Does Star Wars soundtrack count as classical music?

[Philoctetes]

I also feel a bit violated (and not in a good way) when I have  to say nice things about "pops" orchestras, and other crossover stuff that doesn't have the least bit of adventure to it.  But I still feel the need to encourage it.

You don't have to do anything. And it sounds more like you're enabling rather than encouraging.

[Philoctetes]

But imagine the value if an orchestra couples something like a Star Wars suite with the Firebird Suite, and at least one person in the audience who came to see Star Wars walked away a changed person, having realized that the Final from the Firebird had so much more to offer.  Wouldn't it be worth it? 

I think one of the reasons I try not to dump on "light classical" is because it helps keep musicians employed, and may actually provide the entry point for new converts.

I have no objections to that type of program. Although, I'd much rather they focus on the contemporary fare, but I see nothing wrong with linking 'light' with 'heavy'. Although all of this semantical shit is a bit tiresome. I don't see much difference between Williams and Stravinsky. I value them on the same level.

[DavidRoss]

Where did I say that musicians such as Tchaikovsky, Sibelius, Bernstein (or Stravinsky) are on par with what Williams does. It's not the same thing at all, not even in the same vicinity (you seem to know this). So, to even try to draw some sort of parallel is ridiculous. Certainly there is so much more to what they did.

Doesn't work for me, since I regard lots of non-classical music as "art music" or "serious music."  But classical music works pretty well to describe music written by trained composers working in the centuries old Western tradition, intended for concert performance by trained musicians and expected to have lasting rather than ephemeral interest.  If someone like Williams were to take his film score and reduce it to a coherent concert suite, similar to Bernstein's Symphonic Dances from West Side Story, I would consider that "classical music"--but not the film's background music itself.

And I would consider Williams's pursuit of the art-form and that suite pretty easily falling into the 'ephemeral pop culture commerical' territory and outside of that tradition (whatever you want to call it); way outside & below the goal & integrity of serious musicians that the legacy is really built on, past & present; and certainly nothing musically valuable. Sure it can be fun & entertaining for people who enjoy that sort-of thing, but it shouldn't be confused with the 'real stuff', ever.

So Tchaikovsky's ballet suites, Sibelius's theatrical suites, Bernstein's Symphonic Dances, and so on, are ephemeral pop culture commercial...way outside & below the goal & integrity of serious musicians...nothing musically valuable...[and not] the real stuff?

What do you think? You think those composers seriously fall into that?!?!?!

I don't, but you do and I wonder why...or would, if I hadn't learned shortly after you arrived here not to expect rationality from you but only rationalization for your prejudices.  Your statements re. concert suites made from music composed for film would apply equally to concert suites made from music composed for theatre and dance, suggesting that you believe there is some objective standard that applies and not just taste.

You imply that some concert suites made from music written to support theatrical works are "classical music" (those by Tchaikovsky, Stravinsky, Sibelius, Bernstein, for instance), but you deny that similar work by Williams qualifies.  To me it seems that you might cogently assert that a Williams suite doesn't appeal to your tastes, but to deny its essential similarity of type makes no sense. 

Perhaps I'm missing something here.  If so, then perhaps you would be kind enough to explain it so that I and others similarly confused can correctly understand the point you seem to be trying to make.  Thanks!

[Philoctetes]

This is really off-topic but every time I see James/Mirror Image/etc. post, I think of that song Crawling in My Skin by Linkin Park.

[jowcol]

With all due respect jowol, but this discussion is getting so ridiculous ... i mean come on, doesn't matter if you like LvB's style or not, you should be able to tell the HUGE astronomical differences between the 2 as far as music is concerned.

Is there any possibility that the horse was already out of the barn?

[Grazioso]

Similar work?!?! Those guys made condensed versions of essentially mindblowing, revolutionary, rich, elevating, door opening compositions and they did lots else too (music that stands on it's own 2 feet, on it's own merits, music that's powerful & rich, and valuable) ... how does this at all compare to what Williams does with his ephemeral popular culture decorative cheesy film pastiche. You would say that it's really similar musically? Other than the fact that he 'made a suite' (big deal), it's not anywhere near that stuff. I'm kinda shocked that you don't realize & hear the differences, or even consider the timeline even. I mean come on David, for chrissakes.. I know you do!

Unfortunately, your arguments regarding what is/isn't "good" music or "Classical" or "art" music always seem to boil down to the same thing in thread after thread on this forum: "I know it, it's obvious, anyone who doesn't view things my way is deaf or disingenuous." In other words, you supposedly know better yet never articulate rationally or with substantial evidence why you're right and everyone else is wrong.

You keep trying to freight your "art" music with terms like elevating, mind-blowing, powerful, deep, or serious and whatnot in order to distance or denigrate other music, but that misses vital points:

* a composer for so-called popular ephemera like film can be deadly serious about his craft, injecting into the work all his talent and creativity and not treating it as a lark
* working with other artists in a collaborative effort like film doesn't inherently invalidate a composer's efforts or results. Creative restraints can be a spur as much as a hindrance, and are you really ready to say that Bach was a lesser composer because he wasn't in a position to exercise full freedom with every piece he wrote, but rather had to write for church or royal patrons, was expected to use conventional forms, had to fit his music to received religious texts, etc.?
* music that you devalue or denigrate may, for other listeners, be deeply moving and elevating. Lots of people find classical music impenetrable or boring or silly but can be moved to tears by a pop song or "elevated" by a gospel tune.

