# How can people not see the foolhardiness of their contention...



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

How can people not see the foolhardiness of their contention that film music is not classical music if they consider opera music classical?

Peace and Happy Holiday!


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

For one thing, people watch opera primarily for the music over the story while, on the contrary, people watch a movie more for the story. Since most operas I listen to are in languages I’m not familiar with, the lyrics could probably be changed somewhat and I wouldn’t know the difference, but I would notice any change in the music. On the contrary, some movies could have the soundtrack changed without affecting the story. In fact, I think that has happened, though rarely, in the past. Opera and film are very different experiences, except perhaps where the film is a musical.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

This thread...again?!?!?


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

eljr said:


> How can people not see the foolhardiness of their contention that film music is not classical music if they consider opera music classical?
> 
> Peace and Happy Holiday!


If your intent is to insult those who disagree with you, then you are going about it in the right way.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

eljr said:


> How can people not see the foolhardiness of their contention that film music is not classical music if they consider opera music classical?
> 
> Peace and Happy Holiday!


It sounds like it to some people. It's harmless to adults, let them have their categories.

It seems like a failure somewhere (definitions).


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

I tend to think of film music as "incidental music" when it is used in support of the film, which is generally what film music is composed to do. Of course, when something like the Mozart Piano Concerto 21 C-dur K. 467 is used to support a scene in a movie it, in some sense, becomes "incidental music". For me, the complete film (visuals, sound...) is a unique art form of its own. One may watch the film without the sound, but it is then not the same work of art, just as to study a 2" square of brush strokes on a Renoir painting is not the same as appreciating the work as a whole. Even to change the musical score behind a film is to change the very work of art itself. And one can alter a "somber" background of a tragic scene with music that is light and comical and completely destroy the tragedy of the scene. The emotional content is often anchored with music. Music can also lead the audience towards an emotional response, which is often a duty of the film composer.

All forms of art can be disassembled, but what one has is no longer the original work of art. Imagine being able to hold the chopped off arm of Michaelangelo's _David_! You'd be holding a work of art, but you would not be holding the _David_.

I've long considered opera the "fullest" art form because it utilizes so many art forms to be complete: literary script, music, set design, costume design, acting, singing, directing .... Listening to _Carmen_ on a record is not the experience of the full art form of viewing (and hearing) _Carmen_ as performed on the opera stage. One might love the music of _Carmen,_ one might love the opera _Carmen_ ... and one might love a particular production of the opera _Carmen_.

The problem is that too many people want to categorize everything. And that is not always a wise course. Take John Williams's music out of the film and perform it with the Boston Pops (which I think has been done!) and one has a concert of "classical music". And many problems will now arise as to what the definition of "classical music" really is. It's not so simple. A lot of the contemporary "serious music" composers tap into jazz and rock and world music styles, yet we still term their work "classical". It gets too complicated for a short posting. So I say, just enjoy that music if you care to.


----------



## PaulFranz (May 7, 2019)

Opera involves music that is more original, more complicated, better developed, and more consistent. "Classical" film music is mostly pastiche.


----------



## jojoju2000 (Jan 5, 2021)

PaulFranz said:


> Opera involves music that is more original, more complicated, better developed, and more consistent. "Classical" film music is mostly pastiche.


How about composers from non European Countries who borrow elements of European art Music in their own writing ? 

As for example, Pham Duy. If the definition of Classical Music is to be original, complicated, developed, then well...


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao (Nov 13, 2021)

DaveM said:


> For one thing, people watch opera primarily for the music over the story while, on the contrary, people watch a movie more for the story. Since most operas I listen to are in languages I’m not familiar with, the lyrics could probably be changed somewhat and I wouldn’t know the difference, but I would notice any change in the music. On the contrary, some movies could have the soundtrack changed without affecting the story. In fact, I think that has happened, though rarely, in the past. Opera and film are very different experiences, except perhaps where the film is a musical.


lol


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao (Nov 13, 2021)

jojoju2000 said:


> How about composers from non European Countries who borrow elements of European art Music in their own writing ?


Hey don't look at me.


----------



## PeterKC (Dec 30, 2016)

eljr said:


> How can people not see the foolhardiness of their contention that film music is not classical music if they consider opera music classical?
> 
> Peace and Happy Holiday!


I don't think the actors sing the script in movies. That might be a big difference dontcha think?


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Not again. The problem: define "classical". Is film music classical in the sense of (often) being played by an orchestra? Or, is it classical in the sense that it has timeless value and never goes out of style? Some film music has gone on become a regular part of the repertoire: Lt Kije the prime example. Vaughan Williams's 7th. Bernstein's West Side Story was refashioned into Symphonic Dances (ok, originally a musical but then a movie.) Are there film scores that could, even should, have a place in the concert hall? Absolutely, like Franz Waxman's Suite from Prince Valiant. There are a lot of people who won't admit film music to the classical realm but largely because they can't stand 20th music of any kind, film or not. It's just going to take music directors with a vision and belief that good music is good music regardless of its origin. You should have been in Phoenix when James Sedares was music director: he loved film music and we had a lot of Korngold, Waxman, Herrmann, E Bernstein, Rosza...those were exciting years.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao (Nov 13, 2021)

PaulFranz said:


> Opera involves music that is more original, more complicated, better developed, and more consistent. "Classical" film music is mostly pastiche.


----------



## Nielsen4theWin (2 mo ago)

I think the whole categorization thing is a bit pedantic and I certainly have no overarching wisdom to offer. So I'll pose a question.

I'm curious whether the classification arguments change if the film music in question is something like Preisner's work for late Kieslowski (_Double Life of Veronique_ and _Blue_, for example) or Blake's music for _The Snowman_, where the music is gifted center stage and where for at least a part of the picture the images are subservient to the piece. Does escaping subservience make the music classical? Or not?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

PaulFranz said:


> Opera involves music that is more original, more complicated, better developed, and more consistent. "Classical" film music is mostly pastiche.


