Does Star Wars soundtrack count as classical music?

[DavidRoss]

[jowcol]

Start HERE and work your way through the rest.

I'm sorry, I'll admit I'm not too bright, but I couldn't find any mention  of Alwyn or Arnold in any of your posts.   I may have missed something.

[DavidRoss]

I'm sorry, I'll admit I'm not too bright....

You must be some kind of genius!

I may have missed something.

Yep...a genius!

[Luke]

Cheers, James.

I know what you are saying - but it's also true that, as that Wiki quotation suggests, in the light of his early film music experiences Glass rejected working inside the tradition within which Boulanger was to be found - to requote, 'He renounced all his compositions in a moderately modern style resembling Milhaud's, Aaron Copland's, and Samuel Barber's'. Not, of course, to suggest that she didn't teach him valuable things, but only to emphasize that if he was, as you say 'consciously coming from' NB, then it was as something to react away from much more than as something to emulate. That sort of influence is equally important, I suppose, perhaps, but only if influence can be defined in a negative way.

I have to admit that this fact has almost nothing to do with the fact that it was film music that Glass was working on and everything to do with the fact of its being Indian music - but actually, I suppose, it was that open-to-all-areas aspect of film music which allowed him to encounter Indian music in this way... as a musician with experimental leanings, he needed that at least as much as he needed Boulanger, I suspect.

A subsidiary point deriving from this would be, I suppose, that throughout musical history experimental musicians of all hues have seized on the exposure to new musics and new musical possibilities that new technology such as film opened up to them. It's a side issue, of course, because I'm not talking Hollywood film here, though I know that's the real subject of the thread - I'm thinking of things like Satie's music for Rene Clair's filmed Entr'acte to the Satie/Picabia ballet Relache (click here to watch it - you see Satie and Picabia cavorting around the rooftops of Paris with a cannon - one of the great visual treats of music history!      ), or Berg's music for the filmed interlude in Lulu - there are endless examples of this sort of thing, of course. My point is that though there is clearly a distinction between this kind of film music, if it can be called that, and 'Hollywood' film music, the boundary is not a clear-cut one. Because I wouldn't know which side of that boundary Glass's Koyaanisqatsi score would fall - the film is certainly a thought-provoking and potentially profound work of art, and certainly experimental too (the first time time lapse filming showed its true artistic potential, to start with), but it also has mass appeal (the kids at my school LOVE it!!). And because the boundary is blurry, I'd be wary of writing off all film music as artistically (shall we say) compromised, even though there are clearly many cases where it seems to be so. I'm sure no one is doing that, though, so I'm probably waffling for no reason. 

[Luke]

Is this Glass thing performed standalone ... just curious. And since you've decided to get involved, what's your personal take on Star Wars? Classical or not? Just kidding, I think I already know the answer  lol

Thanks for all that, James. Re Koyaanisqatsi - yes, it does get performed as a standalone piece. I'm just looking at Glass's very snazzy website and see that it's been performed at least three times in the last 18 months.

Re the Star Wars* question, I'm glad you know the answer as to what my own personal take is, because, quite genuinely, I myself don't! I can honestly see both sides of the argument, and I could be swayed either way depending, I think, on my own mood and the harshness of my own personal definition of what constitutes 'Classical Music' at any point. I have a tendency to agree with your difficulty admitting Star Wars to the set 'Classical Music' as I personally understand and sense the term, and I also have sympathy for some of the things you are saying about what the nature of real 'Classical Music' is, or should be - that it should be concerned with itself and its own integrity. But even so, I don't think that a workable argument can really be constructed on those lines because virtually all music straddles borders between the two worlds you are positing in slippery ways - the Blue Danube/Nutcracker/Mozart Divertimento sort of argument that has been put to you, but the same thing also applies to almost everything else, to Mahler, to Stockhausen, to Chopin, to Landini (what a disparate bunch!). However profound, full of integrity or advanced the music might be, there is always that aspect of it which seeks to entertain, that aspect of it which seeks to please, and that aspect which seeks to interest an audience by shock value, whether that be triple trills, quartets in helicopters or hammerblows-in-finales (in an almost commercial, competitive way, as has been argued elsewhere is the case with the romantic symphony, for example). So I don't think I would use that argument against Star Wars.

