# Classical, crossover, pandering, oh my!



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

So -- what's classical music and what's not? Is programming works outside the "canon" (Taco Bell's or otherwise) simply pandering? And how about that "An Evening with Elvis" concert when things get really rocky for the orchestra?

Examples welcome!


----------



## Lunasong (Mar 15, 2011)

The program this weekend from my civic orchestra:

"Featuring fabulous dancers from hit TV shows _Dancing with the Stars_ and _So You Think You Can Dance_, as well as finalist singers from American Idol, this show has taken symphony halls across America by storm. It's an evening of song and dance, all set to a program of sparkling popular music performed by your fine Orchestra."

In a couple weeks, they are performing _The Music of Michael Jackson_.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Music is just music, that's it. I don't see it as a religion. So I am comfortable with listening to many things, both 'highbrow' or 'serious' classical, to 'light classical' or whatever you want to call it. & non classical as well. Music has different purposes, so I play what I want when I want, when I need it, etc.

There's a trend in Australia, and I think around the world, for symphony orchestras to do concerts collaborating with rock & jazz musicians & thinks like that. One of my favourites is our own Tim Minchin, who did a tour here and in other English speaking countries which has been hugely successful. He's currently based in the UK, and sold out Royal Albert Hall weeks (or more?) in advance, which does not often happen with concerts involving symphony orchestras on that scale of venue.

There's also the trend of orchestras doing film scores as the whole film is playing, live. In the upcoming Sydney Festival, Kubrick's '2001' will be played that way at Sydney Opera House concert hall. Things like Howard Shore's LOTR have also been done in this way, and they've been hugely successful.

I think its good overall. Makes the orchestra money, brings in new audience, and gets away a bit from the traditional format of programming (which is in danger of becoming a bit calcified and a kind of seniors club almost, I think). No ageism intended, I'm no spring chicken myself.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I was just going to congratulate Sid on his fine democratic and beneficent view of music, when I read:



Lunasong said:


> "Featuring fabulous dancers from hit TV shows _Dancing with the Stars_ and _So You Think You Can Dance_, as well as finalist singers from American Idol, this show has taken symphony halls across America by storm. It's an evening of song and dance, all set to a program of sparkling popular music performed by your fine Orchestra."


I think that's just (urp) great, and (urp) excuse me, gotta run!


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

It is the NATURE of film music to 'need the film.' It is more than rare when it does not. Those film nights with live music, all kinds, are a great entertainment. 

It is also the nature of film music to be film music, using a myriad of techniques and the vocabularies of contemporary classical - though more often than not the desired effect is to create tension or suspense, because the audience finds that sound so unfamiliar it disorients (that is the calculation). It will be very interesting if more film scores start using the most contemporary of vocabularies most of the time to a degree where the effect on the audience will no longer be surprise, suspense, disorientation - and interesting too, to hear what the film composers will have to come up with to again 'work the crowd' for those desired effects. 

Nothing wrong with 'crossover,' for goodness sake. Yes, some of those more popular bits of program are pandering - flat out - whether the audience is genuinely pleased with them or not. 

Hiring a top-paid rock performer, who can cost as much or more than a high-paid guest classical soloist, often leaves the performing organization with less, not more, after that particular concert. The notion behind it is that same audience will return for 'the straighter' fare. It has been found out that is not generally the case. Bad marketing call.

But get them in the hall by all means. Are there good / fun film scores? of course. Do we start to rename something by another genre simply because of its placement in a particular venue - I don't think so, but I like 'calling it what it is.' And... calling it 'what it is' is not in any way pejorative. A lot of pop fans are just soooo offended when you say the music they listen to is 'pop' music, or 'rock' music. Some inverse snobbery, as if 'calling it classical' is some guarantee it has 'upped itself one station' or is now 'legitimate.' LOL. It would be more than great if everyone relaxed about simply naming things 'what they are.'


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Lunasong said:


> The program this weekend from my civic orchestra:
> 
> "Featuring fabulous dancers from hit TV shows _Dancing with the Stars_ and _So You Think You Can Dance_, as well as finalist singers from American Idol, this show has taken symphony halls across America by storm. It's an evening of song and dance, all set to a program of sparkling popular music performed by your fine Orchestra."
> 
> In a couple weeks, they are performing _The Music of Michael Jackson_.