What do you mean by "development"? -Various Baroque and Classical operas have been deemed as series of recitatives and arias (with more ensembles in the latter) for entertainment for nobles and/or common people. At least John Williams does "development" in the sense that Wagner does. Where's such "development" in Monteverdi? ("Complexity" in terms of what? mood changes? Changes of rhythm and gradations of dynamics?) As for "pastiche", even the so-called "greats" have been criticized as "borrowing" too many things..


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

If movies had sung dialog then they would be comparable to opera. But since they do not have sung dialog, but spoken dialog with music accompanying a dramatic or comedic scene, then there is little basis for a comparison. 

Also, in most cases the composer of opera dictated to the librettist what he wanted and insisted on changes in order to accommodate his music. Verdi., Puccini, and Mozart all were the dominate partner in the creation of their operas. This is not how film score composers interact with directors of movies.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

SanAntone said:


> Verdi., Puccini, and Mozart all were the dominate partner in the creation of their operas. This is not how film score composers interact with directors of movies.


"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.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

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.


Mozart, and Verdi ,and Puccini, did not always work with an "able poet." And if you are familair with the letters of Verdi as well as Mozart and Puccini, you will find many instances where they dictated to their librettists.

Once again I cannot help but feel you are more interested in a game of "gotcha" than having a serious discussion about these issues.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

SanAntone said:


> Once again I cannot help but feel you are more interested in a game of "gotcha" than having a serious discussion about these issues.


No, I'm pretty serious about it;

*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.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> No, I'm pretty serious about it;
> 
> *Incidental music* https://www.dictionary.com/browse/incidental-music
> noun
> ...


That definition is accurate, but it does not indicate the quality of the music or define it as a primary example of classical music. As I've posted elsewhere the incidental works of Mozart or Beethoven, major classical music composers, are not important in their output and the incidental music they wrote could be excluded from their catalog and their reputation would not be damaged. It is insignificant.

Incidental music is unimportant as a musical expression and subordinate to the main event of a movie or play. It is not comparable to opera or string quartets, symphonies, oratorios, or the other primary forms of classical music.

Why you insist on harping on it is questionable.


----------



## PaulFranz (May 7, 2019)

jojoju2000 said:


> How about composers from non European Countries who borrow elements of European art Music in their own writing ?
> 
> As for example, Pham Duy. If the definition of Classical Music is to be original, complicated, developed, then well...


That isn't quite the definition of classical music. "Classical music" in this context obviously refers to Western classical music. It is an ongoing tradition of formal music that started in the Baroque era. It has stylistic commonalities with its predecessors, and many stylistic commonalities with its immediate predecessors. Generally, it makes use of established conventions and techniques adapted to its interpretation. Classical film music taken as a body of work is overwhelmingly given to Romantic-era pastiche, thus taking it out of the tradition. It is also generally segmented and disjointed, making thematic development very difficult.


----------



## PaulFranz (May 7, 2019)

hammeredklavier said:


> What do you mean by "development"? -Various Baroque and Classical operas have been deemed as series of recitatives and arias (with more ensembles in the latter) for entertainment for nobles and/or common people. At least John Williams does "development" in the sense that Wagner does. Where's such "development" in Monteverdi? ("Complexity" in terms of what? mood changes? Changes of rhythm and gradations of dynamics?) As for "pastiche", even the so-called "greats" have been criticized as "borrowing" too many things..


If you're going to bring up John Williams, check out his classical work written in the classical tradition for classical musicians in a classical concert. Observe how dissimilar to his film work it is. He certainly didn't think they were one and the same.

EDIT: and the fact that you brought up Wagner is a huge problem. Wagner died a half-century before Williams was born. Why, in his films, is he writing Wagnerian music? What happened to the tradition of classical music? What happened to Saint-Saëns and Ravel and Strauss and Schönberg and Berg and Floyd and Rautavaara? This is why I speak of pastiche. Film scorers write as if classical music had died in 1890. It didn't. That's why what they write isn't classical.


----------



## PaulFranz (May 7, 2019)

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


>


Such ugly singing


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

I honestly don't get why so many would never consider the score for _Star Wars_ to not be classical music, whereas Holst's _The Planets _is. The similarities are rather remarkable. Compare the score for _Vertigo_ with _Tristan und Isolde_? What about the score for _Spartacus_? Personally, I think the genre of the music should be determined by the music itself and not for what purpose the music is written for. The film music that exhibits the general characteristics of classical music should be considered as such.

I also don't understand how the music being subservient to the action in the film makes it non-classical. I think most ballet lovers would agree that the dancing is more important than the music, and yet I've never heard anyone argue that the music for _Giselle_ shouldn't be considered classical music.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao (Nov 13, 2021)

PaulFranz said:


> Such ugly singing


ugbel canto?


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao (Nov 13, 2021)

and then you're gonna be ugbel


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao (Nov 13, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> That definition is accurate, but it does not indicate the quality of the music or define it as a primary example of classical music. As I've posted elsewhere the incidental works of Mozart or Beethoven, major classical music composers, are not important in their output and the incidental music they wrote could be excluded from their catalog and their reputation would not be damaged. It is insignificant.
> 
> Incidental music is unimportant as a musical expression and subordinate to the main event of a movie or play. It is not comparable to opera or string quartets, symphonies, oratorios, or the other primary forms of classical music.


grieg


----------



## jojoju2000 (Jan 5, 2021)

PaulFranz said:


> If you're going to bring up John Williams, check out his classical work written in the classical tradition for classical musicians in a classical concert. Observe how dissimilar to his film work it is. He certainly didn't think they were one and the same.


Here's some more nuance though. Alot of Williams's film work has bled over and influenced his concert pieces and vice versa.
Take for example this rearranged version of Dracula for Anne Sophie Mutter. 