So I think that the anti-music-as-entertainment and anti-music-as-commercial-product line doesn't really hold water, but I think that if you were arguing that the composer of classical music is allowed to work (or wishes to work) with more artistic integrity than the composer of film scores, you might be close to the truth. That possibility of independent integrity is the difference, it seems to me, between otherwise frivolous entertainments such as The Nutcracker and much entertaining film scoring - that in composing The Nutcracker, however fun and frothy it is, Tchaikovsky didn't for even one bar, one note, allow himself or need to allow himself to pad or to lower his standards or to ape other composers, all of which film scores often do; nor, more to the point (because film scores don't have to be that way), in composing The Nutcracker Tchaikovsky knew that his music would always be centre stage, would not be chopped and changed or made subservient to. That was part of what Karl was saying, I think...

Karl argued that the composer of a film score is not free, is not his own man, his music can be chopped, changed, faded out, made subservient to on-screen action and dialogue, and that this isn't true in Classical Music proper, not even in ballet...and he's quite right, though I think when he argued that Williams wasn't a very good composer he was obscuring his point - the skills of the composer are not, I think, related to the classification of the music. Saul, after all, writes music which is sorta kinda broadlyish in a classical style, and I guess we have to call it classical music. But I think that Karls' original point is where the answer lies - and to return to where  came in, in composing Koayaanisqatsi, Glass was in control, not a name found far down the credits but right at the top next to director Reggio and photographer Fricke. The result is a very special case, a film without plot, without dialogue, in which the camerawork, the imagery and the music carry the film entirely, and I don't think it's a coincidence that it and its two sister films are some of the only films which I feel work as standalone music and which I would without hesitation classify as Classical.

* Star Wars standing for Hollywood film scores in general, of course - my own opinion of the Star Wars music is pretty low, and the same of Williams' stuff in general, with a few exceptions, but that oughtn't be the issue. I'm well aware that you don't have to go to the established classical composers who also composed film music to find film composers of real skill, even though I'm not a film music buff in the slightest. Film-scoring can be approached in a really interesting, adventurous way; the film can prompt the composer to explore sounds that he or she may not have even considered were they to be writing concert music, and thus produce something completely new and original. I'm thinking here of, for instance, Danny Elfman's score for A Simple Plan - Elfman is a very skilled film composer, of course, but I'd never have given him a second thought if I hadn't seen this film and been so impressed by the aural imagination he showed, and the not-bound-to-concert-hall freedom which the medium allows him to explore it with - microtonal flutes and pianos, unconventional playing techniques etc. etc. It's not a sound I'd ever heard before, not with all my weird and wonderful contemporary listening, this blend of Harry Partch and Hitchcock/Hermann, and as such I am grateful to Elfman in precisely the same way (though admittedly smaller) as I am grateful to Partch himself, for instance, for the new sounds his music introduced me to...

[jowcol]

Thanks for all that, James. Re Koyaanisqatsi - yes, it does get performed as a standalone piece. I'm just looking at Glass's very snazzy website and see that it's been performed at least three times in the last 18 months.