How ghastly!


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Sid James said:


> Music is just music, that's it. I don't see it as a religion. So I am comfortable with listening to many things, both 'highbrow' or 'serious' classical, to 'light classical' or whatever you want to call it. & non classical as well. Music has different purposes, so I play what I want when I want, when I need it, etc.
> 
> There's a trend in Australia, and I think around the world, for symphony orchestras to do concerts collaborating with rock & jazz musicians & thinks like that. One of my favourites is our own Tim Minchin, who did a tour here and in other English speaking countries which has been hugely successful. He's currently based in the UK, and sold out Royal Albert Hall weeks (or more?) in advance, which does not often happen with concerts involving symphony orchestras on that scale of venue.
> 
> ...


But these "events" only bring in new audiences for this type of activity they do not translate into new audiences for classical music.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Sid James said:


> There's also the trend of orchestras doing film scores as the whole film is playing, live. In the upcoming Sydney Festival, Kubrick's '2001' will be played that way at Sydney Opera House concert hall. Things like Howard Shore's LOTR have also been done in this way, and they've been hugely successful.


My favorite movie with my favorite music. . Lucky "Sydneysiders" (or whatever, lol).


----------



## Guest (Nov 2, 2012)

moody said:


> But these "events" only bring in new audiences for this type of activity they do not translate into new audiences for classical music.


Not so, in at least one case.


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

Sid James said:


> There's also the trend of orchestras doing film scores as the whole film is playing, live. In the upcoming Sydney Festival, Kubrick's '2001' will be played that way at Sydney Opera House concert hall.


That's awesome!


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

moody said:


> But these "events" only bring in new audiences for this type of activity they do not translate into new audiences for classical music.


I don't know if they do, but they attract a much more mixed audience in terms of age. But KenOC's reaction implies to me that 'crossover' is all the same. Well, just like 'serious' classical, there's a variety of 'crossover' type stuff. I wouldn't go to something like So You Think You Can Dance. I'd chose something different over that. Just like I have various choices in 'serious' or 'highbrow' classical, so too I can make what choice I make from the lighter/crossover/whatever stuff.

So (to KenOC) is a classical listener the same? Are we all the same? Then what are these endless debates about various types of 'highbrow' stuff? Oh, its just all the same. Beethoven is the same as BArtok, who's the same as Bantock (just one letter difference, who cares?).

Guys, you are more intelligent I think than to reduce everything down to dichotomies & black versus white type of things (& no, its not the Michael Jackson song).

The other thing is that, as I said, it lets the orchestra do the 'highbrow' stuff. It actually gets cash in the till, if you know what I mean. I don't know, are musicians and orchestras supposed to survive on air? Or what they've been doing for years in the USA, borrowing today to finance holes in their budget from like 5 years back? That's another thread, but related to this too.



aleazk said:


> My favorite movie with my favorite music. . ...


Besides the concert in the concert hall, there's a free family outdoor concert also in Summer as part of the festival. Doing various bits from Kubrick's '2001.' If I don't wanna shell out cash for the concert performance of the same music, I might go to the outdoor one (which has, as traditional, the 1812 overture finishing it off - now is that too 'lowbrow?').



> ...Lucky "Sydneysiders" (or whatever, lol).


Your terminology is correct. Sydneysiders we are.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

Within 'classical' we have everything from Beethoven's late quartets to Rachmaninov's 2nd piano concerto to Jenkin's Armed Man. _Overall_, classical may or may not be more serious than other genres, but there are certainly crowd-pleasers within it - less 'serious' pieces of music.

Film music can stand on its own two feet. It can just as much as pop music can, and sometimes somewhat more. The idea that music has to stand alone on its own two feet in order to be 'proper' music is anachronistic, and excludes a great deal of extremely highly regarded classical music. So much for Wagner's complete art taking off... Film music is not, by and large, highly intellectual music, but I think the best of it has more substance to it than the more 'popular' end of 'classical' music these days (or any days for that matter). It's like the Peer Gynt suite - that's theatre music after all.

