People obsessed by categories: "Soundtracks are not classical music!!!"

Started by W.A. Mozart, February 24, 2024, 03:19:20 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Szykneij and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Szykneij




I very rarely post here, especially in a thread that's significantly contentious, but I think I'm running a fever which might be affecting my brain. On top of it, this post is going to be pretty much off-topic because, frankly, I don't think anyone really knows what the topic is anymore.

To stay somewhat on point, I'm happy with the term "Orchestral Film Music", which often incorporates different aspects of classical styles.

When I was in high school, I had a keen interest in music but very limited historical knowledge of it. I went to see a 1973 horror-mystery film titled "Don't Look Now" starring Donald Sutherland and was blown away by the soundtrack, especially the music during the "Through the Streets of Venice" scene, which I think was truncated for the youtube clip. There are certainly Baroque elements to it, followed by some uncharacteristic harmonies. But, it got me to investigate genuine composers of the Baroque, which is my favorite musical era to this day. The soundtrack was composed by classically-trained violinist Pino Donaggio, who also scored one of my favorite movies, "Body Double".

Going back further in time, I remember watching "To Kill a Mockingbird" on television with my father and being greatly affected by the scoring (which was rife with impressionistic elements) even at the young age of probably ten years old. Elmer Bernstein later became one of my favorite film composers, and Debussy and Ravel among my favorite classical composers. There are also some distinctly "Coplandish" elements there, too.

So, what's the point of all that? I'm not sure. But how would you classify the "Downton Abbey" clip? My wife used to watch the show, which I likened to watching paint dry, but I did appreciate the music. The soundtrack was written by Scottish composer John Lunn, who, in addition to scoring numerous television shows, has also composed several operas and a violin concerto. The youtube clip is a suite he arranged from the Downton soundtrack material, so does this have more consideration as "classical" because it was intended as a stand-alone work?

At any rate, "Orchestral Film Music" does it for me.
Men profess to be lovers of music, but for the most part they give no evidence in their opinions and lives that they have heard it.  ~ Henry David Thoreau

Don't pray when it rains if you don't pray when the sun shines. ~ Satchel Paige

Karl Henning

Quote from: Szykneij on March 25, 2024, 03:17:02 PM



I very rarely post here, especially in a thread that's significantly contentious, but I think I'm running a fever which might be affecting my brain. On top of it, this post is going to be pretty much off-topic because, frankly, I don't think anyone really knows what the topic is anymore.

To stay somewhat on point, I'm happy with the term "Orchestral Film Music", which often incorporates different aspects of classical styles.

When I was in high school, I had a keen interest in music but very limited historical knowledge of it. I went to see a 1973 horror-mystery film titled "Don't Look Now" starring Donald Sutherland and was blown away by the soundtrack, especially the music during the "Through the Streets of Venice" scene, which I think was truncated for the youtube clip. There are certainly Baroque elements to it, followed by some uncharacteristic harmonies. But, it got me to investigate genuine composers of the Baroque, which is my favorite musical era to this day. The soundtrack was composed by classically-trained violinist Pino Donaggio, who also scored one of my favorite movies, "Body Double".

Going back further in time, I remember watching "To Kill a Mockingbird" on television with my father and being greatly affected by the scoring (which was rife with impressionistic elements) even at the young age of probably ten years old. Elmer Bernstein later became one of my favorite film composers, and Debussy and Ravel among my favorite classical composers. There are also some distinctly "Coplandish" elements there, too.

So, what's the point of all that? I'm not sure. But how would you classify the "Downton Abbey" clip? My wife used to watch the show, which I likened to watching paint dry, but I did appreciate the music. The soundtrack was written by Scottish composer John Lunn, who, in addition to scoring numerous television shows, has also composed several operas and a violin concerto. The youtube clip is a suite he arranged from the Downton soundtrack material, so does this have more consideration as "classical" because it was intended as a stand-alone work?

At any rate, "Orchestral Film Music" does it for me.

Orchestral film music is eminent good sense.
Karl Henning, Ph.D.
Composer & Clarinetist
Boston MA
http://www.karlhenning.com/
[Matisse] was interested neither in fending off opposition,
nor in competing for the favor of wayward friends.
His only competition was with himself. — Françoise Gilot

DavidW

Quote from: Szykneij on March 25, 2024, 03:17:02 PMWhen I was in high school, I had a keen interest in music but very limited historical knowledge of it. I went to see a 1973 horror-mystery film titled "Don't Look Now" starring Donald Sutherland and was blown away by the soundtrack, especially the music during the "Through the Streets of Venice" scene,

I love that movie and the music!

