# Do you care for musical boxes?...



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Reflecting what Thomas Ades said in the quote below from this interview -



> ...More than once in our interview Adès talks of "retaining your innocence" as essential to a composer. When I say he has managed not to be put in a box, he replies: "Yes, but I've had to work hard for that. *When people start talking about atonal or tonal or postmodern, or whatever - I'm not being weird, but I really don't know what they are talking about."*...


Do you care for 'boxes?' Eg. in terms of style, era, even technique? Especially given the complexity of much classical music, its diversity and eclecticism.

I think its useful for me to a point, but not much beyond that. Eg. look how many 'periods' composers like Beethoven, Stravinsky and Schoenberg went through, for one thing. & in the post-1945 world, pinning down a composer like Ades is difficult, maybe even absurd or pointless.

& in relation to this, remembering what a lecturer of mine asked the class years ago. "What comes after Post Modernism? Will it be Post Post Modernism?"

Sounds absurd, doesn't it?

Anyway, given its been coming up recently on the forum these days, let's have a broad discussion about issues to do with labelling, boxes, categorization, etc...


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Just call it "music". And if one prefers, add some reference to when it was written, e.g. symphony #1 (1800) or sonata (20th century). The listener can more or less identify what word describes it best.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

Creative people hate the fact that their output can be so easily circumscribed and defined by just a few words. They will squirm under labels no matter how well fitting they are, if they describe accurately what they do they will fight all the more to escape them. They will often deny their influences too, no matter how blatant they are, rather preferring to think themselves wholly original.

Boxes are there to help us make sense of the world and simplify things. Sure some people use those boxes to box up and store away anything they don't like and label it "atonality", "science fiction", "abstract" or similar. But for most people these boxes are just to keep tidy the messy attic of their minds.


----------



## Wandering (Feb 27, 2012)

^ there is always HOPE, Pandora.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Yes, I like musical boxes


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

I'm much more interested in seeing how the work of a composer like Stravinsky or Beethoven evolves from work to work, as they grew as composers and absorbed new influences, than what niche they fit into from a given time.

Stravinsky may have written Russian nationalist music, Neoclassical music, and Serial music, but more importantly, all of the music he wrote was Stravinsky's music, and very clearly so throughout his career. That connection is more interesting to me than trying to find the intersections between Stravinsky's Neoclassicism and that of Hindemith or Poulenc.


----------



## Wandering (Feb 27, 2012)

Anyone who wants to own their music, like cds, could really use one. A sentimental keep sake with a tune they cherish.

The famous waltz by Brahms would be my pick, sorry I don't have the op. and no.


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

I like post post Modern(ism) era, the future which will be ours!


----------



## Flamme (Dec 30, 2012)

Interesting usage of a Box...


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I knew that was coming, violadude!

But I must emphasise that its not about whether 'boxes' are important generally, but to YOU. Could be as a listener, or a musician, or anything else (eg. writer on music/reviewer/musicologist).

But there are definitely composers and pieces that defy 'boxing' (or boxing neatly - and I don't mean Mike Tyson guys).

Eg. Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra, Music for Strings, Percussion and Celesta could have been called symphonies. But they where not, partially since his aim was to get away from the Austrian & German symphonic tradition.

Another one is Monteverdi's Vespers of 1610, which contains elements of not only sacred choral (of course) but also concerto, sonata (chamber music), opera, song. Church authorities, the purists among those, actually where not happy at it being too much unlike the more conventional/expected church music of the time. But the Venetians loved it, it filled the churches, so the authorities could not say a thing against it.

So there are things like this and of course what Mahlerian said re Stravinsky, that type of thing is what I'm getting at there too.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> I'm much more interested in seeing how the work of a composer like Stravinsky or Beethoven evolves from work to work, as they grew as composers and absorbed new influences, than what niche they fit into from a given time.
> 
> Stravinsky may have written Russian nationalist music, Neoclassical music, and Serial music, but more importantly, all of the music he wrote was Stravinsky's music, and very clearly so throughout his career. That connection is more interesting to me than trying to find the intersections between Stravinsky's Neoclassicism and that of Hindemith or Poulenc.