The key problem here, it seems to me, is that you ultimately fall back on subjective criteria, but breaking music down into two categories, "James thinks it's art" and "James thinks it's not art," doesn't tell us anything useful about the Star Wars soundtrack, classical music, or film music.

[karlhenning]

All well considered, Grazioso.

Of course, Philo's (e.g.) POV is an equal and opposite fallacy (I don't see much difference between Williams and Stravinsky. I value them on the same level.)  An inability to see the difference between Stravinsky and Williams is truly staggering.

[MN Dave]

All well considered, Grazioso.

Of course, Philo's (e.g.) POV is an equal and opposite fallacy (I don't see much difference between Williams and Stravinsky. I value them on the same level.)  An inability to see the difference between Stravinsky and Williams is truly staggering.

Not seeing the difference and valuing them on the same level are two entirely different processes, I think.

[Philoctetes]

All well considered, Grazioso.

Of course, Philo's (e.g.) POV is an equal and opposite fallacy (I don't see much difference between Williams and Stravinsky. I value them on the same level.)  An inability to see the difference between Stravinsky and Williams is truly staggering.

That's quite incorrect, although an expected assumption. I see the difference.

[karlhenning]

Not seeing the difference and valuing them on the same level are two entirely different processes, I think.

Can be, yes.

[jowcol]

* a composer for so-called popular ephemera like film can be deadly serious about his craft, injecting into the work all his talent and creativity and not treating it as a lark
* working with other artists in a collaborative effort like film doesn't inherently invalidate a composer's efforts or results. Creative restraints can be a spur as much as a hindrance, and are you really ready to say that Bach was a lesser composer because he wasn't in a position to exercise full freedom with every piece he wrote, but rather had to write for church or royal patrons, was expected to use conventional forms, had to fit his music to received religious texts, etc.?
* music that you devalue or denigrate may, for other listeners, be deeply moving and elevating. Lots of people find classical music impenetrable or boring or silly but can be moved to tears by a pop song or "elevated" by a gospel tune.

Word. 

[DavidRoss]

Similar work?!?! Those guys made condensed versions of essentially mindblowing, revolutionary, rich, elevating, door opening compositions and they did lots else too (music that stands on it's own 2 feet, on it's own merits, music that's powerful & rich, and valuable) ... how does this at all compare to what Williams does with his ephemeral popular culture decorative cheesy film pastiche. You would say that it's really similar musically? Other than the fact that he 'made a suite' (big deal), it's not anywhere near that stuff. I'm kinda shocked that you don't realize & hear the differences, or even consider the timeline even. I mean come on David, for chrissakes.. I know you do!

Of course I hear significant differences, but whether I like Stravinsky more than Williams or even whether Stravinsky is objectively a better composer than Williams is completely beside the point.  The question at issue is "Does Star Wars soundtrack count as classical music?"  It's a question about kind, not quality.

Personally, I'm not terribly fond of Williams's music (although I do like his bassoon concerto).  But that doesn't satisfy as a criterion to determine whether something's "classical" or not:  I like Miles's Kind of Blue, but don't regard that as classical; I don't like "Wellington's Victory," but do regard it as classical.

Nor do I think the Star Wars soundtrack counts as "classical.  "  Not because it's "cheesy"--heck, much of Wagner is cheesy, IMO--but because it lacks most of the qualities distinguishing "classical" music from "popular" and "folk" musics, such as the structural integrity Karl refers to.  It can't be faulted for that, however, because that wasn't the composer's intent.  He wanted 37 seconds of "building excitement" here, cut to 13 seconds of "budding love" there, followed by 10 seconds of "impending menace" and then 8 seconds of "music to accompany a big explosion!"  If he does that to serve the images well and manages to tie it all together with some kind of thematic links, such as Wagner or Williams's leitmotifs, we say he's a good "music drama" or "movie music" composer.

But, if he also--while composing the movie music--manages to create something that does hold together with the requisite structural and musical integrity we expect in classical concert pieces, whether fantasies, tone poems, suites, or full-blown symphonies...then I think that "something" would probably be recognized as "classical" music by most folks, just as most recognize such music by RVW, Prokofiev, Mendelssohn, et al as "classical music."

Good luck to you, James, and I hope this little discussion might be helpful to some member new to classical music from a background of pop whose lack of exposure leads him to equate "orchestral" music with "classical" music.

[Scarpia]

Well, the Atlanta symphony performed the Star Wars suite on the same program with Holst's Planets in 2009.  It was part of the regular Atlanta Symphony schedule, not some sort of pops concert, so Robert Spano and the Atlanta symphony seem to think the suite is classical music. 

http://www.vzwamp.com/e5-about-atlanta-symphony-orchestra-star-wars-and-more.php

The strategy seems to be to use the Star Wars piece to draw people in, then lock the doors and spring Holst's piece on them.  Good thing none of us was there, because actually hearing the music would probably make the discussion a lot less lively.