Go to around 3 minutes. Sound familiar ?


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

BachIsBest said:


> I honestly don't get why so many would never consider the score for _Star Wars_ to not be classical music, whereas Holst's _The Planets _is. The similarities are rather remarkable. Compare the score for _Vertigo_ with _Tristan und Isolde_? What about the score for _Spartacus_? Personally, I think the genre of the music should be determined by the music itself and not for what purpose the music is written for. The film music that exhibits the general characteristics of classical music should be considered as such.
> 
> I also don't understand how the music being subservient to the action in the film makes it non-classical. I think most ballet lovers would agree that the dancing is more important than the music, and yet I've never heard anyone argue that the music for _Giselle_ shouldn't be considered classical music.


According to the Ethereality multiplication test, the score to _Star Wars_ is already well-within the Classical school. About 5 or 6/10ths classical. Williams' concert works would appear to be much less classical at the moment, just not as groundbreaking currently.

Mozart and Bach never had as high a score as they did well after they died, though it's hard to know past scores. Time will tell if Williams will even keep this score, or if it will drop, which would demonstrate it's not always full-proof.


----------



## PaulFranz (May 7, 2019)

BachIsBest said:


> I honestly don't get why so many would never consider the score for _Star Wars_ to not be classical music, whereas Holst's _The Planets _is. The similarities are rather remarkable. Compare the score for _Vertigo_ with _Tristan und Isolde_? What about the score for _Spartacus_? Personally, I think the genre of the music should be determined by the music itself and not for what purpose the music is written for. The film music that exhibits the general characteristics of classical music should be considered as such.
> 
> I also don't understand how the music being subservient to the action in the film makes it non-classical. I think most ballet lovers would agree that the dancing is more important than the music, and yet I've never heard anyone argue that the music for _Giselle_ shouldn't be considered classical music.


_The Planets _was finished in 1917. Star Wars debuted in 1977. It doesn't seem odd to you that they should be so similar 60 years apart? Do you often confuse Mozart with Wagner? Chopin with Rachmaninov?


----------



## PaulFranz (May 7, 2019)

jojoju2000 said:


> Here's some more nuance though. Alot of Williams's film work has bled over and influenced his concert pieces and vice versa.
> Take for example this rearranged version of Dracula for Anne Sophie Mutter.
> 
> 
> ...


"Rearranged"? How rearranged? Plenty of classical composers include in their works non-classical melodies that they then reharmonize and arrange so that they fit into the classical tradition.


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

PaulFranz said:


> _The Planets _was finished in 1917. Star Wars debuted in 1977. It doesn't seem odd to you that they should be so similar 60 years apart? Do you often confuse Mozart with Wagner? Chopin with Rachmaninov?


Mozart and Wagner are rather difficult to confuse. I'm not utterly convinced someone (disregarding a huge level of familiarity with the two composers) could accurately distinguish between Rachmaninov and Chopin with 100% accuracy. I'm also not convinced that distinguishing between Williams and Holst, on the whole, is much more difficult than distinguishing between Rachmaninov and Chopin.

But just to be clear, you are arguing that the genre of the music depends on when the music was composed. So the same piece of music written in the 1917s is a different genre than that piece of music composed in 1977.


----------



## PaulFranz (May 7, 2019)

BachIsBest said:


> Mozart and Wagner are rather difficult to confuse. I'm not utterly convinced someone (disregarding a huge level of familiarity with the two composers) could accurately distinguish between Rachmaninov and Chopin with 100% accuracy. I'm also not convinced that distinguishing between Williams and Holst, on the whole, is much more difficult than distinguishing between Rachmaninov and Chopin.
> 
> But just to be clear, you are arguing that the genre of the music depends on when the music was composed. So the same piece of music written in the 1917s is a different genre than that piece of music composed in 1977.


I outlined my arguments above. A genre of music not intended to meaningfully participate in the living tradition of classical music is not classical music. It's intended for what it is: music to accompany films marketed to non-classical audiences. It never had any pretensions to being part of the classical tradition. Someone writing simplified Monteverdi imitations all day today would not be classical, no. "Classical" isn't a simple stylistic genre. It's a tradition of formal music.

As for your hypothetical...I'm not sure. That's never happened before. I think I'd need to know more about how and why it was composed. It is at least imaginable that the exact same piece in 1917 would be classical, but non-classical in an alternate universe in 1977. "Classical" is about the tradition; otherwise, you can start to question whether Stockhausen and Handel belong to the same anything.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> grieg


+ Tchaikovsky



PaulFranz said:


> _The Planets _was finished in 1917. Star Wars debuted in 1977. It doesn't seem odd to you that they should be so similar 60 years apart? Do you often confuse Mozart with Wagner? Chopin with Rachmaninov?


Maybe the evolution of Western classical music has come to an end; the Romantic period has not ended and will never end; it actually extends to our era; the reason why "music from Wagner's Ring can be played in the context of film and doesn't feel out of place". (I acknowledge the "experiments" that gave rise to various subsets of modern music, however.)

Isn't it a bit weird to complain all the time about Williams' idiom being old, but the same time, wax lyrical about outdated music from hundreds of years ago? Why obsess so much about when a work was composed?


----------



## PaulFranz (May 7, 2019)

hammeredklavier said:


> + Tchaikovsky
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Williams's idiom isn't that old...when he composes classical music for the concert stage. It's "old" in his film music, because it's really not meant to be classical or to interact with the classical world.

Ignoring Ravel, Debussy, and Strauss seems very, VERY bizarre to me. You can't go back to Wagner without eliminating them, and that's just cutting up standard rep for the sake of...what, Jaws?


----------



## Malx (Jun 18, 2017)

I'm I the only one that thinks the OP is just:


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

eljr said:


> How can people not see [etc]


I don't know. Why do you think they can't?


