Does Star Wars soundtrack count as classical music?

[karlhenning]

Excellent post, thanks . . . one answer I'll hazard, though . . . .

Karl's citing of the Antarctica symphony is an excellent one.  I could also flip that around and ask why Prokofiev needed to create suites for Romeo and Juliet if the Ballet score was a completely self realized creation.

Few orchestras, probably, will program the entire ballet as a concert program (although I claim as a virtue of the piece that it will wear that use handsomely).  The Suites are therefore a means of broadening the audience for the music (remember that Prokofiev wrote this before the days of compact discs . . . probably even before there would be realistic possibility of boxed LPs with the complete ballet).  In his context, Suites were a means for ballet music to have some life in the concert hall, and outside the theatre.

Heck, I should even consent to a suite from White Nights for that purpose ; )

[71 dB]

      Oh. Well if we're going to require that music be good to be considered classical, I'd like to bring up the question of whether or not Elgar counts as classical music

To me Elgar is the greatest classical composer ever and John Williams is the greatest movie composer ever. Each to his/her own.  0:)

JW will never be half the composer that Prokofiev was, among others, but the question of whether or not music is good is irrelevant to categorization.

Well, it is something to be half of Prokofiev, isn't it?

[karlhenning]

Well, it is something to be half of Prokofiev, isn't it?

It would be; but as Dana said:

JW will never be half the composer that Prokofiev was.

To even that moiety, John Williams must despair of aspiring.

[71 dB]

It would be; but as Dana said:

Aah, Dana is God and always right? Stupid me...

To me John Williams is easily more than half of Prokofiev.

[Diletante]

Which half are we talking about?

[karlhenning]

Stupid me...

If you say so, Poju.

This is no matter of Dana's alleged divinity, but of your not reading what Dana said.  Your statement proposed a sort of agreement, but what you were 'agreeing' to was not Dana's statement.  If you wish to summarize this as stupidity on your part, I should call it both accurate, and a becoming humility on your part.

[jowcol]

To me John Williams is easily more than half of Prokofiev.

So what does it matter what others think?  When you listen, its YOUR ears that listen, not Dana's, Karl's or my own.   In the words of the noted philosopher James Hendrix:

"I'm the one who's got to die when it's time for me to die.
So let me live my life the way I want to."

It seems to be inevitable that there is stuff we love that others won't get.   But that is the natural order.   When you find something that really moves you, it is a cause for celebration, no matter what others think.   There is no need to feel threatened or guilty.

I assure you, for each person on this forum, I'm bound to have something on my mp3 playe,r, something I really like,  that the other person will hate and find lacking in musical merit. Which is an idea that brings a smile to my face every time I think about it.

[jochanaan]

Some very good points here by various GMGers.  However, I'm not sure I agree with the unstated assumption some people seem to be making, that is, that "classical music" equals "music I like" or "music of high quality."  And when we talk about living composers, for film or other formats, then terminology becomes REALLY problematic!  How can it be "classical" when its composer is still alive and composing?

(Of course, this is heresy on a board dedicated to classical music! )

[Catison]

Perhaps an easy summary is that a composer of classical music has others in his service, but a film composer writes movie scores in the service of others.

[greg]

What about rock artists that write rock songs for movies? I would consider those film scores (or part of a film score) as well- but, if originally not written for a movie, but instead just released on an album instead, I would consider them just rock songs.

[drogulus]

     I wasn't arguing that bleeding chunks of film music are the equivalent of symphonies. It's not cheating for Vaughan Williams to rework his film score into an appropriate form and the same applies to the suites made by Walton, Williams, and Herrman. Nor do you have to think that Williams is as impressive in the concert hall as he is in film. Incidentally, I don't think Herrman has really found a home in the concert hall. His best film music is even more specialized than is ordinarily the case, due to the extraordinary lengths he went to to custom fit it to particular strips of film.* Yet I don't hesitate to call him a great composer.

     _{* Though it's also the case that Hitchcock cut his film to the music on occasion, which shows the true stature of Herrman. Did Eisenstein do that for Prokofiev? Did Olivier do that for Walton?}

[Bogey]

What about rock artists that write rock songs for movies? I would consider those film scores (or part of a film score) as well- but, if originally not written for a movie, but instead just released on an album instead, I would consider them just rock songs.

Not at this end, Greg.  I let some choral works slide like in the LOTR soundtracks, but the stuff tacked on at the end of the discs does not count.  I hear you though.  Like the title track in the movie In the Name of the Father by Bono.....great piece and blew the rest of the music away, but still not part of the score for me. 

The Academy also splits these two into separate categories:

Music (Score)
Music (Song)

[Bogey]

     I wasn't arguing that bleeding chunks of film music are the equivalent of symphonies. It's not cheating for Vaughan Williams to rework his film score into an appropriate form and the same applies to the suites made by Walton, Williams, and Herrman. Nor do you have to think that Williams is as impressive in the concert hall as he is in film. Incidentally, I don't think Herrman has really found a home in the concert hall. His best film music is even more specialized than is ordinarily the case, due to the extraordinary lengths he went to to custom fit it to particular strips of film.* Yet I don't hesitate to call him a great composer.

