Does Star Wars soundtrack count as classical music?

[Scarpia]

That's true. Shostakovich was asked to score Kozintsev movies.

My point remains.  Shostakovich and John Williams went to comparable tasks, but their tool boxes differ.

If it doesn't sound like Shostakovich, it's not classical music?   

[karlhenning]

Zowie. Check this out:

A couple years back I asked the same question.  Ran for 9 pages:

http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,1096.0.html

And from Bill's first post in that ancient (May 2007) thread:

These movie soundtrack threads usually are short-lived here, but what the heck . . . .

[karlhenning]

If it doesn't sound like Shostakovich, it's not classical music?   

That ain't what I said, either.

Doesn't matter. John Williams is recognized for unsurpassed superiority of his compositions.

[jochanaan]

Karl, you raise some very interesting points.  The most important of these is:

You're perfectly right that part of the slipperiness of this discussion is, the matter of defining "classical music."

I have become less and less convinced that there is any essential difference between "classical" and other music.  Yes, we can cite the length, multi-movement nature, and complexity of many musical masterpieces, but other musics can be as long and as complex; some of Miles Davis' recorded improvisations are nearly half an hour long and gratifyingly multifaceted.  Even if we eliminated Miles and others categorized as jazz musicians, what do we do with composers like George Gershwin or Leonard Bernstein, who wrote successfully in many musical media (including, in Bernstein's case, a film score)?  And, going back a little further, what about those composers who specialized in opera, such as Donizetti or Wagner, or "salon" music, like Chopin?

That is why I see no essential difference between composers who work primarily in film scores and those who work in "traditionally classical" media such as operas and concert music.  The quality of their work is essentially irrelevant.  (I'm not surprised to hear that John Williams' concert music is a little "ham-fisted," since he has specialized so much in music meant to be recorded rather than played in the concert hall.  But even "classical" composers can be ham-fisted on occasion.)

[Mirror Image]

My opinion of John Williams is that of a film composer and not one of more serious music. He does his job effectively as a film composer, but that is all he does. In the concert hall, he simply cannot stand against Debussy or Shostakovich for example, because he doesn't have a musical vocabulary to set him apart as a composer with something truly original to say.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Right .. and his film composing like the composing of most film composers is just by and large mere pastiche & decorative sonic wallpaper supporting what's on the screen ... sure it takes some skill and some are better at it than others ..  but it's nothing really deep or serious musically. In otherwords, it's not Art Music, and it's genesis, aims and goals are entirely different.

I would have to agree, even though the wallpaper is sometimes done very skillfully. (The moment when ET sails into the air to escape his friends' pursuers, and the final farewell scene in that film as well, are very well done and just what's needed to support the film at those points.) I've heard only one JW concert piece, something for bassoon and orchestra called The Five Sacred Trees or something like that, and I thought the opening pastoral movement was all right (the best of the three), the middle scherzo sounded totally clichéd, and the last slow movement was nothing special.

[Lethevich]

Re. his concert music: same. Even Williams seems to consider concert music and film music as distinct entities given how he adopts an entirely different idiom for a lot of his concert work: rather self-consciously "serious" and drab - I prefer the film music to it. But then, I'd prefer pop music to it as well.

[Grazioso]

You're perfectly right that part of the slipperiness of this discussion is, the matter of defining "classical music."

Which leads to the next question: what is the purpose here behind defining classical music? In this thread it seems to be an attempt by some to grant (or convince others of) legitimacy to Williams's music or soundtrack music in general, and by others to keep his work at bay, held safely outside the hallowed confines of "serious" music or "art" music. (Woefully loaded terms.)

In other words, I don't see much attempt at using definitions of classical music to investigate and learn, but rather to politicize and argue. It would probably be more profitable and interesting if someone with the requisite skills could posit some reasonable working definitions of classical music and then analyze in detail whether/how the Star Wars soundtrack fits. That would be educational.

[karlhenning]

I just don't see Williams's work being kept "at bay" (see that list of awards . . . and, for that matter, this poll, which shows half the participants according the Star Wars soundtrack "classical music" status).  The man's rich, has plenty of powerful celebrity friends, and will never lack for work; he must be better known, around the world, than any proper composer.

If you answered this question of mine, I missed it, and I apologize. But what, in your opinion, are the reasons that Williams is not "canonized" as a serious composer?