But that would deprive so many students of topics for research papers, including -- and God Forbid -- You Remove That 'Research - proof' as Required From Academe -- the Thesis!

I admire the hell out of composers who, by happenstance, end up later 'great' and / or 'of interest' who also manage to not leave one scrap of sketch, revision draft, or uncompleted score laying about after their death. Pity the poor researcher, who can not write a hypothetical Thesis on that composer's 'working methods,' conduct and play some discarded draft or earlier version of a work the composer had discarded: pity another kind of writer who cannot speculate upon whom, exactly, Beethoven's "Immortal beloved" was. [To me, this is like dealing with someones sloughed-off dead skin cells rather than the actual person.]

Apollo forbid they just listen to the actual music, perhaps look directly to the score, leave the rest as virtually useless, and form their own opinion of said composer and their works. Far too direct, I guess


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Here are some issues to deal with 'boxes' regarding debates on this forum:

A. Is Gershwin a classical composer?

B. Is film music classical music?

C. Was Beethoven a Classical era or Romantic era composer?

D. Ditto Schubert.

E. In terms of musical culture, are Austria and Germany the same? Eg. can we talk of an Austro-German symphonic tradition?

...& so on. There's probably no right or wrong answer to these. It depends on personal opinions & maybe on ideological positions or biases we all have & also where we come from (eg. listener, muso, writer on music, etc.).


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Sid James said:


> Here are some issues to deal with 'boxes' regarding debates on this forum:
> 
> A. Is Gershwin a classical composer?
> 
> ...


Taking this as a 'test' for credit in a school, I might add where those things are 'well-taught' (without an 'agenda') and where people are Not Afraid to clarify a definition without waffling. _... adding, where an empirical, 'what I feel it is' or 'what it means to me' answer is completely unacceptable!_ Put another way, what you feel about any of this is considered worthy of a moment's time only after you have fully learned the technical and historic nitty-gritty 

And, yes, there are rather black or white 'yes or no' answers to this if you 
are in for the full and in-detailed years of study.

Q: Is Gershwin a classical composer?
A: Gershwin wrote a handful of classical pieces, the vast majority of his works are in the popular song genre - many of which are considered 'artful music' nonetheless.

Q: Is film music classical music. 
A: Categorically, not. IF composed by a classical composer and IF put into a more classical format of presentation, perhaps 'yes.' // both vocabulary and form 'count' here. A olio hodge-podge of everything but the kitchen sink, from late romantic to the newest of the avant garde in the space of minutes is identifiably 'film-scorish.' Additionally, so much of it is so plainly derivative of prior classical works done better: anything so wholly derivative in the classical genre is not given much time or credit, there is simply too much which has more merit, holds deeper interest. There is little there, though 'original' which is intended for extended listening, and it is written to 'support a film.' Yes / Grieg, Prokofiev, yadayada, composed incidental music to plays and film scores. Some of those suites are in the repertoire, as are some film score suites now in the repertoire. Chances that anything by Howie Shore will be considered anything but film music, based on vocabulary and quality of writing, are very slim -- too many better contenders from whatever genre you care to choose.
_The film score composer's skills, however, are noted as 'remarkable' even in the stiffest of academic environments, because those skills are, undeniably, 'remarkable.'_

N.B. Seriously tired of this question, wondering strongly if the sentimental attachment to the music As Part Of The Film Experience has some people wanting it 'bumped up' in respect.
I would love if the same question were asked by those who had only heard the scores, had no idea of any film / story / literal content associated with said score. That would be really interesting.