Classical is category, a generalization about certain types of music which often share certain qualities. It often breaks down when we try to analyze it closely. That doesn't mean it can't be helpful in distinguishing music that is, on the whole, _different_.


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

moody said:


> But these "events" only bring in new audiences for this type of activity they do not translate into new audiences for classical music.


I disagree. Everyone has to start somewhere, and not everyone cuts their teeth on Chopin and Beethoven while still in the cradle. I did not start listening to opera, for example, from my classical music listening. I started out loving the operatic style voice that some symphonic metal singers use. While looking for more of that, I realized "Why not go straight for the source" hence I turned to opera. So too may some of the audience members seek out classical after getting a taste of light orchestral music.



> Film music can stand on its own two feet


Indeed. Pan's Labyrinth has an awesome musical score. And the Memoirs of a Geisha score is one of my favorite albums.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Lunasong said:


> The program this weekend from my civic orchestra:
> 
> "Featuring fabulous dancers from hit TV shows _Dancing with the Stars_ and _So You Think You Can Dance_, as well as finalist singers from American Idol, this show has taken symphony halls across America by storm. It's an evening of song and dance, all set to a program of sparkling popular music performed by your fine Orchestra."
> [...]


That is great advertisement text! I can only hope the show itself is as entertaining.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

I think I'm obviously just a stick in the mud but I started straight in at the deep end at eight. I don't want to know about easy listening ,most film music and certainly not cross-over.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Ramako said:


> Within 'classical' we have everything from Beethoven's late quartets to Rachmaninov's 2nd piano concerto to Jenkin's Armed Man. _Overall_, classical may or may not be more serious than other genres, but there are certainly crowd-pleasers within it - less 'serious' pieces of music.
> ....
> Classical is category, a generalization about certain types of music which often share certain qualities. It often breaks down when we try to analyze it closely. That doesn't mean it can't be helpful in distinguishing music that is, on the whole, _different_...


So too is 'crossover' different. I mean look at composers/musicians who mixed all types of things and worked with many musicians. Eg. Grapelli and Menuhin, Menuhin and Ravi Shankar (who worked with everyone from Philip Glass to rock musos to doing film scores, etc.), Astor PIazzolla - who mixed the tango with jazz, classical, rock, everything. There's an anecdote on wikipedia how, when he was studying under Boulanger, Piazzolla showed her some symphony he just did, and then she asked him to play something on his accordion. He played a tango he kind of improvised, and she said 'now THAT'S Piazzolla.' Implying his high falutin' symphonies and concertos where like fake. & that's the thing I'm saying, people seem to throw 'crossover' into a pile. & as with any label, it can just mean 'music I don't like' (but do they admit that?). Same is done with classical by those who don't like it. Same with any type of music, any stereotype of it.

& the boundaries have always been shifting. We had highbrows in the late 19th century who poo-pooed the likes of Brahms and Saint-Saens for putting dancy finales in their concertos. They obviously valued certain things (profundity?), God forbid people should just enjoy themselves. How 'common' and lowbrow indeed. Similar to the ivory tower brigade today. If a composer does some music people enjoy, esp. if many people enjoy it & its very popular, well that's sacrilege. See how ridiculous this is? Again, the same word I repeat, ideology.



> ...Film music can stand on its own two feet. It can just as much as pop music can, and sometimes somewhat more. The idea that music has to stand alone on its own two feet in order to be 'proper' music is anachronistic, and excludes a great deal of extremely highly regarded classical music. So much for Wagner's complete art taking off... Film music is not, by and large, highly intellectual music, but I think the best of it has more substance to it than the more 'popular' end of 'classical' music these days (or any days for that matter). It's like the Peer Gynt suite - that's theatre music after all.
> ...


Well I think pop (and rock - again often its hard to distinguish these for me) also has had some great musos over the decades. I mean look at the songs of Bernie Taupin and Elton John. They are now 'classics' just about. Similar with others, even things like Quincy Jones producing a number of albums of the late Michael Jackson. I'm not trolling here at all, I think these kinds of collaborations resulted in good music in their genres. But if people dislike the genre, of course they will tend to look down upon it.