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

mbhaub said:


> Not again. The problem: define "classical". Is film music classical in the sense of (often) being played by an orchestra? Or, is it classical in the sense that it has timeless value and never goes out of style? Some film music has gone on become a regular part of the repertoire: Lt Kije the prime example. Vaughan Williams's 7th. Bernstein's West Side Story was refashioned into Symphonic Dances (ok, originally a musical but then a movie.) Are there film scores that could, even should, have a place in the concert hall? Absolutely, like Franz Waxman's Suite from Prince Valiant. There are a lot of people who won't admit film music to the classical realm but largely because they can't stand 20th music of any kind, film or not. It's just going to take music directors with a vision and belief that good music is good music regardless of its origin. You should have been in Phoenix when James Sedares was music director: he loved film music and we had a lot of Korngold, Waxman, Herrmann, E Bernstein, Rosza...those were exciting years.


The first composer who occurred to me was Philip Glass.


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

PaulFranz said:


> I outlined my arguments above. A genre of music not intended to meaningfully participate in the living tradition of classical music is not classical music. It's intended for what it is: music to accompany films marketed to non-classical audiences. It never had any pretensions to being part of the classical tradition. Someone writing simplified Monteverdi imitations all day today would not be classical, no. "Classical" isn't a simple stylistic genre. It's a tradition of formal music.
> 
> As for your hypothetical...I'm not sure. That's never happened before. I think I'd need to know more about how and why it was composed. It is at least imaginable that the exact same piece in 1917 would be classical, but non-classical in an alternate universe in 1977. "Classical" is about the tradition; otherwise, you can start to question whether Stockhausen and Handel belong to the same anything.


Okay, so you believe that if a composer intends to meaningfully participate in the living tradition of classical music with a particular piece then it is classical music? So the question of whether or not a piece is classical is determined by the composers intent, rather than the musical product? I'm honestly trying to understand your viewpoint here (I did read your above post, but found it didn't really answer my question).

I do wonder what this means for many ballet scores like _Giselle_. Would anyone just listen to the score of _Giselle_? I really can't find an argument that the score for _Giselle_ was participating in the living tradition of classical music in a way that the score for _Vertigo _wasn't.

To be clear, _Giselle_ is one of my favourite ballets, and I mean no disrespect to the work as a whole.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

BachIsBest said:


> Okay, so you believe that if a composer intends to meaningfully participate in the living tradition of classical music with a particular piece then it is classical music? So the question of whether or not a piece is classical is determined by the composers intent, rather than the musical product? I'm honestly trying to understand your viewpoint here (I did read your above post, but found it didn't really answer my question).
> 
> I do wonder what this means for many ballet scores like _Giselle_. Would anyone just listen to the score of _Giselle_? I really can't find an argument that the score for _Giselle_ was participating in the living tradition of classical music in a way that the score for _Vertigo _wasn't.
> 
> To be clear, _Giselle_ is one of my favourite ballets, and I mean no disrespect to the work as a whole.


Well, there are multiple audio recordings of _Giselle._ But I agree with your point overall. I'd rather watch it (or _Nutcracker_ or _Swan Lake_) any day.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

I wish this thread would get locked down. It's the same thread started by @HansZimmer. Same arguments. Same opinions. Same everything! Please mods @Art Rock, @mmsbls, put this thread out of its misery. Thanks!


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Neo Romanza said:


> I wish this thread would get locked down. It's the same thread started by @HansZimmer. Same arguments. Same opinions. Same everything! Please mods @Art Rock, @mmsbls, put this thread out of its misery. Thanks!


It is very similar to HansZ's thread. There's nothing in our rules against posting a similar thread. If people started posting many similar threads, we'd likely step in. Certainly no one must enter this thread.


----------



## Flippo63 (Aug 14, 2018)

Why do we need to argue if it's Classical or not? If you like it, you like it no matter what genre it is (I like it myself).


----------



## PaulFranz (May 7, 2019)

BachIsBest said:


> Okay, so you believe that if a composer intends to meaningfully participate in the living tradition of classical music with a particular piece then it is classical music? So the question of whether or not a piece is classical is determined by the composers intent, rather than the musical product?


Do you seriously think that a deluded madman could record a heavy metal track all while convinced that it was in the classical style, and I would then just have to accept it as classical because of his intent? Like I'm gonna get trapped by my own Frankenstein logic? What kind of question is this?

Does it sound anything at all like music in that same tradition from the last 20 years? Was it, or might it be, played, analyzed, modified, and looked to by future composers and performers in that same tradition? If yes, it's classical. If no, it's not.

No more questions, now. They're repetitive and willfully uncomprehending. Post #21 still contains all the answers to your disingenuous queries.


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

mmsbls said:


> It is very similar to HansZ's thread. There's nothing in our rules against posting a similar thread. If people started posting many similar threads, we'd likely step in. Certainly no one must enter this thread.


FYI, there is a reason for this thread and the one I started today. I have one last one slated for tomorrow. 
They form a trilogy of thought based on the long "is film music..." thread.
I have not posted in this or today's thread nor did I intend to post in tomarrows.
As I say, they are a though exercise and the questions meant to be rhetorical. 
I only post this to ask you do not merge or close them, at least till the point is made. 

Thanks


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

eljr said:


> FYI, there is a reason for this thread and the one I started today. I have one last one slated for tomorrow.
> They form a trilogy of thought based on the long "is film music..." thread.
> I have not posted in this or today's thread nor did I intend to post in tomarrows.
> As I say, they are a though exercise and the questions meant to be rhetorical.
> ...


The point being that you are intending to insult those who do not agree with your (misguided) analogies?


----------



## That Guy Mick (May 31, 2020)

eljr said:


> How can people not see the foolhardiness of their contention that film music is not classical music if they consider opera music classical?