Re the Star Wars* question, I'm glad you know the answer as to what my own personal take is, because, quite genuinely, I myself don't! I can honestly see both sides of the argument, and I could be swayed either way depending, I think, on my own mood and the harshness of my own personal definition of what constitutes 'Classical Music' at any point. I have a tendency to agree with your difficulty admitting Star Wars to the set 'Classical Music' as I personally understand and sense the term, and I also have sympathy for some of the things you are saying about what the nature of real 'Classical Music' is, or should be - that it should be concerned with itself and its own integrity. But even so, I don't think that a workable argument can really be constructed on those lines because virtually all music straddles borders between the two worlds you are positing in slippery ways - the Blue Danube/Nutcracker/Mozart Divertimento sort of argument that has been put to you, but the same thing also applies to almost everything else, to Mahler, to Stockhausen, to Chopin, to Landini (what a disparate bunch!). However profound, full of integrity or advanced the music might be, there is always that aspect of it which seeks to entertain, that aspect of it which seeks to please, and that aspect which seeks to interest an audience by shock value, whether that be triple trills, quartets in helicopters or hammerblows-in-finales (in an almost commercial, competitive way, as has been argued elsewhere is the case with the romantic symphony, for example). So I don't think I would use that argument against Star Wars.

So I think that the anti-music-as-entertainment and anti-music-as-commercial-product line doesn't really hold water, but I think that if you were arguing that the composer of classical music is allowed to work (or wishes to work) with more artistic integrity than the composer of film scores, you might be close to the truth. That possibility of independent integrity is the difference, it seems to me, between otherwise frivolous entertainments such as The Nutcracker and much entertaining film scoring - that in composing The Nutcracker, however fun and frothy it is, Tchaikovsky didn't for even one bar, one note, allow himself or need to allow himself to pad or to lower his standards or to ape other composers, all of which film scores often do; nor, more to the point (because film scores don't have to be that way), in composing The Nutcracker Tchaikovsky knew that his music would always be centre stage, would not be chopped and changed or made subservient to. That was part of what Karl was saying, I think...

Karl argued that the composer of a film score is not free, is not his own man, his music can be chopped, changed, faded out, made subservient to on-screen action and dialogue, and that this isn't true in Classical Music proper, not even in ballet...and he's quite right, though I think when he argued that Williams wasn't a very good composer he was obscuring his point - the skills of the composer are not, I think, related to the classification of the music. Saul, after all, writes music which is sorta kinda broadlyish in a classical style, and I guess we have to call it classical music. But I think that Karls' original point is where the answer lies - and to return to where  came in, in composing Koayaanisqatsi, Glass was in control, not a name found far down the credits but right at the top next to director Reggio and photographer Fricke. The result is a very special case, a film without plot, without dialogue, in which the camerawork, the imagery and the music carry the film entirely, and I don't think it's a coincidence that it and its two sister films are some of the only films which I feel work as standalone music and which I would without hesitation classify as Classical.

* Star Wars standing for Hollywood film scores in general, of course - my own opinion of the Star Wars music is pretty low, and the same of Williams' stuff in general, with a few exceptions, but that oughtn't be the issue. I'm well aware that you don't have to go to the established classical composers who also composed film music to find film composers of real skill, even though I'm not a film music buff in the slightest. Film-scoring can be approached in a really interesting, adventurous way; the film can prompt the composer to explore sounds that he or she may not have even considered were they to be writing concert music, and thus produce something completely new and original. I'm thinking here of, for instance, Danny Elfman's score for A Simple Plan - Elfman is a very skilled film composer, of course, but I'd never have given him a second thought if I hadn't seen this film and been so impressed by the aural imagination he showed, and the not-bound-to-concert-hall freedom which the medium allows him to explore it with - microtonal flutes and pianos, unconventional playing techniques etc. etc. It's not a sound I'd ever heard before, not with all my weird and wonderful contemporary listening, this blend of Harry Partch and Hitchcock/Hermann, and as such I am grateful to Elfman in precisely the same way (though admittedly smaller) as I am grateful to Partch himself, for instance, for the new sounds his music introduced me to...

Thanks Luke-- a very well-thought out discussion that incorporates multiple factors, viewpoints, and shades of degree, substantiated with frequent examples, and clear identification of personal opinions vs facts.  I bolded a couple points that particularly resonated with me.

Very well done.  Thou art truly on the road to Buddhahood.

[jowcol]

You said it, not me/us/they/them.

The search function on the GMG website was also not very bright, as it could not find their names either on any of your posts.