Q: Was Beethoven a Classical era or Romantic era composer?
A: Classical, through and through. Because he dealt with harmony and harmonic function, even stretching it far beyond where he first came in, always in terms of classical period thought, Ditto for his 'busting the seams of the known forms -- frayed, tattered, flag still wholly identifiable at end of battle by time of his death. [The Common Error - because some of his musical gestures and contours were so expansive, and clearly an inspiration for the later romantics, he is mistakenly labeled 'romantic.' The better texts, when mentioning 'Beethvoen and romantic' are more responsibly careful to say he 'pointed the way' to romanticism.] Not a "Romantic" composer by dint of theoretic and structural habits. // _(Get this! -- Carl Maria von Weber, near exact same dates, wrote in a 'romantic' style from the get go. This is why a simple 101 music appreciation course, with an ill-written textbook, proliferates the idea dates 'are all' - there is not enough time to 'inform' in such a course, enough to know theoretically and formally, exactly what defines 'classicism.' Thus the common error - reproduced in many textbooks._

Q: Schubert
A: Early romantic, (as in Schumann, 'mid-romantic) by harmonic procedure, certainly. His earlier symphonies very much of a classical form, clarity, but with that 'newer' harmonic procedure identified with the romantic era. The later works, still often with some classical 'restraint' even though forms much expanded.

Q: In terms of musical culture, are Austria and Germany. the same? Eg. can we talk of an Austro-German symphonic tradition?
A: Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn  It wasn't in the text, is not considered 'important.'

Grade in said quality school, 4 out of 5. The fifth question may have been an 'extra credit' essay question, more a test in 'making a good argument' for or against a near globally general ambiguity.

All the above, exception fifth question, are not really 'in doubt' within the trained classical community. If you want to do battle with what generations of experts have pretty much agreed upon, be my guest. I question just about everything, even moreso if it is 'accepted canon.' I can't find anything wrong with those answers.

There is ALWAYS room for argument about film scores, because they are more effin' varied (Due to function) than a more 'freely' written abstract piece of music. Arguments like, "Stravinsky wrote ballet scores, so why isn't John Williams' "Star Wars Suite' accorded the same rank?" are to me parsecs beyond fatuous. Use your ears. The Stravinsky is remarkably fresh, the other is like a derivative of Erich Wolfgang Korngold after Korngold was composing music which was a parody of Erich Wolfgang Korngold. You want to credit _that_ the same as 'Petrushka?' Seriously.

P.s. I hasten that last has Nothing to Do with 'Social Standing' or 'Elitism,' but on inherent qualities of the music itself. If you are one to whom it truly is 'all the same,' then your equipment is not up to measure the differences.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Arsakes said:


> I like post post Modern(ism) era, the future which will be ours!


By then it will probably be the 'neomodernism' referring to the early 20th century, where the label 'modernist' (given about seventy years after the fact) makes it sound like a spontaneous rebellion of a union of composers to upend the past, giggle.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^I didn't ask for a lesson, just give us YOUR opinion.

Questions of this type have been debated here in the past.

http://www.talkclassical.com/4777-george-gershwin.html

http://www.talkclassical.com/7897-beethoven-classical-romantic.html

http://www.talkclassical.com/23160-us-composers-supported-their.html

These are controversial issues on this forum, points of contention. They may be cut and dried for you, but they aren't for everybody.

But I personally don't care much for distinctions in terms of being a listener simply enjoying music. So I agree with what this member says, basically:



ArtMusic said:


> Just call it "music". And if one prefers, add some reference to when it was written, e.g. symphony #1 (1800) or sonata (20th century). The listener can more or less identify what word describes it best.


So it can be a case by case basis as what you say about film scores. Its up to the individual.


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

Sid James said:


> Here are some issues to deal with 'boxes' regarding debates on this forum:
> 
> A. Is Gershwin a classical composer?
> 
> ...


I can add a few more.

(F) Did Wagner contribute to the rise of Nazism?

(G) Is Classical music evil?

