Does Star Wars soundtrack count as classical music?

[Philoctetes]

Its rather ironic that two of the posters who argue the most on this forum often resort to a "I just know it" response when asked about their assertions...

Dude, it's obvious.

But as to the topic, I think if people listened to some of Johnny's classical compositions, I think they would actually enjoy it.

But I doubt they will. It's easier to debunk something you don't know.

[(poco) Sforzando]

But as to the topic, I think if people listened to some of Johnny's classical compositions, I think they would actually enjoy it.

But I doubt they will. It's easier to debunk something you don't know.

I have, and wasn't enormously impressed. But I don't deny his film music serves its purpose very well.

[Philoctetes]

I have, and wasn't enormously impressed. But I don't deny his film music serves its purpose very well.

Well I wasn't impressed either, but I think it would definitely count as classical under the multiple definitions offered in this thread, and that at the very least it was enjoyable music to listen to.

I will also agree that his music does suit his film collaborations.

[71 dB]

Yes, Dittersdorf certainly reminds me of a horse's behind.

Mozart admired Dittersdorf but did he admire horse's behind? We don't know.

[(poco) Sforzando]

The problem with classical music and art in general is that apprehensions are given. People don't question them that much it seems. Yes, Beethoven was damn great but that doesn't mean it's right to manipulate people to believe that without criticism. Nobody tells me how things are, I figure them out myself. Beethoven has to earn my respect just like any other composer. That's why I am able to criticize Beethoven's orchestration skills while greatly admiring his String Quartets.

You're acting (and we've seen it before) as if there is some diabolical plot afoot to brainwash people into believing which works have survived to form the standard canon. It's nonsense. Lots of music gets written, performers choose what they want to play, audiences like it or not, and if they do it gets heard again and again. A lot of people want to play and hear Beethoven, but hardly anybody wants to play Dittersdorf.

The idea that you figure all this out by yourself is equally faulty. Unless you're doing primary research in all kinds of dusty libraries throughout Europe, what you're hearing on your CDs has been pre-selected for you by virtue of the fact that a performer has first chosen to play and record it. I have read that Charles Rosen, a very influential pianist and scholar, considers Méhul's "Ariodante" a major work of the early 19th century. Problem is, it's never been recorded, seems never to be performed, and the score is inaccessible.

As for your "criticism" of Beethoven's orchestration, I have yet to see any validity to it.

[71 dB]

You're acting (and we've seen it before) as if there is some diabolical plot afoot to brainwash people into believing which works have survived to form the standard canon. It's nonsense. Lots of music gets written, performers choose what they want to play, audiences like it or not, and if they do it gets heard again and again. A lot of people want to play and hear Beethoven, but hardly anybody wants to play Dittersdorf.

The idea that you figure all this out by yourself is equally faulty. Unless you're doing primary research in all kinds of dusty libraries throughout Europe, what you're hearing on your CDs has been pre-selected for you by virtue of the fact that a performer has first chosen to play and record it. I have read that Charles Rosen, a very influential pianist and scholar, considers Méhul's "Ariodante" a major work of the early 19th century. Problem is, it's never been recorded, seems never to be performed, and the score is inaccessible.

It's not a conspiracy. It just happens. 100 years ago composers like Marc-Antoine Charpentier and Jean-Philippe Rameau where "forgotten" but now they are considered among the greatest French composers in music history. Are we wrong or the people 100 years ago? It was not conspiracy to put these composers down, it just happened. That's why we need to re-evaluate what we know and keep searching for (still) forgotten works like Méhul's "Ariodante".

As for your "criticism" of Beethoven's orchestration, I have yet to see any validity to it.

Well, I find Beethoven's orchestration too loud for the music. So the criticism is valid for me, isn't it?

[(poco) Sforzando]

It's not a conspiracy. It just happens. 100 years ago composers like Marc-Antoine Charpentier and Jean-Philippe Rameau were "forgotten" but now they are considered among the greatest French composers in music history. Are we wrong or the people 100 years ago? It was not conspiracy to put these composers down, it just happened. That's why we need to re-evaluate what we know and keep searching for (still) forgotten works like Méhul's "Ariodante".

No dispute here. Canons are constantly being re-evaluated, and forgotten composers are re-discovered and found to have something to say to us in our time. Sometimes composers once admired are demoted too (like Meyerbeer).

Well, I find Beethoven's orchestration too loud for the music. So the criticism is valid for me, isn't it?

I don't even know what this means.

[karlhenning]

I have, and wasn't enormously impressed. But I don't deny his film music serves its purpose very well.

Ditto.

[karlhenning]

Anyway, there's an even more important film composer who has won a total of eight Oscars, more than any other living individual.

[karlhenning]

Now, Carl Stalling was brilliant.