With all due respect to the Simple Machines company that implemented the search engine....

[mc ukrneal]

Thanks Luke-- a very well-thought out discussion that incorporates multiple factors, viewpoints, and shades of degree, substantiated with frequent examples, and clear identification of personal opinions vs facts.  I bolded a couple points that particularly resonated with me.

Very well done.  Thou art truly on the road to Buddhahood.

As a whole, my reaction was similar to yours. But on one point we differed, that being " So I think that the anti-music-as-entertainment and anti-music-as-commercial-product line doesn't really hold water, but I think that if you were arguing that the composer of classical music is allowed to work (or wishes to work) with more artistic integrity than the composer of film scores, you might be close to the truth. That possibility of independent integrity is the difference..."

Perhaps I don't know enough about the ins and outs of film music (and thus lack crucial information), but this was the one thing I really disagreed with. If we were to ask Williams, Mancini, Shore, etc., whether they had lost their musical/artisitic integrity in writing film scores, I suspect they would not agree.

If what is meant by this is that there are compromises made that the composer might not otherwise have faced, I think I would be more quiet. But many composers in history have faced censors of some sort or another, and changed plots, music, etc. because of it. Working with others in a business like film seems quite analogous to that example (to me).

[Grazioso]

Perhaps I don't know enough about the ins and outs of film music (and thus lack crucial information), but this was the one thing I really disagreed with. If we were to ask Williams, Mancini, Shore, etc., whether they had lost their musical/artisitic integrity in writing film scores, I suspect they would not agree.

This is why I keep asking, in vain, for some evidence. Let's see some pertinent quotes from the musicians under discussion, be they "pure" film composers, or ones who've written for both film and directly the concert hall, such as Alwyn and Arnold. It's unfair, if not dishonest, to ascribe motives to them without letting them speak for themselves. Similarly, it's unfair to discount a piece of music, in this case the Star Wars soundtrack, without actually referencing its details. The Glass discussion is finally taking this in a more useful direction.*

If what is meant by this is that there are compromises made that the composer might not otherwise have faced, I think I would be more quiet. But many composers in history have faced censors of some sort or another, and changed plots, music, etc. because of it. Working with others in a business like film seems quite analogous to that example (to me).

Shostakovich provides a notable (and notably thorny) example of this sort of thing. Unless he wanted to be silenced figuratively or literally, he had to bend.

I'm not sure how well the analogy holds, though: is being forcibly censored with the threat of institutionalized force behind it comparable to bowing consciously to restrictions in a collaborative artistic effort?

I listened to some clips of it on YouTube last night ... hated it. No surprise really tho ..

Is listening once to "some clips" a fair way to form a judgment of a piece of music?

* or maybe not after all

[jowcol]

As a whole, my reaction was similar to yours. But on one point we differed, that being " So I think that the anti-music-as-entertainment and anti-music-as-commercial-product line doesn't really hold water, but I think that if you were arguing that the composer of classical music is allowed to work (or wishes to work) with more artistic integrity than the composer of film scores, you might be close to the truth. That possibility of independent integrity is the difference..."

Perhaps I don't know enough about the ins and outs of film music (and thus lack crucial information), but this was the one thing I really disagreed with. If we were to ask Williams, Mancini, Shore, etc., whether they had lost their musical/artisitic integrity in writing film scores, I suspect they would not agree.

If what is meant by this is that there are compromises made that the composer might not otherwise have faced, I think I would be more quiet. But many composers in history have faced censors of some sort or another, and changed plots, music, etc. because of it. Working with others in a business like film seems quite analogous to that example (to me).

That is why I forwarded the example of Alwyn and Arnold (with still no response, but I'm not holding my breath either), in that they composed for many film scores as well as many "serious" works.  They didn't dabble on either side, nor do I think they felt compelled to assign themselves to either camp.

Compromises are awfully common and not limited to film-- why did Moussorgsky add the polish scenes and the soprano to Boris Godunov?  He had to in order to   get the opera produced.