W.A. Mozart

Quote from: Luke on March 25, 2024, 10:55:03 AMI don't think San Antone said anything about sonata form.

@San Antone was generically speaking about forms based on the generic form "theme + development". There are three forms based on this generic form: the sonata-form, the rondo and theme + variations.

However, since he was speaking about highly complex forms, I deduced that he was mainly speaking about the sonata-form, as the rondo is often quite simple (the first things which come to my mind are the "Rondo alla Turca" of Mozart and Für Elise of Beethoven).


However, the details are not so important. What I was trying to say is that complexity connotates classical music, but it doesn't define it, othewise the classical pieces written in simple forms wouldn't be considered classical.


Even if the composers of classical film music wrote only light classical music like Strauss II, their music would be still classical.
However, it's not true that they only compose light classical music. Many pieces of many classical soundtrack are written in complex forms.


Examples of serious (i.e. "not light") classical soundtracks are the followings. If someone says that all classical soundtracks are light music, it means that he doesn't really know so much about soundtracks.


James Horner - Titanic: An Ocean of Memories



James Horner - Titanic: The Death of Titanic



John Williams - The Patriot: Preparing For Battle



Alan Menken - THe Huntchback of Notre-Dame: And He Shall Smite the Wicked




James Horner - Braveheart: End Credits





On the other hand, "The John Dunbar Theme" of Dances With Wolves is an example of light music, but not all soundtracks are written like this.




All that said, the point is very simple: the genre of the music doesn't change only because it's composed for a soundtrack, so the light music remains light music even if it's written for a film, and the serious classical music remains classical music even if it's composed for a film.

If it's light music, it's light music. If it's classical, it's classical music. If it's jazz, it's jazz. If it's pop, it's pop. If it's rock, it's rock.

Why is this elementary concept so difficult for many people?

Crudblud

It seems that the compositional logic of film scores is very much determined by external rather than internal factors. The beats that are hit in scoring e.g.: an action sequence are only justified by reference to that action sequence, not to any musical necessity or impetus.

The above is not a value judgement, only to say that if we're interested in categorisation of music then I suggest that a given piece's structure, material treatment, the underlying choices determining these etc. are far more relevant than superficial qualities.

hopefullytrusting

Quote from: Crudblud on March 27, 2024, 01:10:46 AMIt seems that the compositional logic of film scores is very much determined by external rather than internal factors. The beats that are hit in scoring e.g.: an action sequence are only justified by reference to that action sequence, not to any musical necessity or impetus.

The above is not a value judgement, only to say that if we're interested in categorisation of music then I suggest that a given piece's structure, material treatment, the underlying choices determining these etc. are far more relevant than superficial qualities.

Which is exactly why genre is the superior way to classify and categorize.

Film music is a genre.
Classical is a genre.
Pop is a genre.
Hardcore is a subgenre.
Symphonic Black Metal is a sub-subgenre.

Therefore, etc (Duns Scotus).

foxandpeng

Quote from: hopefullytrusting on March 27, 2024, 01:45:05 AMSymphonic Black Metal is a sub-subgenre.

Therefore, etc (Duns Scotus).

Yes, yes it is. Filled with tastes of black metal goodness.

If you want obsession over categories, metalheads have an entire industry dedicated to fighting over this...
"A quiet secluded life in the country, with the possibility of being useful to people ... then work which one hopes may be of some use; then rest, nature, books, music, love for one's neighbour — such is my idea of happiness"

Tolstoy

hopefullytrusting

#467
Quote from: foxandpeng on March 27, 2024, 02:41:50 AMYes, yes it is. Filled with tastes of black metal goodness.

If you want obsession over categories, metalheads have an entire industry dedicated to fighting over this...

But one of the greatest documentaries emerged out of that maelstrom: Metal: A Headbanger's Journey, and that provided an anthropological taxonomy! >:D

And, also, to such quandaries as to why schroom is heavier than doom.

foxandpeng

Quote from: hopefullytrusting on March 27, 2024, 02:48:36 AMBut one of the greatest documentaries emerged out of that maelstrom: Metal: A Headbanger's Journey, and that provided an anthropological taxonomy! >:D

And, also, to such quandaries as to why schroom is heavier than doom.

Indeed. A fine documentary.

😁

My wife and I spend far longer than is healthy, discussing where our favoured bands should really sit in the grand schema.

Atmospheric black? Cascadian black? Heritage? Naturegaze? Post-black? Blackgaze?