Its a great question that is rarely asked. For those in the know (which should not be confused with know-it-all musicologists) the true origins of opera are well understood. Opera originated from writers who couldn't write a good theatre script and unsophisticated music composers. So they tricked their audiences into enjoyment by combining music and singing. And often there was a shortage of good actors (with plagues, worker strikes, and revolutions going on), but singers were underemployed lacking any military band skills, and worked on the cheap. Monteverdi famously said "I can't get these lusty actors to remember their lines for a schilling, but I can get a tormented singer to hum a few lines for a half pence and the gentry love it." It was all about money and the musical ignorance of the audience. Still is.

Its true (though Capitalists and Socialists still argue). Opera worked and off the rails it went. Becoming known as a member of the wider canon. But it was never "Classical" music as I tell my students and never will be. ;^)


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

eljr said:


> FYI, there is a reason for this thread and the one I started today. I have one last one slated for tomorrow.
> They form a trilogy of thought based on the long "is film music..." thread.
> I have not posted in this or today's thread nor did I intend to post in tomarrows.
> As I say, they are a though exercise and the questions meant to be rhetorical.
> ...


So, you ask a rhetorical question and have no intention of posting further, but you're expecting "the point to be made".

Fingers crossed that someone else makes that point very very soon...whatever that point may be.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

That Guy Mick said:


> Its a great question that is rarely asked.


And then, like London buses, three come along at once.

It's a rude question that didn't need asking.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

eljr said:


> How can people not see the foolhardiness of their contention that film music is not classical music if they consider opera music classical?
> 
> Peace and Happy Holiday!


How can some people not see the foolhardiness of their contention that Hollywood films are a type of opera? Of course, if they were the same thing we would need to evaluate film music along with the films it somehow makes sense of.


----------



## toasino (Jan 3, 2022)

DaveM said:


> For one thing, people watch opera primarily for the music over the story while, on the contrary, people watch a movie more for the story. Since most operas I listen to are in languages I’m not familiar with, the lyrics could probably be changed somewhat and I wouldn’t know the difference, but I would notice any change in the music. On the contrary, some movies could have the soundtrack changed without affecting the story. In fact, I think that has happened, though rarely, in the past. Opera and film are very different experiences, except perhaps where the film is a musical.


I AGREE! For me, Opera is about music and voices, rather than story, as usually the plots rarely make sense in today's world.


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

PaulFranz said:


> Do you seriously think that a deluded madman could record a heavy metal track all while convinced that it was in the classical style, and I would then just have to accept it as classical because of his intent? Like I'm gonna get trapped by my own Frankenstein logic? What kind of question is this?


No, I don't. Arguments that use the thoughts of insane, psychotic, or otherwise highly deluded people are generally not great arguments. I wasn't going to ask anything of the sort. I've actually been thinking about this and have come to the conclusion that you might be right that classical music is better defined as a musical tradition than a musical genre. But I'm honestly not sure.

This all being said, I would imagine there were 19th century composition students who seriously intended to contribute to the ongoing tradition of classical music but completely failed to produce anything of the sort.



PaulFranz said:


> Does it sound anything at all like music in that same tradition from the last 20 years? Was it, or might it be, played, analyzed, modified, and looked to by future composers and performers in that same tradition? If yes, it's classical. If no, it's not.


This I definitely disagree with. A rather dull 19th century composition student is certainly producing music which we should dub "classical" (at least by my thought process) but has no real chance at being "played, analyzed, modified, and looked to by future composers and performers in that same tradition".



PaulFranz said:


> No more questions, now. They're repetitive and willfully uncomprehending. Post #21 still contains all the answers to your disingenuous queries.


I have read post #21 multiple times, but I suppose there is a possibility that I myself am just dull.


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

eljr said:


> FYI, there is a reason for this thread and the one I started today ... They form a trilogy of thought based on the long "is film music..." thread. ... As I say, they are a though exercise and the questions meant to be rhetorical.


eljr: There are two things about your posts on Threads 1 & 2 that I dislike. First, in your Thread 1 OP you call the disagreement of people don't share your opinion about film music and classical music "foolhardiness" and question how they "fail to see" what you want them too. But people are allowed to express their opinions on TC and it is not unreasonable to think that film music and classical music are different. Questions about musical genres often are contentious and have more than one answer.

Second, the way you express yourself is unsatisfactory. You don't get off the hook by calling your Thread 1 OP a "rhetorical question." Most writing employs rhetorical devices of some sort without getting into negative putdowns like yours. And nothing supports the assumption that your insight is superior to that of others. Further, in Thread 2 you are being grandiose in calling your "thought exercise" a "trilogy of thought" about issues that have already been discussed extensively on TC. Your readers are adults who know a lot about music and sometimes have significant experience in professional-level writing, including publication. I think that with some instruction or mentoring you could produce better opinion pieces and that's why I've taken the time to write this response.


----------



## carolineopera (Jul 2, 2013)

eljr said:


> How can people not see the foolhardiness of their contention that film music is not classical music if they consider opera music classical?
> 
> Peace and Happy Holiday!


Totally agree....No room for snobbiness anyway. If music is beautiful (as so much of film music is), that's what matters. No need to classify. Some of the most beautiful music I have heard over the years has been in films....some it sounds classical, and some not but no need to categorize.


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

I've tried so hard, Lord knows I've tried, but I just cannot see it. 

Where is that confounded foolhardiness?


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Flippo63 said:


> Why do we need to argue if it's Classical or not? If you like it, you like it no matter what genre it is (I like it myself).


Some people need to have their tastes in music validated.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

HenryPenfold said:


> I've tried so hard, Lord knows I've tried, but I just cannot see it.
> 
> Where is that confounded foolhardiness?


...did you give it to the OP?


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

PaulFranz said:


> Opera involves music that is more original, more complicated, better developed, and more consistent. "Classical" film music is mostly pastiche.