If compromise and stifling of individual voices is a bad thing (and I think it is), we have to be equally aware of tastemakers of "serious" music forcing conformity.  Many composers later complained about how stifled they were in their individual expression during the reign of 12-tone and serialism in the 50s.  In this case, the compromise was made in the name of "serious" art, but was equally confining.  While many great works did come out of that period, in retrospect, total serialism could be just as confining a straightjacket as the requirements for a commercial film.  (Sorry, you can't use that tone again until you complete the row...)

I find it pretty meaningful that Rochberg took a lot of flack from the "serious" community for retreating from the strict atonal orthodoxy when he found serialism emotionally inadequate for expressing his grief at the loss of his son, or, in his words:

"It was empty of expressive emotion and was inadequate to express my grief....it is finished, hollow, meaningless."

He was at a crossroads-- should he write what others called "serious music"-- or follow his own voice.   A true artist, IMO, selects the latter.


I strongly agree with James' point  most rewarding art occurs when an artist expresses their personal voice.  I would say, however, that this expression may find itself in collaborations and with other media. I would also not hold it against an artist who does some of their work to pay the bills, and still develops their personal voice and expression with some, and not of their work.

I don't think, that having written for film (and certainly not considering it)  necessarily prevents an artist from expressing their voice over the course of their career. 

I'd also say that when a composer sets out to write "serious" music only to meet external criteria set by others, they are selling out  (whoring themselves, if we want to get blunt), every bit as much as someone who is scoring a film by rote, or writing a commercial jingle.  But even some of the greatest composers will adjust a work to meet a specific audience and situation.  (Debussy, for example, complained about how he needed to knock up his works to satisfy the judges of the Prix de Rome).  But a great composer can rely upon (and sharpen) their purely technical skills when necessary in order to create a personal expression in other works, or , in moments of serendipity, create something that may have both artistic integrity AND meet and arbitrary set of external criteria.

[jowcol]

Talk is cheap tho (& no real 'evidence') .. you can collect all the quotes you want, ultimately it's the actions & most importantly the music that speaks for itself.

True on multiple levels-- including some that may not have been intended.

[Bogey]

Well, here is John Williams discussing the score from a magazine I used to subscribe to before they went electronic only:

http://www.filmscoremonthly.com/features/williams.asp

[karlhenning]

Thanks for all that, James. Re Koyaanisqatsi - yes, it does get performed as a standalone piece. I'm just looking at Glass's very snazzy website and see that it's been performed at least three times in the last 18 months.

Re the Star Wars* question, I'm glad you know the answer as to what my own personal take is, because, quite genuinely, I myself don't! I can honestly see both sides of the argument, and I could be swayed either way depending, I think, on my own mood and the harshness of my own personal definition of what constitutes 'Classical Music' at any point. I have a tendency to agree with your difficulty admitting Star Wars to the set 'Classical Music' as I personally understand and sense the term, and I also have sympathy for some of the things you are saying about what the nature of real 'Classical Music' is, or should be - that it should be concerned with itself and its own integrity. But even so, I don't think that a workable argument can really be constructed on those lines because virtually all music straddles borders between the two worlds you are positing in slippery ways - the Blue Danube/Nutcracker/Mozart Divertimento sort of argument that has been put to you, but the same thing also applies to almost everything else, to Mahler, to Stockhausen, to Chopin, to Landini (what a disparate bunch!). However profound, full of integrity or advanced the music might be, there is always that aspect of it which seeks to entertain, that aspect of it which seeks to please, and that aspect which seeks to interest an audience by shock value, whether that be triple trills, quartets in helicopters or hammerblows-in-finales (in an almost commercial, competitive way, as has been argued elsewhere is the case with the romantic symphony, for example). So I don't think I would use that argument against Star Wars.