     _{* Though it's also the case that Hitchcock cut his film to the music on occasion, which shows the true stature of Herrman. Did Eisenstein do that for Prokofiev? Did Olivier do that for Walton?}

And Hermann seems to split them as well:

Bernard Herrmann was active as a musician on several levels. He left behind a legacy of major film scores, recordings for many labels, and concert works. In many respects he remains the most influential of all composers writing for film. Bernard commented that 'many great composers of whatever nationality — Auric, Bliss, Copland, Frankel, Prokofiev, Rota, Shostakovich, Walton — composed for the cinema, as but one aspect of their creative output.'

[Bogey]

On the other hand, these folks seem to not split these two:

http://www.americanclassicalmusic.org/03/inductees/Williams/index.html

Note the piece that is featured for sampling.

[Dana]

Aah, Dana is God and always right?

FINALLY, someone who gets it...

[drogulus]

     The case of Sinfonia Antartica is very different, not just from the Williams example but also from anything Walton wrote as well. I have recordings of suites taken from music Walton wrote for Henry V and Richard III. They could be played in the concert hall, and I'm sure they have been. I would enjoy hearing them there, and they would not be out of place. But Sinfonia Antartica is so exceptional that I'd hesitate to make a rule based on it.

     I see the rules and categories as advisory, and not facts of nature. One shouldn't expect film music to be concert music, even if it can be. And Vaughan Williams can do what he wants.*  0:)

     _{* I guess that's a non-rule rule.} 
     

[karlhenning]

     I wasn't arguing that bleeding chunks of film music are the equivalent of symphonies. It's not cheating for Vaughan Williams to rework his film score into an appropriate form and the same applies to the suites made by Walton, Williams, and Herrman. Nor do you have to think that Williams is as impressive in the concert hall as he is in film. Incidentally, I don't think Herrman has really found a home in the concert hall. His best film music is even more specialized than is ordinarily the case, due to the extraordinary lengths he went to to custom fit it to particular strips of film.* Yet I don't hesitate to call him a great composer.

Just a couple of logical footnotes.  Your lack of hesitation in this is one thing, the larger question, another.  For my part, I don't hesitate to call Hermann a great scorer of film ; )

And of course, whether or not Hermann is found to be a great composer, Williams could still be a hack.  If Hermann had composed the piece Williams recently wrote, and which I heard in Symphony, I should call Hermann a hack, too — And if Hermann's concert music is no better than On Willows and Birches, why, no wonder his music hasn't found a home in the concert hall ; )

_{* Though it's also the case that Hitchcock cut his film to the music on occasion, which shows the true stature of Herrman. Did Eisenstein do that for Prokofiev? Did Olivier do that for Walton?}

Eisenstein didn't have to. Prokofiev was legendary for creating music of the exact length required.  Eisenstein would tell him x frames, and the next morning, Prokofiev brought in the music required.  Hah! ; )

[karlhenning]

And Hermann seems to split them as well:

Bernard Herrmann was active as a musician on several levels. He left behind a legacy of major film scores, recordings for many labels, and concert works. In many respects he remains the most influential of all composers writing for film. Bernard commented that 'many great composers of whatever nationality — Auric, Bliss, Copland, Frankel, Prokofiev, Rota, Shostakovich, Walton — composed for the cinema, as but one aspect of their creative output.'

It is a special task, and to do it well is a fine accomplishment.  My point (one of 'em, anyway) is that someone who furnishes great film scores is certainly possessed of a fine talent.  This talent may or may not overlap with mastery of the art of composition.

BTW, an old friend of mine who studied film music at Berklee is on substantially the same page with me on this.

(Just saying.)

[Bogey]

As close as I come in this matter is looking at composer's original intent, Karl.  In short, you have to ask the composer.  I believe only they have the final say.  So, getting back to the original question, and dealing only with the Star Wars' piece, you would have to ask Johnny Williams IMO.    Any other answer except from him should be checked for on the Op. Ed. page IMO.   

For example, Danny Elfman might say that a certain composition he wrote for the Batman score was originally a classical piece he wrote for a quintet, but tweaked it a bit for a scene in a movie.  From the standpoint it was a classical piece modified to be a score piece.  You can choose the score side or the classical side, or in my case just see it for what it is as defined by the composer and not put it in either camp.  However, he may of used a classical piece he composed just as is for the movie and in that case he may say it was a classical piece I wrote that worked for that scene.  So, it is a classical piece, being no different then the Mozart pieces that they used in Amadeus.  Or, another movie he may say that he wrote a completely new score for the movie.  In this case it is a movie score.  So we come back to original intent. 

Either way, the question makes for good banter....

[Bogey]

Oh, and one more point.  It is nice when music that was written originally for a movie can be enjoyed without the visual component, but it is not necessary for that to be the goal of the composer.