(H) Is "highbrow" music just a construct of the mind?

(I) Do conservatives walk out of all concerts playing music newer than the pyramids of Egypt (or pyramids of South America)?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I get the message rapide.

This thread was not a political thread which you have objected to me making. So I stopped those. I did this thread for open discussion.

Anyway, I was insulted by some guy earlier today. I've had a gutful.

I won't make any threads now. Its a waste of time. All I get is attacked and scapegoated.

& yeah, Wagner is linked in my mind with fascists. Online ones who target others, just like the Nazis did to certain people they didn't like. Same old hubris, arrogance, but it doesn't matter if its Wagner, fossilised wigs or noise music. Fanaticism to one or any type of music breeds bitter people who feel they need to put down others to feel good.

How sad is that?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Sid James said:


> ^^I didn't ask for a lesson, just give us YOUR opinion.
> 
> Questions of this type have been debated here in the past.
> 
> ...


No reason for people to be at all concerned with academic or historic labels... *I most heartily endorse.
< Just call it "music". And if one prefers, add some reference to when it was written, e.g. symphony #1 (1800) or sonata (20th century). The listener can more or less identify what word describes it best. >*

On the other hand, once those 'labels' are bandied about so recklessly, I actually thought a lesson might come in handy for some who haven't learned it but might like to know.

After all, that casual mis-application of so many of those terms, and a seeming lack of caring about 'what is what', could be taken in a context of 'those wishing to ignore and or re-write history' for those whom music is a serious passion, earnest avocation, profession.

[I here remind you about how beyond vehement you are about ignoring or re-writing history as people wish vs. how it actually is and was. -- Do I 'interpret' this turn-around as a sort of hypocrisy on your part? Or are you that much more casual about music than I thought you seemed to appear?]

Because, for goodness' sake: you're now at odds with your very post in your sharp reprimand of my posted response.

You want to know, or not, I really don't care. I was participating for those who actually may care to know. 
If you hate labels, categories, then why on earth ask as if you wanted to clarify a muddle on category, era, style, etc?

If I'd known I was taking yet another survey about 'what people feel about it,' rather like a market survey for a food chain or other commercial enterprise, I really would not have bothered to take the time, not wishing to add to that very muddle of confusion you now claim you were addressing.

Whatever your post is about, I must have completely misconstrued your intent, which I now say by way of an explanation, not an apology.

Carry on, then.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I'm on edge and I shouldn't have replied. As I said to rapide this will be the last thread I ever make on this forum. Take my word for it. Its a disaster among many other disasters. I'll just stick to ultra 'safe' threads like current listening.

I also apologise.


----------



## Flamme (Dec 30, 2012)

Why all the fuss?
From musical boxes to politics in few pages?


----------



## KRoad (Jun 1, 2012)

Sid James said:


> Reflecting what Thomas Ades said in the quote below from this interview -
> 
> Do you care for 'boxes?' Eg. in terms of style, era, even technique? Especially given the complexity of much classical music, its diversity and eclecticism.


Paradigmatically speaking? Yes.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

It gets tedious when composers try to fight the system. Those who do, we just pile up into the "experimental" box, and that's no better than being in any other box. There's nothing wrong with being in a box: you can be categorized as something, even something narrow, and still be incredibly unique, skillful, and all the good qualities for any composer.

With pop music, I'm _terrible _at naming boxes. I wouldn't know punk to black metal, I just call it all modern loud rock with screaming. Thus if there's something like "pop experimental," I'm blown out of the park, and can't determine almost any of the influences at all.


----------



## Guest (Jan 10, 2013)

Sid James said:


> Anyway, I was insulted by some guy earlier today. I've had a gutful.


I found your advice to be insulting. So I responded. I was not insulting you; I was responding to remarks of yours that I took to be insulting. I'm sorry, I cannot follow the logic of turning a _reaction_ to an insult into an insult itself. It's as if the situation has been rewritten so that the original insult has disappeared. The insulter has turned into the victim.