So I think that the anti-music-as-entertainment and anti-music-as-commercial-product line doesn't really hold water, but I think that if you were arguing that the composer of classical music is allowed to work (or wishes to work) with more artistic integrity than the composer of film scores, you might be close to the truth. That possibility of independent integrity is the difference, it seems to me, between otherwise frivolous entertainments such as The Nutcracker and much entertaining film scoring - that in composing The Nutcracker, however fun and frothy it is, Tchaikovsky didn't for even one bar, one note, allow himself or need to allow himself to pad or to lower his standards or to ape other composers, all of which film scores often do; nor, more to the point (because film scores don't have to be that way), in composing The Nutcracker Tchaikovsky knew that his music would always be centre stage, would not be chopped and changed or made subservient to. That was part of what Karl was saying, I think...

Karl argued that the composer of a film score is not free, is not his own man, his music can be chopped, changed, faded out, made subservient to on-screen action and dialogue, and that this isn't true in Classical Music proper, not even in ballet...and he's quite right, though I think when he argued that Williams wasn't a very good composer he was obscuring his point - the skills of the composer are not, I think, related to the classification of the music. Saul, after all, writes music which is sorta kinda broadlyish in a classical style, and I guess we have to call it classical music. But I think that Karls' original point is where the answer lies - and to return to where  came in, in composing Koayaanisqatsi, Glass was in control, not a name found far down the credits but right at the top next to director Reggio and photographer Fricke. The result is a very special case, a film without plot, without dialogue, in which the camerawork, the imagery and the music carry the film entirely, and I don't think it's a coincidence that it and its two sister films are some of the only films which I feel work as standalone music and which I would without hesitation classify as Classical.

* Star Wars standing for Hollywood film scores in general, of course - my own opinion of the Star Wars music is pretty low, and the same of Williams' stuff in general, with a few exceptions, but that oughtn't be the issue. I'm well aware that you don't have to go to the established classical composers who also composed film music to find film composers of real skill, even though I'm not a film music buff in the slightest. Film-scoring can be approached in a really interesting, adventurous way; the film can prompt the composer to explore sounds that he or she may not have even considered were they to be writing concert music, and thus produce something completely new and original. I'm thinking here of, for instance, Danny Elfman's score for A Simple Plan - Elfman is a very skilled film composer, of course, but I'd never have given him a second thought if I hadn't seen this film and been so impressed by the aural imagination he showed, and the not-bound-to-concert-hall freedom which the medium allows him to explore it with - microtonal flutes and pianos, unconventional playing techniques etc. etc. It's not a sound I'd ever heard before, not with all my weird and wonderful contemporary listening, this blend of Harry Partch and Hitchcock/Hermann, and as such I am grateful to Elfman in precisely the same way (though admittedly smaller) as I am grateful to Partch himself, for instance, for the new sounds his music introduced me to...

It's posts like this which make the thread worthwhile at the last. Thanks, Luke.

[Grazioso]

Talk is cheap tho (& no real 'evidence') .. you can collect all the quotes you want, ultimately it's the actions & most importantly the music that speaks for itself.

Back where you started: no facts, no evidence, no musical examples, no quotes, no scholarship.

***

Anyway, here's a interview with Copland about film music that touches on a lot of the issues that have been raised here:

http://www.runmovies.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=117:aaron-copland-talks-about-film-music&catid=35:interviews&ltemid=55

And back to Shostakovich, who composed three dozen film scores over the course of his professional life, here's an article that mentions some of his views on film and film composing:

http://www.filmreference.com/Writers-and-Production-Artists-Sh-Sy/Shostakovich-Dmitri.html

[Bogey]

Oh no .. here come *the quotes* .. lol

A recent post from you:

Yea he was a songwriter; who wrote classic songs, but clearly that wasn't enough for him and he had other goals - 'experimented' with purely instrumental works writing the concert piece The Rhapsody In Blue which became a hit overnight essentially. He even approached the mighty Ravel for lessons and Ravel told him and I quote "Why do you want to be a 2nd rate Ravel - when you're already a first class Gershwin." He approached Stravinsky for lessons too. (Notice who he is gravitating to - not film classes but master musicians!) Other than Stravinsky, the composers he was most fascinated with tho ... were you guessed it! Schoenberg & Berg. (2 more "heavies") And Gershwin's orchestral work An American In Paris influenced the Les Six composers! Then he wrote his final "serious" work Porgy & Bess, an opera which has had a stage life ever since ... with it's songs and fusion of popular & classical styles ... even Duke Ellington was impressed!