[Grazioso]

In otherwords, 'prove it to me with objective evidence' lol

I never said I was some enlightened final arbiter of musical value either, but if you've been around long enough and love music a lot and listened-to and explored it for quite awhile you can pick up on the differences between a musician who writes solely for the art, who has developed his own musical voice and special language & logic ... and one who decides to 'take a back seat' and write largely cut & paste pastiche beneath layers and layers of dialog, visuals, plot, sound effects .. where emphasis on purely 'my music' - 'itself' is not the primary concern. No analysis necessary. I don't think any serious musician could tolerate such conditions for long or permanently. And my argument hasn't really hinged itself on 'quality' alone either .. it's more the artistic intent, seriousness of purpose & overall goal from the get go. Do I intend to write background stuff for movies all my life ? Or do I discover myself, get really serious and focus and intend to write 'my music' for largely & purely musical reasons; for better or for worse.

Indeed, some evidence to back your assertions would be helpful. Most of us here have, I gather, been listening to and playing/composing music for many years. Most of us love it and have explored it at length. To say that we all must therefore see things your way and agree with you is a cop-out.

What it comes down to is that you won't offer objective commentary or analysis for the Star Wars soundtrack, will only hypothesize about the mindset of a "serious" musician (projecting your own values onto other composers without letting them speak for themselves), and make simplistic generalizations about the form, use, and creative process of movie soundtracks.

[jochanaan]

It's not my way (or hypothesis), how many times do I have to say that? And again .. approaching this simple discussion with the 'prove it to me with objective evidence' is totally daft & unnecessary ... as one poster jumped in & essentially pointed out earlier. You either hear, understand or recognize the differences or you don't i guess, simply that. And the majority here who have been engaged in the topic of recent even seem to agree with the basic notion (that i didn't just invent here and now btw) that it's just not cut from the same cloth essentially ... for whatever reasons. And hopefully one day; you too, like so many others will be able to hear the distinctions ...  and understand what serious writing and musicianship really is. It doesn't take a lot of work to discern either, btw.

None of us are saying that there are no differences between Williams and, say, Stravinsky.  What some of us, including me, are saying is that there's a difference between categorizing by quality, which has some subjectivity inherent, and categorizing by type, which can be considered with strict objectivity; and that if we start categorizing by quality, we then, to be consistent, have to apply the same quality standards to all music, "classical" or otherwise, and thus might end up expecting Brahms' rigor of design in a Strauss waltz. (That's not to say there's little worth in Strauss waltzes; Brahms himself admired them.  But they're very different creations.)

[petrarch]

Too simple.

Simplicity commensurate with the rigor in assertions such as (to paraphrase), there must be something of merit somewhere in there.

[petrarch]

Why argue, here's what Google has to say on Beethoven vs. Dittersdorf:

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=beethoven&word2=dittersdorf

http://ngrams.googlelabs.com/graph?content=Beethoven%2CDittersdorf&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3

http://ngrams.googlelabs.com/graph?content=Beethoven%2CDittersdorf&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=8&smoothing=3

[Scarpia]

None of us are saying that there are no differences between Williams and, say, Stravinsky.  What some of us, including me, are saying is that there's a difference between categorizing by quality, which has some subjectivity inherent, and categorizing by type, which can be considered with strict objectivity; and that if we start categorizing by quality, we then, to be consistent, have to apply the same quality standards to all music, "classical" or otherwise, and thus might end up expecting Brahms' rigor of design in a Strauss waltz. (That's not to say there's little worth in Strauss waltzes; Brahms himself admired them.  But they're very different creations.)

Well said.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Simplicity commensurate with the rigor in assertions such as (to paraphrase), there must be something of merit somewhere in there.

Look at the remainder of my paragraph.

[petrarch]

Look at the remainder of my paragraph.

I did. It is interesting how these sorts of arguments are based on an appeal to authority or an appeal to numbers. Too simple.

[(poco) Sforzando]

I did. It is interesting how these sorts of arguments are based on an appeal to authority or an appeal to numbers. Too simple.

Then come up with something better.

[petrarch]

Seriously petrarch you still haven't voiced your own perspective on this.

I don't care much for the question in the title of the thread. The tangential arguments, however, I find interesting and worth discussing.

Do you consider the Star Wars soundtrack as part of the 'grand tradition'?

What tradition is that? Using instruments created at least 200 years ago and played by a group of more than half a dozen people with scores in front of them?

Why is dance music up to 1900 considered "classical" but that of the 20th century isn't? Why are romantic songs from the 1300s and 1400s considered "classical" but those of the 20th century aren't? When and why were they promoted from "popular" to "classical" and to being part of the "grand tradition"?

And in a larger context do you see the intent & goals of film composers differing at all from say oh .. the many, many modern composers you listen to and enjoy? Just curious.

Of course, but that's beside the point. To satisfy your curiosity, I don't care for John Williams, other than having to admit his music works more or less well along with the films, and there are some iconic and memorable sequences that are inseparable from the soundtrack--there aren't many other composers enjoying that privilege.

[jochanaan]

It's not really an issue of quality or this guy vs. that guy as I said earlier tho .. it's more an issue of the underlying artistic intent & goals which are totally different.

But the differences exist in recognized classical masters too, like my aforementioned Brahms and J. Strauss.  As Petrarch asks, shall we consider Strauss waltzes "not classical"?