If Grieg where alive today, he'd have done a film score, its the modern equivalent of incidental music. Same as with great composers of the 20th century - Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Vaughan Williams, Malcolm ARnold, Walton, and closer to now Philip Glass (I can go on) - they did work in this medium. & again, in the topsy turvy world of the highbrows, Malcolm Arnold getting an Oscar for Bridge Over the River Kwai, that was a negative. Despite writing both film and concert hall music, he was deemed to be a sell out and lowbrow. For winning an award for goodness sakes! How dastardly old chaps, populism! Selling out! Add that to his alcoholism and depresssion (& womanising) & he's a real target (but guys who did some of that stuff, Sibelius, he's proper highbrow, untouchable!).

So its just double standards. For Arnold's bitter reposte to the avant-garde, listen to his Grand Grand Overture which includes parts for vacuum cleaners and floor polisher. Its his bitter joke against the extreme avant garde, who valued 'writing' for machines like that over his excellent film music, recognised by those in 'the real world' as being among the best in the genre (regardless of trendy ideologies of the post war era).

& now I get back to my 'real world.' I find it kind of sad I have to say obvious things like this. Better if people just get the info themselves (its not hard).


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

KenOC said:


> So -- what's classical music and what's not? Is programming works outside the "canon" (Taco Bell's or otherwise) simply pandering? And how about that "An Evening with Elvis" concert when things get really rocky for the orchestra?
> 
> Examples welcome!


I liken it to Vaudeville.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Sid,you are in great danger of doing exactly what you have been preaching against recently.
Your post is overbearing and hectoring to a degree and puts inordinate pressure on those who do not share your point of view,especially as you may be perceived as a fairly senior figure on TC.
I am aware that Grapelli and Menuhin were popular but could never see why as their music seems to me neither one thing nor the other,I thought Grapelli much better with Django Rheinhardt.
Pity Menuhin didn't spend more time on his technique and then perhaps his recordings would have been better.
To pick up on your comments jumbled in with Piazolla (who?-last time I looked that was an Italian steak sauce),crossover music is music I just don't like--is that clear?Good.
You should also not make a point and then translate it it to fit your ends. "God forbid people should just enjoy themselves.How common and lowbrow indeed* ,this hysteria is apparently all do do with ideology,
You can enjoy yourself,within reason,anyway you like but don't attack and/or force this on others who may not see your choice as enjoyment
You may also spend as much time as you like listening to Michael Jackson although the thought of it makes me want to puke.as it did when my kids collected up his records,you will note that I did not stop them and force my ideology on them.
When it comes to your remarks on film music you appear to be just incorrect apart from anything else.
I believe that incidental music to plays,etc, was mostly made to be played in certain intervals and not during the action as the words would have been drowned our--I am open to correction on that.While film music carries on regardless throughout on the other hand.
Saint-saens wrote the first film music and well known composers have included Prokofiev,Sir Arthur Bliss " Things to Come", ( he was Master of the King's Music so it didn't seem that he was looked down upon by the establishment) and Vaughan Williams "Scott Of the Antartic"
Certainly Arnold didn't seem to have been much affected by this criticism--he wrote altogether 132 film scores1
He was awarded honourary doctorates from universities all over the world,he was made a Fellow of the Royal College of Music in 1983, the Queen made him a Commander of the British Empire in 1983 and many,many more awards were heaped upon him not to mention the fact that he was knighted.
I have never heard him accused of being lowbrow or selling out and i have been alive during all of his composing life---I think.
As for the Grand,Grand Overture,this was written for the first of Gerald Hoffnung's hilarious concerts and was a practical joke. I think your remarks on this far-fetched but I am sure you can quote Arnold on the subject?
You roll out more invective ,"how dastardly,populism,selling out (again)" all really OTT.
As for your remarks about alcoholism,i knew about Sibelius but not about Arnold so too much can't really have made of it over the years.In any case when you look at the history of alcoholism in the artistic world it's hardly remarkable is it?
You end up saying that you are sad to have to say these obvious things, well they are not and you didn't.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Thanks for your comments moody. I won't comment on them other than its obvious that we have different 'takes' on this issue. Ultimately equally valid as its based on our own ideologies, bias, preferences and so on. But apart from that, I think that the views similar to yours are in the majority vis a vis members of this forum. Doesn't make them 'right' or 'wrong.' But I accept I'm in the minority here, as in many other things I am as well.