And so on, ad infinitum.
"A quiet secluded life in the country, with the possibility of being useful to people ... then work which one hopes may be of some use; then rest, nature, books, music, love for one's neighbour — such is my idea of happiness"

Tolstoy

W.A. Mozart

Quote from: Luke on March 25, 2024, 10:53:09 AM'My Father's Favourite' there are plenty of little things that tell us that this is not music of the period

Patrick Doyle had to deceive the general public, not experts of music theory, and I think that his composition works well for this purpose.

Of course if you are an expert of music theory you might notice little details that tells you that it's contemporary neoclassical music instead of pure Classical music, and I'm ok with this classification.

As you are more expert than me about music theory, I trust what you say, but I'm curious to know what did you notice exactly.

Quoteparticularly as it develops and becomes quite formless (deliberately, I suspect, so that we focus on the dialogue)

The book "Sense and Sensibility" was written between 1795 and 1810. However, the woman in the film says that the piece was her dead father's favourite, so it means that it must be an old piece, probably composed in the era of galant music.

If we agree about the fact that the intention of Doyle was to write galant music, I can proceed with the following observation.


It doesn't sound like a formless piece to my ears. It's reminescent of the tripartite form (pseudosonata-form) used in the slow movements of galant music, with a lyrical melody repeated twice in the same way at beginning, developed and dramatized in the middle section and recapitulated at the end.


Lyrical melody - Repetion - Development - Recapitulation


I'll take the the slow movement of the String Quartet No. 10 of Mozart as an example.

00:00 - 01:27 Lyrical melody
01:28 - 02:55 Repetition
02:56 - 03:54 Development
03:55 Recapitulation




The piece of Patrick Doyle.

00:00 - 00:55 Lyrical melody (orchestra)
00:56 - 01:44 Repetition (piano)
01:45 - 04:41 Development
04:42 - 05:27 Recapitulation




I'd say that the difference between the two is that in the piece of Mozart the exposition is more elaborated but the development shorter, while the exposition in the piece of Doyle is more simple but the development is longer.

Mozart wrote self-contained expositions and short developments, but I don't know if it was the practice of galant music or if it's a Mozart's hallmark.


However, I think that you are wrong about the formless nature of Doyle's piece. Even in respect to the form it reminds galant music, so I think that it could deceive not only the general public, but also the general public of classical music.
Perhaps it can not deceive an expert of music theory.

W.A. Mozart

I'll respond to the various posts of the last page with one unique post, because it would be redundant to respond to each one, as I'd write similar things.



1)

The genres of music are categorized according to form-style. Not by me, but by the human society.

Someone called this "superficial elements", but the sound of the music is not a superficial element, but the essence of the music.
I call "superficial elements" your observations about the difference between film music and concert music, because these differences might be relevant for the composers but not for the public of the music.


I've already showed that determined soundtracks are classified as classical music. Not by me, but by the human society.

A list of websites that list "classical soundtracks" among the subcategories of classical music.

https://rateyourmusic.com/genre/cinematic-classical/

https://www.allmusic.com/genre/classical-ma0000002521

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_classical_music_genres

https://www.prestomusic.com/classical/genres

https://halloffame.classicfm.com/2023/


You look very much like someone who doesn't like the deifnition of the word "chair" and try to redefine the word in a restrictive way.


"A chair is a chair only if it has at least four legs"


"Classical music is classical music only if it's not composed for a film"



Best wishes with your totally arbitrary redefinition of the words, considering that there is absolutely no element in the definitions of classical that you find here and there that says that classical music can not be composed for a film score.



2) "Orchestral soundtrack" can not be used as a synonims of "classical film music" for two simple reasons: not all orchestral soundtracks are classical music and not all classical soundtracks are orchestral.


Here below an example of an orchestral soundtrack which is not classical music.



Here below three examples of classical soundtracks that are not orchestral.


John Williams - A piece for harp composed for the film "Angela's Ashes" (I don't know the title).



Gabriel Yared - The English Patient: Convento di Sant'anna (piece for piano)




Randy Newman - James And The Giant Peach: Main Title (short piece for violin solo)




The problem is that you probably think that my intention is to use "classical film music" as a synonim of orchestral film music... but no, this is not my intention.

What I'm saying is that there are soundtracks (often orchestral, sometimes not orchestral) which are categorized as classical music because they are indeed classical music.

@Szykneij @Karl Henning @DavidW @hopefullytrusting @Crudblud




Spotted Horses

Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 27, 2024, 10:36:34 AMWhat I'm saying is that there are soundtracks (often orchestral, sometimes not orchestral) which are categorized as classical music because they are indeed classical music.

This is the essence of the argument, tautology.