And your point?

[jowcol]

Anyway, here's a interview with Copland about film music that touches on a lot of the issues that have been raised here:

http://www.runmovies.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=117:aaron-copland-talks-about-film-music&catid=35:interviews&ltemid=55

Thanks for the posts-- it's very interesting to see how different composers addressed the challenge.  Sorry to drag down a spirited discussion with scholarship, but  I particularly like Copeland's comment, as it addresses how the goals for a film score differ than a standalone work, and it also addresses some of James's concerns as well.

QUOTE

Roger Hall: Some past film composers believed that you shouldn't be too aware of the music.

Aaron Copland: I believe too that it shouldn't take up so much of your attention that you stop thinking about the film. It's a high art, I think, to write a really effective film score that doesn't get in the way and serves a fully emotional purpose.

Roger Hall: Some great classical composers of this century, such as Prokofiev and Vaughan Williams, have written for films. Even so, there still seem to be some who think that film music is second rate and not the same as concert music.

Aaron Copland: Well, a lot of it was done by what you might say were movie composer "hacks." In other words, composers who had to write whatever was thrown at them. I had the luxury of not having to live in Hollywood. Once you were on the staff at a studio then you didn't have any choice.

UNQUOTE

[Philoctetes]

This has to the one of the longest troll threads. Where one side consistently says nothing (almost like Newman), and the other side says things (but not really, like those that replied to Newman).

[Grazioso]

Thanks for the posts-- it's very interesting to see how different composers addressed the challenge.  Sorry to drag down a spirited discussion with scholarship, but  I particularly like Copeland's comment, as it addresses how the goals for a film score differ than a standalone work, and it also addresses some of James's concerns as well.

I like how Copland suggests an interesting hypothetical experiment of watching the same film with and without the music to understand just how great the music's impact can be on the overall effect. I don't have that exact option, but I have watched parts of familiar films muted, and the difference (in scenes where dialogue doesn't come into play) is striking. (Parts of Kurosowa's Ran, scored by Takemitsu, come to mind.)

Interesting, too, are the views ascribed to Shostakovich in the other article:

The two were in complete agreement on the essential function of film music: not to illustrate the action but to add an entirely new dimension, often running in counterpoint to the visuals or even undercutting them.

It's sad that some people deride all film music as sonic wallpaper, when it manifestly does not always function that way.

[mc ukrneal]

Many thanks for the Copland and Williams links among others. It actually gives me more appreciation for what a film composer must face.

[Bogey]

Oh no .. here come *the quotes* .. lol

A recent post from you:

Yea he was a songwriter; who wrote classic songs, but clearly that wasn't enough for him and he had other goals - 'experimented' with purely instrumental works writing the concert piece The Rhapsody In Blue which became a hit overnight essentially. He even approached the mighty Ravel for lessons and Ravel told him and I quote "Why do you want to be a 2nd rate Ravel - when you're already a first class Gershwin." He approached Stravinsky for lessons too. (Notice who he is gravitating to - not film classes but master musicians!) Other than Stravinsky, the composers he was most fascinated with tho ... were you guessed it! Schoenberg & Berg. (2 more "heavies") And Gershwin's orchestral work An American In Paris influenced the Les Six composers! Then he wrote his final "serious" work Porgy & Bess, an opera which has had a stage life ever since ... with it's songs and fusion of popular & classical styles ... even Duke Ellington was impressed!

And your point?


Let me drop a few bread crumbs for you.  You were *lol* at the coming of quotes, yet you used them for your point just recently.....but you knew that and this is typing for myself, which seems to be your intent for me and others here.