That can't be right!


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

This has happened many times some guy and you know it. You, stlukes, rapide and a number of others have done this to me. But rarely does anything get done about it. With stlukes gone, I've felt more free to express certain things. Or basically just to speak my mind without being howled down. But looks like that was an illusion.

In any case, I am a moron for not liking what you all like. I'm a moron for questioning things which may make you discomfited. I should not make controversial threads. I should not do that, cos that's what you think, and that's how things 'work' around here.

Stlukes is gone, and some have cried crocodile tears over his passing. Remember the ageism thing? Ah, history, we just forget it. Tabula rasa every day.

I thought a forum was to discuss things to give one's opinion on things. Which naturally means a diversity of views. Seems not.


----------



## Flamme (Dec 30, 2012)

Dudes chill...


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Flamme said:


> Dudes chill...


Yes, there are too many personal comments here. Please remember our ToS:



> Be polite to your fellow members. If you disagree with them, please state your opinion in a »civil« and respectful manner.
> 
> Do not post comments about other members person or »posting style« on the forum (unless said comments are unmistakably positive). Argue opinions all you like but do not get personal.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Personally, I think the value of "boxes" is that it makes conversation easier and can, at times, lead to greater understanding of reality. Rather than talk about the many individual Classical works I can instead just say Classical music. It's a pragmatic way of talking about various sets of objects. There are drawbacks to generalizing, but humans are spectacular at collecting individual items into grouped sets and certainly will never give it up.

But I do understand that generalization that leads to greater misunderstanding than convenience or enlightenment can be bothersome to many. That's always been the trick. By all means generalize, but make sure that generalization does not overly confuse or mangle reality.



PetrB said:


> Q: Is film music classical music.
> A: Categorically, not. IF composed by a classical composer and IF put into a more classical format of presentation, perhaps 'yes.' // both vocabulary and form 'count' here. A olio hodge-podge of everything but the kitchen sink, from late romantic to the newest of the avant garde in the space of minutes is identifiably 'film-scorish.' Additionally, so much of it is so plainly derivative of prior classical works done better: anything so wholly derivative in the classical genre is not given much time or credit, there is simply too much which has more merit, holds deeper interest. There is little there, though 'original' which is intended for extended listening, and it is written to 'support a film.' Yes / Grieg, Prokofiev, yadayada, composed incidental music to plays and film scores. Some of those suites are in the repertoire, as are some film score suites now in the repertoire. Chances that anything by Howie Shore will be considered anything but film music, based on vocabulary and quality of writing, are very slim -- too many better contenders from whatever genre you care to choose.
> _The film score composer's skills, however, are noted as 'remarkable' even in the stiffest of academic environments, because those skills are, undeniably, 'remarkable.'_
> 
> There is ALWAYS room for argument about film scores, because they are more effin' varied (Due to function) than a more 'freely' written abstract piece of music. Arguments like, "Stravinsky wrote ballet scores, so why isn't John Williams' "Star Wars Suite' accorded the same rank?" are to me parsecs beyond fatuous. Use your ears. The Stravinsky is remarkably fresh, the other is like a derivative of Erich Wolfgang Korngold after Korngold was composing music which was a parody of Erich Wolfgang Korngold. You want to credit _that_ the same as 'Petrushka?' Seriously.


You start this answer by stating that film music categorically is not classical music; however, the argument above seems to strongly suggest that film music is most certainly classical music, just not good classical music. The only place where you suggest film music is _different_ is when talking about the "vocabulary" of a single composer, Howie Shore. Are you suggesting that music not written to a very high standard is then not classical music no matter what other properties that music has (_and therefore_ film music is not classical music)? Or are there other reasons that film music should not be considered classical music?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

mmsbls said:


> You start this answer by stating that film music categorically is not classical music; however, the argument above seems to strongly suggest that film music is most certainly classical music, just not good classical music. The only place where you suggest film music is _different_ is when talking about the "vocabulary" of a single composer, Howie Shore. Are you suggesting that music not written to a very high standard is then not classical music no matter what other properties that music has (_and therefore_ film music is not classical music)? Or are there other reasons that film music should not be considered classical music?