[Scarpia]

If you answered this question of mine, I missed it, and I apologize. But what, in your opinion, are the reasons that Williams is not "canonized" as a serious composer?[/font]

Because he's not that good at it?

If you are going to define "classical" music in terms of the definable characteristics of the music, and not whether it is "good enough" to be considered classical, I can't see how you can exclude Williams.  It's just fairly formulaic classical music. 

At this point, I can't imagine that anyone has anything to contribute that they haven't already (me included) so if this goes on, it will be out of the conviction that if we repeat our view enough times everyone is bound to agree with us.   

[karlhenning]

Well, we could try to parse the distinction between written-out jazz and classical music with a jazz voice . . . .

[jowcol]

Right .. and his film composing like the composing of most film composers is just by and large mere pastiche & decorative sonic wallpaper supporting what's on the screen ... sure it takes some skill and some are better at it than others ..  but it's nothing really deep or serious musically. In otherwords, it's not Art Music, and it's genesis, aims and goals are entirely different.

*obligatory snarky comment*
Thank God that Prokofiev's Alexander Nevsky and Vaughan WIlliams 7th symphonies never were associated with film scores.
*end of snarkiness....*

We had a long thread on this a while back, and while I'd agree that the goals of a film score are different, but to say none of it is deep or serious requires revisiting the two works I've cited above.   

It would also be interesting visit the assumption that the Glass's score to Koyaanisqatsi as not art music, given there degree of collaboration between Glass and the film's director, and the lack of traditional narrative in the film.

A lot of film scores make my ears bleed, and can really interfere with my getting into a film, but some really make it for me, and have value on their own.

[jowcol]

None of it is deep or serious on a musical or artistic level... it's not standalone music created for the sake of music and for purely musical reasons, ...music for film (whomever is doing it, or however it is done) is in essence designed to provide wallpaper to the action and dialog on the screen, nothing more.

By the same reasoning, since Stravinsky's first three ballets were written to support ballet (dancing, not "purely musical reasons:")  they have no serious impact on 20th century music.   

I think there is an unstated (and unproved) axiom you are making that music which is written for anything other than a standalone performance is devoid  of serious worth.  Of course, once one acknowledges the exception, one disproves the axiom.   But, to pursue this further, isn't any work written on commission a sellout, and a compromise of the artist's freedom?

[71 dB]

None of it is deep or serious on a musical or artistic level... it's not standalone music created for the sake of music and for purely musical reasons, ...music for film (whomever is doing it, or however it is done) is in essence designed to provide wallpaper to the action and dialog on the screen, nothing more. i.e. Spielberg calls up Williams and a score is designed to suit his film.

Try listening to JW's music for Minority Report or A.I. That might change your opinion.

Aren't operas composed to "fit" librettos?

[karlhenning]

By the same reasoning, since Stravinsky's first three ballets were written to support ballet (dancing, not "purely musical reasons:")  they have no serious impact on 20th century music.   

I think there is an unstated (and unproved) axiom you are making that music which is written for anything other than a standalone performance is devoid  of serious worth.  Of course, once one acknowledges the exception, one disproves the axiom.   But, to pursue this further, isn't any work written on commission a sellout, and a compromise of the artist's freedom?

These are very good considerations/counter-arguments.

[ I]sn't any work written on commission a sellout, and a compromise of the artist's freedom?

Not necessarily.  If the artist find the commission an odious imposition on his artistic freedoms, he is at liberty to decline the commission.  Generally, the artist is in a position to negotiate some of the terms of the artistic fulfillment of the commission.  Your mention of the famous first three Stravinsky ballets is most felicitous!  Take the case of Petrushka.  That was a ballet which, actually, was entirely Stravinsky's idea;  he and Dyagilev had reached an agreement for the ballet which would later become Le sacre, but Stravinsky "refreshed" himself compositionally by first sketching an orchestra piece with a concertante piano part.  When he played that for Dyagilev, the impresario liked it so well, that communal brainstorming resulted in a broad scheme for Petrushka, and Dyagilev left it to Benois (IIRC) and the composer himself to work out the scenario.

