Does Star Wars soundtrack count as classical music?

[71 dB]

"It is so, because I say it is so," is an empty assertion. End of discussion.

Exactly, because it is an opinion, not a fact. At least 47.7 % agree with me. 

[Monsieur Croche]

Exactly, because it is an opinion, not a fact. At least 47.7 % agree with me. 

47.7 % agree with you in the beginners section of an online classical music forum the majority of whose members are dilettante and amateur classical music fans. I'm sure that makes you feel downright cozy about that empiric opinion being reinforced by that  47.7 %

[SimonNZ]

End of discussion.

Pity. I was hoping you were going to reply to my response in post 673.


Looking over the start of the thread I see this post (from 6 years ago) which expresses my position more eloquently than I am:

I'm writing a ballet.  The duration of the ballet, the component scenes, the sequence, every bar of the music — that is all under the complete control of one person, and that one person is the composer (in this case, myself).

Name me a film where this was ever the case.

Now, one may object that I am working under atypical conditions:  there is as yet no stage director, no choreographer, with whom I am working, and these are people who normally have some input in various details of the music to a ballet.

Two answers:

1]  When (as I hope, or we might say simply if) my piece reaches a point where a company will dance it, and the stage director or choreographer suggests cutting this, changing that, switching the order of these two numbers, taking this dance from Act IV and inserting it into Act II — I have the option of saying, No; this is the way I have written the ballet, and either you dance the piece the way I have written it, or you find some other ballet to do.

I ask again:  Where is the fellow who scored a film, who ever possessed a claim to that option?

2]  Even under more typical ballet-creation conditions, the composer has creative control over the final musical result, to a degree which is simply impossible in film.

You ask, How is film music different from music written to accompany a ballet?

Read Stravinsky's biography where he is working on Orpheus.  Then read Hitchcock's biography where he is working on Pyscho.  In the first case, Stravinsky is in the driver's seat;  in the second, Hitchcock.

Which of the two was a composer?

It is a question on which application of one's brain is not entirely a bad thing . . . .

[Karl Henning]

Exactly, because it is an opinion, not a fact.

That's the confusion. Composer of classical music is a factual description of Mozart; the matter of opinion doesn't enter into it.

[71 dB]

47.7 % agree with you in the beginners section of an online classical music forum the majority of whose members are dilettante and amateur classical music fans. I'm sure that makes you feel downright cozy about that empiric opinion being reinforced by that  47.7 %

How do you know? I think most votes came form "old timers".

[71 dB]

That's the confusion. Composer of classical music is a factual description of Mozart; the matter of opinion doesn't enter into it.

So only Mozart is classical music?

[mc ukrneal]

If you really can not hear a vast difference in what Bruckner 'took' from his predecessors, or Mozart from his, or Beethoven from his [and he took plenty from Haydn and Mozart as well as others] -- and not hear how distinct those composers are one from the other vs. cribbed pastiche near copies directly based on other pieces, there is no worth discussing the difference of Williams' Star Wars scores, or caring to distinguish them as a genre other than classical.

I'm quite aware that once people think something is classical and find it is then categorized as another genre, that is too often taken as some sort of demotion of that music, or even more wrongly, personally as a direct dis of a person's taste -- none of which is part of the discussion, nor any part of the point at all.

It is only about
Species: Music.
Genus: _____.

One can not care about such an obvious difference if you hear no distinction, and then of course it follows there will be little or no interest in genre categorization either. "Sounds classical, must be," becomes good enough if you don't have any real interest in genre categorization.

On the other hand, If Williams' Star Wars is classical, then isn't James Horner's score to Titanic also classical? Ergo, genre distinction is useful.

I should have, I suppose, earlier reminded myself that this thread is in the beginner's section, where other very like classical genres are often mistaken as classical.

Unfortunately, there is and will never be a quick fix answer to "What makes it classical," and the long answer is that it takes years, sometimes decades, of listening to a lot of classical repertoire before some will recognize the palpable difference where on their own 'classical sounding' and a large symphonic orchestral palette do not instantly qualify a piece of music as something classical.

Categorization of genre apart, I can't believe that genre categorization on its own has any power to qualify whether the music is good or bad, or dissuade a listener away from whatever music they like.

Best regards.

First, there is no need to be insulting. Nor is there shame in posting in a thread in the beginner's section. It implies nothing though you have used it as a put down (both here and later).

Second, if you don't care to listen to Williams or understand the uniqueness, distinctness and creativeness of his voice, then you are right - there is no need to continue discussing.

Third, the categorization question goes to the heart of the question that is really being asked here. What is classical music? It was initially used to separate it from newer styles. But there is no clear demarcation. I would agree that other movie scores would need to be classified as classical (if we accept Star Wars in this way) and I don't  have a problem with that. I have always viewed classical as more than something that encompasses music written before a certain time using certain codified norms. From my view, movie scores are a natural extension from classical music and there has long been crossover between the two.

[mc ukrneal]

Pity. I was hoping you were going to reply to my response in post 673.


Looking over the start of the thread I see this post (from 6 years ago) which expresses my position more eloquently than I am:

Actually, Clint Eastwood writes the music to many of his movies. It raises an interesting complication... (even if I think it's a bit of a separate discussion)...