The 'categorically not' is a matter of fact clinical 'general truth.' Most, the vast majority, of film scores are not classical, the first to tell you so would be those film composers. I did end that saying it was on a 'case by case' basis, though, not as a tactical waffle, but because that is also the matter of fact clinical state of affairs.

There are a million 'well-done' everythings, granted. It just so happens that you compose a brilliantly popular Star Wars theme ala Korngold copying Korngold, it just no longer counts as 'classical' - it is a (very) well written 'slip on the costume of and write without plagiarizing' pastiche. No one is bent out of shape it is a pastiche, yet 'original,' but some seem hell-bent on campaigning that the concert suite extracted from that score as a concert suite is 'classical.' It is a film music suite, not Beethoven, not Ravel, not even Korngold before he composed for the movies. It appears, always, on 'pops' concert venues.

There is nothing right or wrong about the music then, but none of that waves a magic 'change the genre' wand over that score. There is a 'slot' called 'light classical,' i.e. Ferde Grofe Grand Canyon Suite, anything by Leroy Anderson, and I would pop the 'Star Wars Concert Suite' in that 'slot.'

Is every composer wholly 'original' in their musical vocabulary, blazing new frontiers of music and the form ti takes? Absolutely not. Is there really 'bad' or 'banal' classical, also 'absolutely.'

For 'boxes' no one yet has come up with a globally applicable, practical, and handy, definition of classical' music. It is 'art music' but then again, some 'art' can be ebulliently tongue in cheek, 'light.' even superficial. (I hate the term; it de facto implies all other music is not art.) There is also 'lighter' classical which does not demand much 'intellectual' activity on the part of the listener. In a way, the debate of 'what is classical' will forever be based on ambiguity, or like British or American law, built up on a body of judgements from 'individual case arguments.' It is that body of collective judgements from case arguments which form the 'answer' to that still nebulous 'what is classical music.' Those 'judges' as in law, are not the general citizenry, but court judges who first studied and practiced law, 'paid their dues' as it were, and earned the position as 'qualified by experience' to judge.

Whether a film score is or isn't 'classical' has nothing to do with class, social standing, or any of the rest other than 'Does it hold up to the criteria of the body of classical works as being of the same intent, genre, quality? Most often the film score does not.

Any suggestion for naming the Lord of The Rings score 'classical' I have yet to hear, witness or read has come from none other than 'the laity' -- i.e. listeners who are non-professional musicians.

Music, performance, composing, knowing the repertoire beyond a hobby level, even a passionate hobby level, has always required 'being in it,' and has never been able to be fully transmitted by way of 'just books.' A lifetime, often, of serious work and direct involvement, including a lot of mentoring by the previous generations, mentored by their predecessors, etc. and that then inculcates an included highly well-developed critical faculty based on the cumulatively learned 'case-law' of a very great deal of music as the source of any viable general description of 'what is classical.'

Currently, most of that experienced stripe are far from conservative in accepting new developments. Some, but few, film scores are highly regarded, along with the truly remarkable skills of a good film composer. Tossing the entire genre into the 'classical' genre has not been considered because really, there has yet not been enough of 'classical' quality' within the body of work from that quarter to bring the question up in the first place. Some of the wonderful writing is acknowledged. It still remains, for the most part, a 'wonderful bit of writing for these two minutes here, this minute and fifteen there, etc. Most of it, to those deeply familiar with past literature, whether those are a very good several minutes or no, is still intensely derivative of preexisting music, and is not even 'a piece.'

