Does Star Wars soundtrack count as classical music?

[DavidRoss]

I wish I could tie a butterfly.

A skill of which I am inordinately proud. 

[jowcol]

That one I don't accept at all. The ballets of Stravinsky, for example, are all collaborations, most of course with George Balanchine - and the interdependence and specificity of relationship between music and dance is among the key components of these works' success. Agreed, you can listen to Petrouchka, Apollo, Agon without knowing their choreography (Le Sacre being, to my mind, the exception that proves the rule, because no choreography I have seen for it presents the work as strongly as in a purely concert version). But each of the other works is only enhanced by seeing it, and especially with Agon the interplay of dance and music is truly mind-boggling.

Interestingly enough, it has been ventured by some that at the premiere of Le Sacre in 1913, it was the choreography that was more radical, and the concert version without the choreography garnered respect fairly quickly.

[DavidRoss]

Interestingly enough, it has been ventured by some that at the premiere of Le Sacre in 1913, it was the choreography that was more radical, and the concert version without the choreography garnered respect fairly quickly.

Some=all, in this case?

[jowcol]

You know something quite incidentally amusing . . . the poll registers 28 No and 27 Yes, but informs us that 50 members have voted.

My guess is that five of the voters have since deactivated their accounts.

This was a flawed poll to start with, since "Banana" what not an option. 

[karlhenning]

Every post you write seems to contain so much disdain and contempt for the man and his work - it seemed a logical conclusion.

Only if you entirely disregard the musical content of what I have had to say on this thread.  I have musical, professional and perfectly dispassionate quarrels with his work; these are all fairly well documented in my posts on this thread. No hatred enters into it in the least.  I wonder why you feel the need to reduce my part in the conversation to this red herring?

Most people would call him a composer (he's listed as such everywhere I can find) - he certainly fits the definition. Why are you so adamant that he is not?

Chiefly, the compositions which (as I mentioned before) I heard live in Symphony Hall.

In brief, if there were a composer who scored for the orchestra at so poor a level, and whose musical content was as negligible as those pieces, but who was not an international musical superstar whose name is a household word, there is no way it would have been programmed on a Boston Symphony concert. No bloody way.

[DavidRoss]

Only if you entirely disregard the musical content of what I have had to say on this thread.  I have musical, professional and perfectly dispassionate quarrels with his work; these are all fairly well documented in my posts on this thread. No hatred enters into it in the least.  I wonder why you feel the need to reduce my part in the conversation to this red herring?

Reminds me of much of what passes for political discussion these days:

A: "The Constitution enumerates specific powers of Congress, the Executive, and the Court, and explicitly reserves all others to the States and the people."
B: "You're just a stupid, ignorant, redneck Racist!"

[Daverz]

I don't mean music written on the themes of Beatles songs; I mean orchestrated Beatles songs. So (to clarify my original question) "Paperback Writer" as recorded by the Fab Four is not classical music (right?), but if we score it for a chamber orchestra and play it on a Boston Pops concert, it's light classical music?

A counter-example:  "Sofa" by Frank Zappa, a gospel waltz as recorded on One Size Fits All.  There is a (Dutch, I think) baroque ensemble which has arranged "Sofa" . . . is this now (light) classical music?

As a judge on Classical Music with the Stars,  I'd disallow it.

[mc ukrneal]

Only if you entirely disregard the musical content of what I have had to say on this thread.  I have musical, professional and perfectly dispassionate quarrels with his work; these are all fairly well documented in my posts on this thread. No hatred enters into it in the least.  I wonder why you feel the need to reduce my part in the conversation to this red herring?

Chiefly, the compositions which (as I mentioned before) I heard live in Symphony Hall.

In brief, if there were a composer who scored for the orchestra at so poor a level, and whose musical content was as negligible as those pieces, but who was not an international musical superstar whose name is a household word, there is no way it would have been programmed on a Boston Symphony concert. No bloody way.

Ok. I stand corrected. You have disdain and contempt for the man, not hatred (since I wrote that twice, and you didn't call me out on it, I assume you are ok with those). My apologies for the misunderstanding.

As to red herrings, please let us know what more your friend thinks.

And I finally see it now. You are ignoring anything not written for the concert hall - that is, all his film scores. Am I to understand that writers of film music are not composers?

[Daverz]

Reminds me of much of what passes for political discussion these days:

A: "The Constitution enumerates specific powers of Congress, the Executive, and the Court, and explicitly reserves all others to the States and the people."
B: "You're just a stupid, ignorant, redneck Racist!"

I've never seen a conversation like that one.  I have seen ones like:

A:"The words 'separation of church and state' ain't in the Constitution.  The Constitution is a sacred, unalterable document given to us by our Christian Founding Fathers... We should repeal birthright citizenship!"
B: "You're just a stupid, ignorant, redneck Racist!"