Why does anyone want to further feed this thread?
There are simply two kinds of music, good music and the other kind. - Duke Ellington

Crudblud

I have come to the realisation that this thread is the embodiment of a certain famous definition of insanity. Well, that's what I get for attempting to engage in good faith.

71 dB

Quote from: Crudblud on March 27, 2024, 03:09:10 PMI have come to the realisation that this thread is the embodiment of a certain famous definition of insanity.

At this point (page 24) this is a bit insane indeed...
Spatial distortion is a serious problem deteriorating headphone listening.
Crossfeeders reduce spatial distortion and make the sound more natural
and less tiresome in headphone listening.

My Sound Cloud page <-- NEW Jan. 2024 "Harpeggiator"

71 dB

Spatial distortion is a serious problem deteriorating headphone listening.
Crossfeeders reduce spatial distortion and make the sound more natural
and less tiresome in headphone listening.

My Sound Cloud page <-- NEW Jan. 2024 "Harpeggiator"

Luke

Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 27, 2024, 09:20:03 AMPatrick Doyle had to deceive the general public, not experts of music theory, and I think that his composition works well for this purpose.

It's not about deception - you do Doyle a disservice. As I said earlier, the idea is to write music which, whilst stylistically similar, exerts the same effect on modern ears as its models did on ears of the original period. Here, for example, Doyle's music focuses on what one could simply call the more luscious and immediately expressive aspects of the style. In a true piece of the period these moments would be offset by something different, often more formulaic (Charles Rosen's word, not meant as derogatory) in order to provide structural contrast and support.

Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 27, 2024, 09:20:03 AMOf course if you are an expert of music theory you might notice little details that tells you that it's contemporary neoclassical music instead of pure Classical music, and I'm ok with this classification.

As you are more expert than me about music theory, I trust what you say, but I'm curious to know what did you notice exactly.

The book "Sense and Sensibility" was written between 1795 and 1810. However, the woman in the film says that the piece was her dead father's favourite, so it means that it must be an old piece, probably composed in the era of galant music.

If we agree about the fact that the intention of Doyle was to write galant music, I can proceed with the following observation.


It doesn't sound like a formless piece to my ears. It's reminescent of the tripartite form (pseudosonata-form) used in the slow movements of galant music, with a lyrical melody repeated twice in the same way at beginning, developed and dramatized in the middle section and recapitulated at the end.


Lyrical melody - Repetion - Development - Recapitulation


I'll take the the slow movement of the String Quartet No. 10 of Mozart as an example.

00:00 - 01:27 Lyrical melody
01:28 - 02:55 Repetition
02:56 - 03:54 Development
03:55 Recapitulation




The piece of Patrick Doyle.

00:00 - 00:55 Lyrical melody (orchestra)
00:56 - 01:44 Repetition (piano)
01:45 - 04:41 Development
04:42 - 05:27 Recapitulation




I'd say that the difference between the two is that in the piece of Mozart the exposition is more elaborated but the development shorter, while the exposition in the piece of Doyle is more simple but the development is longer.

Mozart wrote self-contained expositions and short developments, but I don't know if it was the practice of galant music or if it's a Mozart's hallmark.


However, I think that you are wrong about the formless nature of Doyle's piece. Even in respect to the form it reminds galant music, so I think that it could deceive not only the general public, but also the general public of classical music.
Perhaps it can not deceive an expert of music theory.

It's that overlong 'development' section, which tellingly underlies much of the dialogue - it's long so as to fit the dialogue, but stylistically and simply musically this make it disproportionate . This is a point where the music - which was originally the subject of the conversation and thus something the viewer should be actively listening to - retreats into the background so that the viewer focuses back onto the dialogue. Therefore what I call its formlessness at this point is also excellent, expert film-scoring. But it does compromise the music as a free-standing piece.

By formless, I don't mean the overall structure, I mean that the melodic line (deliberately)loses focus here and becomes generic note spinning for three minutes, enough to 'sound about right's but without attracting the viewers attention by being thematically or motivically relevant. It's effective scoring by being deliberately loose and meandering.

If it was a form it wouldn't be
 
Exposition
Development
Recapitulation

it would be

Exposition
wafflewafflewaffleinthebackground
Recapitulation

and, as I say, this is in the context of the film a good thing, but as a piece of music alone it undermines it. The music works with the images, as it was designed to - it is film music. On its own it is less successful - it is not classical music pur sang


pjme

Quote from: Spotted Horses on March 27, 2024, 11:05:32 AMWhy does anyone want to further feed this thread?
The word 'obsession' comes from the Latin 'obsidere' which means 'to besiege'.