I wonder how many of the best film scores are you listened to closely. It's actually music of high quality.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

eljr said:


> How can people not see the foolhardiness of their contention that film music is not classical music if they consider opera music classical?
> 
> Peace and Happy Holiday!


Incidental music for theatre would be a more correct comparison, but I think that you are playing the game of the opponents: to discuss about irrelevant details. Instead, why don't you ask them if there is any constraint in the official definition of classical music that excludes incidental works of any type from the category of classical music.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Temporarily closed for discussion.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Re-opened. Please stick to the topic defined by the thread starter, and do not venture into a general discussion about whether film music is classical music. There is already a separate thread for that. One post has been deleted and one edited.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

PaulFranz said:


> If you're going to bring up John Williams, check out his classical work written in the classical tradition for classical musicians in a classical concert. Observe how dissimilar to his film work it is. He certainly didn't think they were one and the same.
> 
> EDIT: and the fact that you brought up Wagner is a huge problem. Wagner died a half-century before Williams was born. Why, in his films, is he writing Wagnerian music? What happened to the tradition of classical music? What happened to Saint-Saëns and Ravel and Strauss and Schönberg and Berg and Floyd and Rautavaara? This is why I speak of pastiche. Film scorers write as if classical music had died in 1890. It didn't. That's why what they write isn't classical.


The difference between concert works and the film music of John Williams is simply that the formers are written in the modern style, while tha latters are closer to the romantic style. Of course the difference is also that the formers are concert works while the latters incidental music.
Regarding technique, the film scores of John Williams are also serious.


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

Art Rock said:


> Re-opened. Please stick to the topic defined by the thread starter, and do not venture into a general discussion about whether film music is classical music. There is already a separate thread for that. One post has been deleted and one edited.


Isn't that the actual topic though? It literally has it in the OP!


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

There is a clear restriction in the OP "if they consider opera music classical? " The deleted post(s) were focused purely on the question whether film music is classical, without that restriction. We already have a thread of 2000+ posts (IIRC) on that, so let's not rehash that here.


----------



## Nate Miller (Oct 24, 2016)

The difference between film and opera is that film is essentially a plastic art. once the film is done and edited it is final. Performers no longer need to recreate thier roles to see the film again, simply rewind the film or press the button on the remote to start it again. Opera, on the other hand, is a temporal art. It must be recreated from scratch each time.

Its like the difference between painting a portrait of J. S. Bach and performing a Bach Suite. the painting, when it is finished, is done and frozen in time

But I'm only as good as my next performance when I go and play one of the lute suites, which is the difference between the two.

If there is a prejudice toward film music, this is at the heart of it. The difference between the plastic arts like film and the temporal arts like music and dance


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Nate Miller said:


> The difference between film and opera is that film is essentially a plastic art. once the film is done and edited it is final. Performers no longer need to recreate thier roles to see the film again, simply rewind the film or press the button on the remote to start it again. Opera, on the other hand, is a temporal art. It must be recreated from scratch each time.
> 
> Its like the difference between painting a portrait of J. S. Bach and performing a Bach Suite. the painting, when it is finished, is done and frozen in time
> 
> ...


I've never thought about that, and it's helpful for me.


----------



## Nate Miller (Oct 24, 2016)

Luchesi said:


> I've never thought about that, and it's helpful for me.


I was always jealous of my freinds that were artists and sculptors. When they finished a work, it was finished, they never touched it again. It was done.

For me, every time I play I have to recreate the work, and if I have a bad performance, then I suck. Simple as that. 

You're probably in the same boat as me, but I always was envious of those who's work is in the plastic arts


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao (Nov 13, 2021)

Nate Miller said:


> The difference between film and opera is that film is essentially a plastic art. once the film is done and edited it is final. Performers no longer need to recreate thier roles to see the film again, simply rewind the film or press the button on the remote to start it again. Opera, on the other hand, is a temporal art. It must be recreated from scratch each time.
> 
> Its like the difference between painting a portrait of J. S. Bach and performing a Bach Suite. the painting, when it is finished, is done and frozen in time
> 
> ...


I mean that's the difference between theater and film.

Unless of course a play gets a film adaptation, or several, or a film gets remade, several times - then the difference doesn't seem so definitive anymore...


Ah why am I even posting this obvious sh lol


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao (Nov 13, 2021)

PaulFranz said:


> If you're going to bring up John Williams, check out his classical work written in the classical tradition for classical musicians in a classical concert. Observe how dissimilar to his film work it is. He certainly didn't think they were one and the same.
> 
> EDIT: and the fact that you brought up Wagner is a huge problem. Wagner died a half-century before Williams was born. Why, in his films, is he writing Wagnerian music? What happened to the tradition of classical music? *What happened to Saint-Saëns* and Ravel and Strauss and Schönberg and Berg and Floyd and Rautavaara? This is why I speak of pastiche. Film scorers write as if classical music had died in 1890. It didn't. That's why what they write isn't classical.


lolwut


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Nate Miller said:


> The difference between film and opera is that film is essentially a plastic art. once the film is done and edited it is final. Performers no longer need to recreate thier roles to see the film again, simply rewind the film or press the button on the remote to start it again. Opera, on the other hand, is a temporal art. It must be recreated from scratch each time.
> 
> Its like the difference between painting a portrait of J. S. Bach and performing a Bach Suite. the painting, when it is finished, is done and frozen in time
> 
> ...


We are speaking about the music.

Of course inside the films you find the so called "OST", but it's not that film music is plastic. Not only you can create many different arrangements for concerts, but it's actully done.

From the Disney animated films of the nineties they have even produced musicals.


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> I mean that's the difference between theater and film.
> 
> Unless of course a play gets a film adaptation, or several, or a film gets remade, several times - then the difference doesn't seem so definitive anymore...
> 
> ...