[Daverz]

Sure. Myself, I don't consider Thomas Kinkade an artist either; but an enthusiast for Kinkade's work (and there are many) would ask exactly the same question. He isn't an artist? What is he then?

He certainly fits the commonly accepted definition of "artist".  Saying someone is not an artist because you reject his aesthetics is a private meaning of the word that no one else is bound to respect.  Anyway, I don't think this is a good analogy for the classical music argument (bad art vs. good art, when I think what you really mean is, perhaps, artist vs. technician).

[(poco) Sforzando]

You may not accept it, but it still is done time & time again ... and to all kinds of music aswell,  music can elicit all manor of dance especially for those who dance & choreograph it for a living, but the music is central. Without it - no inspiration or angle for the dance. And Stravinsky went to town with his skills up to that point, a lot more free creative reign and a personal musical lanuage, vision etc. Besides, it's nothing like film where people and sound effects are essentally farting all over your music. Personally, I can't stand having the musical experience tainted with visuals, it doesn't enhance the music for me, it detracts from it.

What you're saying may well apply to older classics like Nutcracker and Swan Lake that have been re-choreographed over the decades, but certainly not for any of the Stravinsky-Balanchine collaborations. And if you think with such works "the musical experience is tainted with visuals," then I doubt anyone would be more enraged than Stravinsky himself.

[(poco) Sforzando]

It applies and can apply to all & any music past or present that has dance choreographed to it. And I don't think Stravinsky would have really cared on your 2nd pt. .. he praised concert performances and albums of his own music too afterall. But all of this knitpicking on this is outside of the discussion here (i.e is Star Wars art music cut from the same cloth as the 'real-stuff'). It obviously isn't.

Absolute nonsense, not nitpicking at all, and shows a complete lack of understanding of the nature of dance in general and the nature of the Balanchine-Stravinsky collaboration in particular.

And don't blame me for digressing when I respond to a point you yourself brought up in the first place.

[(poco) Sforzando]

not nonsense pal, and sure seems like knitpicking to me considering what this thread is about, but who cares .. all i can say is this, i like all that Stravinsky music, much of it i love and i've never had to watch anyone dance to it, nor do i want to, or need to. many people are like that ... and thanks to Igor & many others for recording all of it for us to enjoy in the pleasure of our own homes. the music stands on it's own 2 feet without a doubt; and is way beyond any film music experience.

Nice straw man argument, "pal," considering that you're attempting to attack me for something I never denied:

Agreed, you can listen to Petrouchka, Apollo, Agon without knowing their choreography (Le Sacre being, to my mind, the exception that proves the rule, because no choreography I have seen for it presents the work as strongly as in a purely concert version).

And again, since you're so quick on the trigger finger, I reiterate:

Don't blame me for digressing when I respond to a point you yourself brought up in the first place.

[(poco) Sforzando]

... at least in essence we agree i think on this topic, that being ... Star Wars is not art music; and even trying to compare it to ballet music (as one poster suggested) doesn't work; they're clearly not the same at all from an artistic and musical vantage point. Tchaikovsky or Stravinsky vs. Williams? for instance.

Regarding John Williams, you will not get me to admit any more than that he is a skillful purveyor of "effective" but highly commercialized background music for Hollywood blockbusters.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Right .. as I thought; and since you say that, you would probably agree that trying to draw any sort of parallel with 'that stuff' & Stravinsky's music is a bit of a stretch in terms of it's true artistic & musical merit & value, right?

I would agree to that.

[Scarpia]

So we have a poll that comes in at 51% to 49%, and two people in a nasty argument, finding out that they actually agree.  Fascinating thread.   0:)

[Lethevich]

I think the poll result confirms it: everybody is wrong.

[karlhenning]

I think the poll result confirms it: everybody is wrong.

Splendid, and we can all get back to listening to Schoenberg!

[(poco) Sforzando]

So we have a poll that comes in at 51% to 49%, and two people in a nasty argument, finding out that they actually agree.  Fascinating thread.   0:)

He's still dead wrong about Mozart, Beethoven, and the ballet, so the good news is that there's plenty of room left for future nastiness.

[Grazioso]

And what real deep musician who takes their music seriously would want their 'music' premiered in such a way? Often buried & competing in the audio mix of constant dialog and sound effects associated with film. Can you imagine ..

Funny, but a lot of baroque and classical music that we still enjoy today was made to order, made to earn a buck, made for playing at specific occasions, and apparently ephemeral by your Romantic ideal of the artist as some "deep" thinker nobly expressing the inmost secrets of his soul for a select elite of listeners. There's nothing inherently wrong with music as practical, remunerative craft.

And while it's true there's plenty of bad sonic wallpaper film music to go along with bad films, there are plenty of films where the score is an integral part of an artistic unity. Better music in better films plays an enormous, if not indispensable, role in the emotional impact being made. It's not utterly subservient to the photography, acting, writing, production design, etc., but rather a partner. No shame there.