On TC, it has seemed to me, much of that hue and cry 'pro' film score 'legitimacy' is from those who have mistakenly tied the whole question to social status, sociopolitical dynamics which have absolutely nothing to do with music of any sort -- all that type of call for 'the people' to be the collective judges of everything, or calling out for a social upheaval because for some reason, 'classical' and its makers, adherents and historians are all somehow 'evil oppressors' holding the people down and in their place. Well, I hope that reads as 'ludicrous,' because I think it is.

There are some, naive, who think that anything played on a grand piano is 'classical.' I sometimes wonder if some of that is part of the wish to call film scores classical; they're played by a symphony orchestra, after all, and trade in a lot of the vocabulary of classical music. A lot of the argument 'for' seems to me almost as naive.

I did not coin this, but think it the best of possible 'global' categorizations of all music. This boils it down to two genres:
Pop / Non-Pop.
Now, are the scores from Lord of the Rings and Star wars 'Pop' or Non-pop? Best of luck in making a fully conclusive argument for their being classical, at any rate.

I make no apology if an individual thinks a film score is as 'heavy' or 'deep' as Bruckner and because of that wants it 'ranked up to full classical status,' That is more the personal issue of someone lobbying for that status change than it is mine, or John Williams' for that matter. Williams 'just composed' some classical pieces, because he was commissioned to and / or wanted to compose 'a classical piece.' Again, he would be the first, happy with his career overall, to say his film scores were not 'classical' and that the concert suite from 'Star Wars' was a concert suite from 'Star Wars.'

I am, therefore, truly puzzled why some desire to call film scores 'classical.' They are in a category unto themselves, which accepts, for example, they may be derivative as all get out, not, technically, even be 'a piece,' and still have some merit as 'good music.' I do think it is the public, not the film score composers, who are oddly confused and care about the change for a different genre tag other than 'film score.' I cannot imagine a better tag for film scores other than "Film Score": we know, like classical, that the genre has a 'nature' accommodates a myriad of different stylistic content, what it offers, and that nature is named.


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

Film scores exist because of the film. It is subservient to the film. Classical music is not subservient to another entertainment genre. It stands on it own.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

Except when it is ballet.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

quack said:


> Except when it is ballet.


Yes, Quack! But taking this opportunity to kabosh that argument as applied to film scores:

Beethoven, incidental music to anything, was a career classical composer. Ditto Stravinsky, Ravel, and others who wrote for the stage. There are dozens more ballet scores from classical composers none of us could happily sit through without the accompanying stage action, or really, the music is a rather forgettable accompaniment to a stage work.

The professional film score composer has a lifetime of composing film score music, not classical music.

Just as most would not care to listen to an album of a musical which included ALL the utility music of its score, it is similarly true if those film-score albums included every utility cue - quite the uninteresting bits.

Stravinsky, Ravel, Prokofiev and Milhaud (La Creation du monde) come to mind as those who wrote for ballet, at least a handful of scores, which stand 'on their own' without cuts needed to make them attention worthy in concert, outside the theater. [Ever try and sit through a listen of the complete 'Nutcracker?' I couldn't. Extracts of that one will do me, and do do for many.]

Suites are sometimes made from the pragmatic point of reducing the length of a score for further opportunity of performance in concert, increasing both their circulation and the composer's revenue from the work.

Many others, even by those classical composers, were cut down because there were enough dull spots that the composer knew well enough what was 'listenable' without the distraction of the stage business. (Poulenc, 'Les Biches' / Copland, 'Appalachian Spring.') (This is the same common sense strategy the film composer uses when converting their score into a concert suite.)

The argument, "classical composers wrote incidental music for plays; ergo Film Scores are classical" is fatuous, perhaps -- or even worse, pedantic; that argument holds no real weight when tested.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

I think it is a lot more fatuous to construct such strict boxes around things. Boxes are there to contain, constrain and constrict, much better to think in terms of clouds with fuzzier edges.


----------