My feeling is that the movie score is not classical music (although it uses 'classical' technique) but that the suite is, although it may not be very good classical music.  I don't think it makes sense to exclude music from being "classical" because it supposedly does not contain sufficient artistic integrity, since that is not something that people will be able to agree on. 

[(poco) Sforzando]

This is really off-topic but every time I see James/Mirror Image/etc. post, I think of that song Crawling in My Skin by Linkin Park.

That may be, but does that make the song classical music?

[(poco) Sforzando]

Well, the Atlanta symphony performed the Star Wars suite on the same program with Holst's Planets in 2009.  It was part of the regular Atlanta Symphony schedule, not some sort of pops concert, so Robert Spano and the Atlanta symphony seem to think the suite is classical music.

Explore the musical mystique of space travel with a stellar lineup: Holst's incredible symphonic masterpiece, The Planets (visually dazzling with high-definition footage of the planets shown on the big screens, courtesy of NASA); John Williams's out-of-this-world Star Wars suite; and Strauss's thrilling sonic adventure, Also sprach Zarathustra (immortalized in the Stanley Kubrick film, 2001: A Space Odyssey). ASO Assistant Conductor and League of American Orchestras Fellow Mei-Ann Chen conducts.

PROGRAM
STRAUSS: Also sprach Zarathustra
WILLIAMS: Star Wars suite
HOLST: The Planets

Must've been one loud concert.

[Philoctetes]

That may be, but does that make the song classical music?

Really depends on how you define it..

[karlhenning]

Well, the Atlanta symphony performed the Star Wars suite on the same program with Holst's Planets in 2009.  It was part of the regular Atlanta Symphony schedule, not some sort of pops concert, so Robert Spano and the Atlanta symphony seem to think the suite is classical music.

At this point, the argument becomes a little circular, in the manner of If enough people say "to you and I," then it becomes de facto correct grammar.

American orchestras (and especially orchestras in the interior) have struggled to keep/get "bums in seats." One strategy adopted for this is, Give the people what they want.  For instance, this very January, on the 13^th through the 15^th, the guest singer at the Nashville Symphony is Peter Cetera:

The legendary voice for the group Chicago and a successful solo artist in his own right, Cetera will survey his hit-studded career, which includes "If You Leave Me Now," "You're the Inspiration, "The Glory of Love" and "The Next Time I Fall."

Personally, I like "If You Leave Me Now" all right;  but I suffer grave doubts that even this "legitimization" by venue makes classical music (yea, even light classical) of "The Glory of Love."

In Boston, at any rate (even here, where Williams is a local institution, as former director of the Boston Pops) a Star Wars "suite" will be regularly programmed on the Pops, but (so far as I know) never on a Boston Symphony subscription concert.  In Tanglewood, of course, all bets are off.

The circularity, then, is in a first-rank orchestra such as Atlanta programming such a "suite" (together with Mars, so that any discerning listener can put two and two together) on a "legit" program as popular appeasement . . . and then listeners concluding, Well, look at the programming: Guess what's classical!

Good think none of us was there, because actually hearing the music would probably make the discussion a lot less lively.

Do you really think so?

[Scarpia]

At this point, the argument becomes a little circular, in the manner of If enough people say "to you and I," then it becomes de facto correct grammar.

American orchestras (and especially orchestras in the interior) have struggled to keep/get "bums in seats." One strategy adopted for this is, Give the people what they want.  For instance, this very January, on the 13^th through the 15^th, the guest singer at the Nashville Symphony is Peter Cetera:

Not quite the same.  According to the fine print, this is from the "Bank of America Pops series" and it features a rock band with the orchestra playing along.   

The only thing to distinguish the Star Wars from incidental music from various plays and films is the fact that it is not as good.  There's been lots of classical music through the years that's unworthy, lord knows.  According to Tchaikovsky, that includes Brahms.   

[Philoctetes]

How's this from earlier ...

.. I don't think defining what Art Music is-is that elusive; it's a legacy that's been around for quite a long time, and it's steeped on a deep & scientific written tradition of music for ceremonial, concert & pedagogical purposes ...  & it's not confined to just 'the orchestra' or 'traditional' instruments any longer either. It's pursuit, concerns & goals are largely & purely musical; as opposed to popularity, business, commodification or commercialization.

Doesn't really do much for me, personally, but I have no dog in the fight. I think that if you allow in some, you'd have to allow in others. So if we're talking in a purely definitionally sense; then I'd say this discussion will only end in failure.

[karlhenning]

Not quite the same.  According to the fine print, this is from the "Bank of America Pops series" and it features a rock band with the orchestra playing along.   

Yes, but it's all in the schedule of the Nashville Symphony.  A schedule which includes the Adams and Reese Jazz Series and the SunTrust Classical Series.

A symphony orchestra, mind you, which has to label certain programs a Classical Series.

I suppose Nashville really would not support a full-time Symphony Orchestra, so they're essentially session men for . . . whatever.