However, apart from that, I doubt this thread will reach 100 pages like the 'what is the point of atonal music' thread. Basically because with crossover type musics, the people who enjoy it in my experience tend to just do that. Either you enjoy this type of music or you don't. There's little ideology attached to it, other than the obvious economic imperative. & I see no problem with that, honestly. As I said in my earlier post, orchestras around the world are doing this increasingly for that reason, to make money and get people into the door who would otherwise not come to a concert involving classical musicians (and sonata said that was a gateway to her too). Not because like 'atonal' music, it is the 'music of the future' as some pundits said ages back, nor because like 'warhorse' repertoire, its mega profound and great and all that. So we don't like it because we have to, but because we just like it. That's it in a nutshell.

But anyway, I don't see many musicians of either 'camp' rubbishing the other. Its mainly the fans who are prone to do that. & many rock musicians are classically trained, or know classical music very well. A number of my favourite bands have classical background (the Moody BLues is a good example, two of them are classically trained). I don't see rock or even the best pop as inferior to classical, far from it. But again, it boils down to preference, and this is the last I'll say on this, its fruitless arguing about this - unlike atonal music and other 'sacred cows' - on a classical music forum.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> Not so, in at least one case.


The general statistics show it is so - they don't come back for 'the straight stuff.' The costs, if they do bring in one eventual subscriber to 'the straight stuff' are not practical.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Film music exists because the film itself exists, whereas the converse does not hold. It is nearly always secondary to the film. Often, it may momentarily sound like crafted pieces of classical music but the extent of artistic craftmanship is almost not nearly there. Movies from decades past that used to begin with an overture are introductory sounds to set you on the opening mood/atmosphere, while (often) reading who the stars of the movie and producers etc. were. Overtures to operas, on the ther hand, are crafted symphonic pieces that often utilised prevailing musical models and forms. My view is there is a clear difference between film music and classical, and incidentally any "crossovers", too.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> My view is there is a clear difference between film music and classical, and incidentally any "crossovers", too.


I tend to agree with those who see a clear parallel between film music and the older form of incidental music. The best film music is sometimes edited down to a "suite" that is no different from episodic 19th century suites or incidental music.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^Its just ideology guys. Actually I read a book since my last post here. My memory was correct re Malcolm Arnold. In the 1960's, the chief controller of music for the BBC, worked very hard to shut Arnold and other more traditionally leaning/popular composers from being played on radio. A big tenet of Modernist ideology (and also just some types of what I call highbrow thinking in general) is that its a problem for a composer to reach a wide audience, to communicate with a broad audience. In other words to be popular. So its the same with the film music debate. Composers of film music are classically trained, and a number of them have done music both for the concert hall (not only suites fashioned from their scores, but stand alone works). Also, the trend I talked about, of having whole scores played live as the film plays above the orchestra on a screen in a concert hall.

Face it guys, things have changed since the times that Modernism meant 'the future' (now its just one of several futures, and in terms of what people like Glock where predicting, it simply hasn't happened, it was like unreality, Alice in Wonderland). & neither is it the 19th century. But what do you say to this? A composer straddling the 'divide' was Korngold, who wrote incidental music, 'serious' highbrow stuff like opera and concert hall stuff, and finally film scores for Hollywood. Similar to Malcolm Arnold, once Korngold got an Oscar (Academy Award) he was pulled down by various critics as being lowbrow. The 'more corn than gold' label.

So what can't a composer fight against, no matter how good his music is? Ideology of course. You will never win against that! Same deal on this forum, but I really don't give a toss anymore. I could set up an alternate thread about crossover albums/music that I actally like. Stuff like what Ravi Shankar did with Menuhin and J-P. Rampal among others, his sitar concertos which I quite like, or albums like Domingo did with the late John Denver, or stuff that Jon Lord (formerly of Deep Purple) did. But I post those things if I listen to them on 'current listening' and that's enough for me. I just want to talk about music that I listen to, that's it. Not put it in boxes underpinned by my ideology. Or if I do that, I say it, and sometimes even discuss the possible limitations of my argument. But as people of various extreme views (who have not contributed to this thread, btw) like to suggest, I'm the only biased boy in the village. Yep, just me, I'm the only one! They're totally impartial and objective (not).

