## composingmusic

Aries said:


> First of all we need to define what the topic is.
> 
> What I want to know is:
> 
> how much is avant-garde music influenced by political ideology?
> how much is avant-garde an intended active instrument of political ideology?
> how can the political ideology be described or if there are multiple: how is the distribution?


I think this is a topic for a separate thread. This has strayed pretty far from the initial question between the relationship between film music and contemporary classical music. However, the short answer is that this very much varies from composer to composer, country to country. Some composers weren’t or aren’t politically active, and others are extremely so.


----------



## Art Rock

Aries said:


> What I want to know is:
> 
> how much is avant-garde music influenced by political ideology?
> how much is avant-garde an intended active instrument of political ideology?
> how can the political ideology be described or if there are multiple: how is the distribution?
> My previous assumption is that marxist ideology has such an influence to a degree.


Now is the time (better late than never) to stop inserting politics into the discussion. If you want to discuss this item, I suggest you start a thread in the appropriate sub-forum.


----------



## composingmusic

Going back to the topic at hand, a fascinating case study is the composer Toru Takemitsu. Takemitsu wrote both contemporary classical music and film music. He was fascinated with the medium of film in general. 
Here’s a fun story: I’ve heard an anecdote from another composer friend that Takemitsu and Varèse met in a movie theatre where they were both watching one of the Beatles movies.

More on Takemitsu: The Music of Tôru Takemitsu and Japanese New Wave Cinema


----------



## Aries

Art Rock said:


> Now is the time (better late than never) to stop inserting politics into the discussion. If you want to discuss this item, I suggest you start a thread in the appropriate sub-forum.


Ok, maybe I will start a thread there but not now. I only talked about it here because of ChatGPT.


----------