[mc ukrneal]

Sorry, but I can't agree with this.

Wagner's music is the principal text. Its the thing that can't be substituted, or else Meistersinger isn't Meistersinger any more. Who does the sets and how, who does the costumes and how etc are secondary art forms to that. Soundtracks - even Star Wars - are secondary to the film, and while substituting one for another may be less helpful or incongrious in the film are not the principal artwork. Williams score is fine and certainly supported and added to the success of the film, but Star Wars would still be Star Wars - and Altered States would still be Altered States, much as I love that soundtrack - if Danny Elfman or Tangerine Dream scored them.


(I haven't read all 34 pages of this thread - I supose everything sensible and silly has already been said, including my comment)

But I can't agree with this either. Star Wars would not be Star Wars with different music . It might be great, but it would be different. I am reminded of a tv show called the Wonder Years. Do you know this? When initially it came out on video, they couldn't use most of the music in the series because they did not get permission. There was a huge outcry. Recently, the series was released with almost all the original music. Many viewers didn't feel it was the same series without the music. Now this isn't a case where the music was composed, but I think it is an apt analogy. It is an interesting question.

[Karl Henning]

So only Mozart is classical music?

That is an interesting and erroneous take-away.

[Karl Henning]

Actually, Clint Eastwood writes the music to many of his movies. It raises an interesting complication... (even if I think it's a bit of a separate discussion)...

And Charlie Chaplin composed the music for Modern Times, e.g.!

[SimonNZ]

But I can't agree with this either. Star Wars would not be Star Wars with different music . It might be great, but it would be different. I am reminded of a tv show called the Wonder Years. Do you know this? When initially it came out on video, they couldn't use most of the music in the series because they did not get permission. There was a huge outcry. Recently, the series was released with almost all the original music. Many viewers didn't feel it was the same series without the music. Now this isn't a case where the music was composed, but I think it is an apt analogy. It is an interesting question.

But there are a number of films that exist with two different soundtracks - some with different soundtracks in different territories, some because one was replaced with another and/or later restored. Watching either version you'd say you'd seen the film. Legend is still Legend, Dune is still Dune, to give two examples, whichever soundtrack you prefer.

Also: I believe Lucas insisted on some changes to the scores for the rereleases etc, including removing the Ewoks "Yub Nub" festival song (can't believe I just typed that), and replacing it with more generic soundtrack mood-stuff.

[71 dB]

That is an interesting and erroneous take-away.

Isn't it? I'd say it was you who pushed me on that path... ...how else could I have responded to your Mozart logic?

[mc ukrneal]

But there are a number of films that exist with two different soundtracks - some with different soundtracks in different territories, some because one was replaced with another and/or later restored. Watching either version you's say you'd seen the film. Legend is still Legend, Dune is still Dune, to give two examples, whichever soundtrack you prefer.

Also: I believe Lucas insisted on some changes to the scores for the rereleases etc, including removing the Ewoks "Yub Nub" festival song (can't believe I just typed that), and replacing it with more generic soundtrack mood-stuff.

I would say they are different though, even if both people saw the 'same' movie with different music. There is also a question of degree - for some movies the music is more important than others - for example, The Adventures of Robin Hood. I cannot imagine that movie with different music - the music helps make the music (and I think the score to Star Wars falls close to this too, just my opinion). But then there are other movies where it doesn't matter so much (maybe because there is less of it or it is more generic in nature). 

And I can't believe you just typed that either!

[mc ukrneal]

And Charlie Chaplin composed the music for Modern Times, e.g.!

A good example. I wonder how many there are. I imagine it is a fairly small group as long as we are talking feature releases (or the like). I imagine that it is somewhat more common with independent filmmakers.

[James]

Movie & Television audio-tracks aren't classical compositions, only a total retard would seriously think they are.

[71 dB]

Movie & Television audio-tracks aren't classical compositions, only a total retard would seriously think they are.

So when J. S. Bach's music is used in a film it's not classical composition? Kubrick's 2001 doesn't use classical music?

[SimonNZ]

I would say they are different though, even if both people saw the 'same' movie with different music. There is also a question of degree - for some movies the music is more important than others - for example, The Adventures of Robin Hood. I cannot imagine that movie with different music - the music helps make the music (and I think the score to Star Wars falls close to this too, just my opinion). But then there are other movies where it doesn't matter so much (maybe because there is less of it or it is more generic in nature). 

And I can't believe you just typed that either!

I don't disagree, but it doesn't contradict what I'm saying. Its like seeing two different Ring productions with different sets, costumes etc. You'll prefer one over the other and feel one adds more, but it won't stop it being The Ring. Because in this context these are secondary art forms in support of the principal art.

[James]

So when J. S. Bach's music is used in a film it's not classical composition? Kubrick's 2001 doesn't use classical music?

Duh, well yeah that stuff is obviously sourced from that world but that's not the sort of thing we're talking about are we? Come on, wake up ..

[mc ukrneal]

Movie & Television audio-tracks aren't classical compositions, only a total retard would seriously think they are.

Buzzer sound. Sorry, go directly to jail. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.