So just rubbish 'crossover' or don't let it into your exclusive club of what is 'good' music. I don't care.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

COrrection (covering my backside again!) that it was not Glock but another guy, Ponsonby, who locked Arnold out of BBC programming:

_During the 1960s, Arnold experienced the chill wind of critical disapproval because his music was not regarded as "serious" enough. But unlike some other composers who preferred to write diatonic music rather than atonal, he did not fall foul of William Glock's reign as BBC Controller of Music, perhaps because of Hans Keller's partiality for his music. Glock commissioned the Fourth Symphony. It was under Robert Ponsonby's regime that his symphonies and concertos disappeared from the Proms and BBC programmes generally._

& also note this on post-1945 Modernist ideology:

_At a time when critical opinion was becoming restless about Vaughan Williams, Walton and others and was hankering after serialist composers and Schoenberg followers, Arnold's melodic music, full of diatonic gusto, unafraid of the occasional emotional cliché and standing aloof from "trends", came as a disconcerting complication. A tendency to underrate him, to regard him as lightweight, began then and was never wholly corrected._

Italics above quote from Malcolm Arnold obituary in Telegraph of UK:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1529701/Sir-Malcolm-Arnold.html


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

*They* can do what *they* want. I don't go out anymore. :lol:


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

PetrB said:


> The general statistics show it is so - they don't come back for 'the straight stuff.' The costs, if they do bring in one eventual subscriber to 'the straight stuff' are not practical.


Let's reverse that. Would you go watch the 'unstraight' stuff? I mean, would you go to a 'crossover' concert?

See, its possible to reverse any dichotomy.

& of course, I like both 'straight' and 'not so straight" classical musics. Or musics involving classical musicians. & I'm not talking about gay composers LOL. But on that note, Lenny - a bisexual - didn't see any need to worry too much about distinctions between so called 'high' and 'low' art. & that's what I go by as a listener, too.


----------



## Guest (Nov 5, 2012)

PetrB said:


> The general statistics show it is so - they don't come back for 'the straight stuff.' The costs, if they do bring in one eventual subscriber to 'the straight stuff' are not practical.


Show me the stats please.

In any case, I don't suppose anyone would be making a serious case for the events of the type that moody was referring to bringing in hordes of new fans immediately. But they might contribute, along with film music itself, to the kind of exposure that might attract listeners over a longer period.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^When I was a kid, I do remember going to family concerts which featured many light classical hits, eg. Leroy Andersen's 'typewriter.' Not crossover, strictly speaking (& I'm not going to get hung up on yet another semantic discussion of what's its exact meaning - yawn), but not exactly profound and 'high art' either. These concerts also featured movie themes from films I was watching back then, eg. _Star Wars _and _Superman_. I think these where positive experiences for me and fun, and that's all a kid can ask for. Not all kids attending such concerts would have gone seriously into classical music as I have, but I don't see why its a bad thing for orchestras to do, along with 'crossover' as I've argued ad nauseum already on this thread.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

The Typewriter, Syncopated Clock, Belle of the Ball, China Doll, Fiddle-faddle, Trumpeter's Lullaby... Leroy Anderson is not forgotten here!


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> Show me the stats please.
> 
> In any case, I don't suppose anyone would be making a serious case for the events of the type that moody was referring to bringing in hordes of new fans immediately. But they might contribute, along with film music itself, to the kind of exposure that might attract listeners over a longer period.


Bad art is not the way to lead people into good art. Reminds me of the arguments in favor of letting children read all these teenage fad novels in the hopes that one day they'll read Aeschylus and Sophocles. It just doesn't happen.

I don't think you were making that argument exactly. Just an observation.


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

I don't see why film music should be considered "bad art" though.


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

It isn't necessarily, but usually it is. I don't reject the possibility of good movie music out of hand. Bernard Herrmann comes to mind.


----------