Film remakes tend to deliberately try to differentiate themselves from predecessors, often just using using the framework and changing quite a lot. As such they are singular, fixed works, not repetitions, or even interpretations, of the same thing. This is not like working from the same script (same as working from the same score). They also have different soundtracks...unless Hans Zimmer is is engaged.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

Wagner presaged the idea of film music many years before film with his idea of music-scene-drama. Today film has displaced opera as the primary entertainment option for people that like the elements of opera.

Yet I think many people don't believe film music is "classical" music because it tends to be brief and episodic, not long-lined or well thought out over say 30-45 minutes. Most film music is short pieces strung together. Sometimes they create a whole and sometimes a disconnected suite.


----------



## Sir Dan Fortesque (10 mo ago)

PaulFranz said:


> Film scorers write as if classical music had died in 1890.


That depends.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao (Nov 13, 2021)

Chat Noir said:


> Film remakes tend to deliberately try to differentiate themselves from predecessors, often just using using the framework and changing quite a lot. As such they are singular, fixed works, not repetitions, or even interpretations, of the same thing. This is not like working from the same script (same as working from the same score). They also have different soundtracks...unless Hans Zimmer is is engaged.


Unless we're to include scene re-enactments or Psycho, sure, yeah.

Theater productions can vary immensely of course (even the "traditional" ones, without any of the crazy stuff), but they usually keep very close to the text - if they weren't, it'd be more comparable to the way film remakes are generally handled.

Theater / literature adaptations bridge that gap, since they can range from 1:1 text authentic, to just about anything.


Ultimately this all comes down to:
-the available technologies, and who's willing to use those technologies and when - before photography and audio recording, there were player pianos and other mechanical ways of setting musical performance details in stone - however apparently very few people made use of that available possibility in, say, the Baroque period
(really gotta go look that up more though)

-artist's willingness to follow the creative head's exact instructions in any given instance
-those creative head's own views on whether they should set their instructions in stone for others to follow, or not, or to what degree.

It's widely known that between the Renaissance and Classicism, they gradually did a 180* on "precise notation" - starting out with not even specifying instruments in various cases (e.g. the first operas) - although how free/restrictive things were for the performers in realising the written score is apparently less commonly agreed upon.

Then during the 19th century, apparently (gotta clear things up on that front as well), there were the parallel tendencies to both increase the detail of instruction in the written scores (dynamics, ornamentation, time etc.) as well as well as esp. solo performers increasingly getting to embellish / alter the text - as can be heard in early 20th century piano recordings.

Then certain parts of the CM scene apparently decided that the latter had been "wrong" and only the precise adherence to the score, incl. with the late Romantic works, was the proper way.



So, to briefly pick up this and the other thread's central premise/question (and then drop it again as fast as possible lol), those insisting how "CM" can "only be absolute music / where the composer reigns supreme", or "has to be something written down and passed around between performers/interpreters, rather than set in stone on mechanical / recording device", might as well start saying "CM is when the score is filled with precise instructions - therefore X is not CM!" or "CM is when the composer writes down the basic notes and figured bass and the musicians do the instrumentation, ornamentation and dynamics - therefore Y is not CM!" - it'd have about the same amount of validity.

Everyone just keeps insisting on their own definition, there's like a dozen of them and they're all in mutual contradiction lol
-absolute creative freedom
-FIT INTO THE TRADITION, do proper voicings and don't write in the wrong style in the wrong era!! (Tbf I think PaulFranz is trolling - others not so much though.)

Well anyway.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao (Nov 13, 2021)

larold said:


> Wagner presaged the idea of film music many years before film with his idea of music-scene-drama. Today film has displaced opera as the primary entertainment option for people that like the elements of opera.
> 
> Yet I think many people don't believe film music is "classical" music because it tends to be brief and episodic, not long-lined or well thought out over say 30-45 minutes. Most film music is short pieces strung together. Sometimes they create a whole and sometimes a disconnected suite.


Don't know if they were, but if there had been prose theater with continuous extensive incidental music before the invention of film, then that obviously would've been the most direct predecessor;

modern "musicals" labelled as such tend to be "number musicals" and not continuous "through-composed" though I'm sure I've got an incomplete picture on this in some way.


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> Unless we're to include scene re-enactments or Psycho, sure, yeah.


No, I'm not including that or things like it, because they are uncommon.



YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> It's widely known that between the Renaissance and Classicism, they gradually did a 180* on "precise notation" - starting out with not even specifying instruments in various cases (e.g. the first operas) - although how free/restrictive things were for the performers in realising the written score is apparently less commonly agreed upon.
> 
> Then during the 19th century, apparently (gotta clear things up on that front as well), there were the parallel tendencies to both increase the detail of instruction in the written scores (dynamics, ornamentation, time etc.) as well as well as esp. solo performers increasingly getting to embellish / alter the text - as can be heard in early 20th century piano recordings.


However lots of work has been done since then to reconstruct scores or discover how they might have been performed. This is ultimately not that relevant, because the aim is to just reproduce what the composer wrote, then add interpretative elements. This is not how film music is conceived.

The point about film/TV music (I've written a lot of it, you've probably even heard some of it...especially if you've watched bad TV) is that aside from rare cases where the music is given a large artistic role and specifically needs to be more than just 'film/TV music', the majority is building blocks stuff to order. This goes for many feature films too. This is not how operas or general classical music is conceived and composed.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao (Nov 13, 2021)

Chat Noir said:


> No, I'm not including that or things like it, because they are uncommon.
> 
> 
> However lots of work has been done since then to reconstruct scores or discover how they might have been performed. This is ultimately not that relevant, because the aim is to just reproduce what the composer wrote, then add interpretative elements.


Well HIP is about researching how things were being done - and if they found that the soloist was supposed to take over from the composer and go wild (though still within general stylistic boundaries of course) in certain cases, then that's what they'd do in a HIP performance I suppose.