Quite apart from the stage action which it was meant to support, though, Le sacre has enjoyed a vigorous life in the concert hall (entire, no suite drawn therefrom).  That of itself is a striking contrast (though we might discuss the meaning of the contrast) with Star Wars, which was a matter of John Williams coming up with several bits for various characters/stage props.

Come to think of it, mention of Stravinsky's Le sacre will not reflect well on Williams, since "his" music for Tatooine is in large part flat-out plagiarized from the Introduction to Part II of Le sacre ; )

The case could be made, then, that, yes, Star Wars is classical music — after all, Williams liberally pilfered from the classical literature for the fulfillment of the movie score . . . .

[DavidRoss]

By the same reasoning, since Stravinsky's first three ballets were written to support ballet (dancing, not "purely musical reasons:")  they have no serious impact on 20th century music.   

I think there is an unstated (and unproved) axiom you are making that music which is written for anything other than a standalone performance is devoid  of serious worth.  Of course, once one acknowledges the exception, one disproves the axiom.   But, to pursue this further, isn't any work written on commission a sellout, and a compromise of the artist's freedom?

Hmmm.  What is the difference, if any, between some movie music--say, Star Wars--and music written for ballet or incidental stage music which nearly everyone agrees is "serious" classical music?  What makes something like Sibelius's music for Shakespeare's The Tempest seem "classical" to me, whereas Williams's Star Wars music seems more like advertising jingles?  Is it just the relative genius of the composers?  Does the relative sophistication of the audiences for whom the music and movie/play/ballet are intended play a role?  Has it something to do with whether the music is written as a tone poem of sorts, telling a story...or if it's a pastiche of bits and pieces intended to hype the emotional content of one scene after another?  (Here something suitable for a chase, here suspense, here humor, there love.)

I have no answers that I claim are definitive, yet to me it seems clear that Star Wars doesn't cut the mustard as music to be taken seriously whereas something like Glass's score for The Illusionist might.  Does it have to do with originality, a characteristic voice, in which case it may not be the type of music at issue but rather its quality, for most movie scores strike me as derivative hack work that not even the composers themselves would expect to be regarded as similar in status to work by Beethoven or Mahler?   

[Scarpia]

Suppose we were allowed a 3 second clip to decide what genre music is in?   In 3 seconds, we could distinguish jazz, from folk-rock, from metal, from folk, from broadway show tunes from classical.  In 3 seconds, could you say with certainty that Star Wars is not classical?  The technique is "classical" but the product is commercial. 

[karlhenning]

A few more thoughts, too:

We're talking about music, art, culture; so I don't know that it is at all appropriate to disallow quality as a determinant.  But I mean "objective" matters of quality (e.g., amateurish scoring).

The problem of defining classical music remains; but one consideration for me is, the source.  Who creates it?  Johann Albrechtsberger is nowhere near so good a composer as the greats, but the music he wrote, he wrote professionally.  He didn't make embarrassing errors in scoring, e.g.

I think Sackbut's point is well taken: Star Wars is the fulfillment of a cinematic requirement, in the guise of classical music.  It wasn't a 30-minute composition (as Le sacre is); nor a composite composition of Williams's design, consisting of expertly constructed discrete numbers (as Otello or The Nutcracker is); nor was it film music composed with the background of one who has the capacity to create those large, independent works (as Shostakovich, Copland or Vaughan Williams was).  Take Williams out of the context of furnishing apt "sound background," on demand according to the specs of the director — a task for which Williams has great talent, and ample skills — and he is out of his depth.  Because he is not a composer.  (For the record, yes, I understand that Yo Yo Ma would defend the title of composer for John Williams.)

BTW, and of course it is only another opinion thrown into the stew, but a friend of mine who studied film scoring at the Berklee College of Music finds it incredible that anyone would put Williams in the same class as Shostakovich, Copland or Vaughan Williams.  Next time I see him, I should ask him what his thoughts are regarding how the label "classical music" fits in with this hierarchy of musical activities . . . .

[Daverz]

Well, say a concert suite has been made of a string of Beatles songs (and it may well have been done).  Does that make the Beatles "classical music"?

The concert suite is classical music.  Light classical music, but still classical music.  Certainly it doesn't stop being classical music because of the origins of the themes or a perceived lack of seriousness.

I think some of you just don't like the association with popular commercial films, or have some other issues.

[karlhenning]

Gosh, I hope you're not using issues as a dirty word . . . .