> This is not how film music is conceived.


Well of course not, why would I claim that 16th century Early Baroque music and 20th century film soundtracks were being done in the exact same fashion lol

The point was that everything's different from each other to begin with, and whether the FM - non-FM divide is somehow bigger than all the other difference is, well, questionable.




> The point about film/TV music (I've written a lot of it, you've probably even heard some of it...especially if you've watched bad TV) is that aside from rare cases where the music is given a large artistic role and specifically needs to be more than just 'film/TV music', the majority is building blocks stuff to order. This goes for many feature films too. This is not how operas or general classical music is conceived and composed.


I'm unable to judge how rare those cases are, or about general statistics - and stating that "medium/form A exhibits trait X more often than Y, while medium/form B exhibits trait Y more often than trait X" is very different from "medium/form A is different from medium/form B, because A does X while B does Y".

Seems like this stuff keeps getting conflated here all the time? "Ah look, the way this movie handled the score is kind of similar to the way that opera did it, but since only 15% of movies are like this while 90% of operas are like this, the two are still incomparably different!"

Doesn't really compute does it?


And then of course there's the Singspiele / talkies like Carmen, and the comparable distinction between default and through-sung musicals - one has music 100% of its running time, the other gets interrupted by talking all the time;

so yeah they're different - and sometimes this coincided (or was directly connected to?) the talkies having a lower social status than the operas - however this doesn't make most people say "that's not CM", even though they might as well:


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao (Nov 13, 2021)

That Guy Mick said:


> Its a great question that is rarely asked. For those in the know (which should not be confused with know-it-all musicologists) the true origins of opera are well understood. Opera originated from writers who couldn't write a good theatre script and unsophisticated music composers. So they tricked their audiences into enjoyment by combining music and singing. And often there was a shortage of good actors (with plagues, worker strikes, and revolutions going on), but singers were underemployed lacking any military band skills, and worked on the cheap. Monteverdi famously said "I can't get these lusty actors to remember their lines for a schilling, but I can get a tormented singer to hum a few lines for a half pence and the gentry love it." It was all about money and the musical ignorance of the audience. Still is.
> 
> Its true (though Capitalists and Socialists still argue). Opera worked and off the rails it went. Becoming known as a member of the wider canon. But it was never "Classical" music as I tell my students and never will be. ;^)


Now that's pretty based tbh






Chat Noir said:


> the majority is building blocks stuff to order. This goes for many feature films too. This is not how operas or general classical music is conceived and composed.


Either way, if you've got concrete examples of this bad / good TV music at hand, that always makes things more substantive/interesting (though I don't always manage to look at them all immediately, frustratingly enough - oh well).


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> I'm unable to judge how rare those cases are, or about general statistics - and stating that "medium/form A exhibits trait X more often than Y, while medium/form B exhibits trait Y more often than trait X" is very different from "medium/form A is different from medium/form B, because A does X while B does Y".
> 
> Seems like this stuff keeps getting conflated here all the time? "Ah look, the way this movie handled the score is kind of similar to the way that opera did it, but since only 15% of movies are like this while 90% of operas are like this, the two are still incomparably different!"
> 
> ...


I'm not too much interested in long-winded analyses, I only know what motivates the vast majority of film/TV music, even if a certain composer of it would rather have a more artistic intent. And that it isn't composed in the way of ordinary 'art' music or even pop music. It is a thing in itself.

It's a waste of life really having such threads where people kick back by aiming to form arguments based upon comparison..."if x then y...surely?!"

The rules are simple: if you like certain things, listen to them; and stuff what anyone else thinks. Especially self-appointed experts and windbags.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao (Nov 13, 2021)

Chat Noir said:


> I'm not too much interested in long-winded analyses, I only know what motivates the vast majority of film/TV music, even if a certain composer of it would rather have a more artistic intent. And that it isn't composed in the way of ordinary 'art' music or even pop music. It is a thing in itself.


Ah well, fair enough lol; 
it's just that examples + long-winded analyses is generally what changes these kinds of arguing threads from pointless, opaque tribal bickering into something useful and interesting.


"The vast majority of TV/film music is lame" well idk have I even seen the majority of TV/film material that is out there? Obviously not (and couldn't if I lived for 1000 years). Could I have missed all the bad stuff you're talking about? 
So how can I or anyone even respond to that kind of statement lol;
obv. can't argue against or disagree with it either, maybe it's entirely true.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao (Nov 13, 2021)

Chat Noir said:


> The rules are simple: if you like certain things, listen to them; and stuff what anyone else thinks. Especially self-appointed experts and windbags.


Whenever I do just that for some amount of time, I always tend to develop the need to go somewhere and start dissecting/documenting/cataloguing it in some way - which was the immediate reason why I came here to begin with, looking for info about analysis wikis and whatnot;

mainly due to the universal frustration of not having Robocop memory and quickly forgetting 90% of what one sees/hears without sufficient repetition and/or (only sometimes successful) mental effort.



Either way, these particular threads aren't, fundamentally, an example of good analysis threads lol - though there's numerous individual posts and exchanges on it that are, to varying extents.


[edited slightly]


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao (Nov 13, 2021)

Chat Noir said:


> The point about film/TV music (I've written a lot of it, you've probably even heard some of it...especially if you've watched bad TV)


Ah wait, I even missed that part initially lol

So you're a famous composer and have written stuff for notable TV productions that I might've seen? Well that's interesting and mysterious, no way to know I suppose - what counts as "bad TV"? Mediocre soaps (that aren't Dallas/Dynasty) and sitcoms or sth? Can't say I've seen too much of that sort of stuff...
Bad low-b capekino shows? Even less.

So idk, who knows lol

Keep up the good work though (to the extent those prick directors etc. don't stand in the way of course )


----------

