Does Star Wars soundtrack count as classical music?

[Bogey]

Sure it is.

The funny thing is, that I voted "no" at the start, but thanks to the recent posts, on both sides, I changed my vote.   

This sort of reminds me of the 2008 Presidential Election....the Republicans, for the first time, made me turn another direction, but the other "main" alternative was not overly appealing, so I put my check next to Ralph Nader.  At least he answered the questions in a direct manner that were posed to him.

[Bogey]

These posts from page 4....not sure if you read the entire thread, or not:

     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.'

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....

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.

OK, I am done now:

 

[DavidRoss]

This has to the one of the longest troll threads. Where one side consistently says nothing (almost exactly like Newman), and the other side says things (but not really, like those that replied to Newman).

Corrected. 

Yep.  Usually folks tire sooner of such one-sided discussions in which the other party isn't really capable of responding. Yet here, as with Newman on Mozart, the topic itself has generated enough interest for many participants to explore it more deeply than before.  My own thinking about the subject has changed, from outright dismissal at first ("Hell no!") to more open-mindedness, informed by contributions from many other posters (excluding James, of course).  For instance, Grazioso's link to the Copland interview is interesting.

As far as the Star Wars soundtrack itself is concerned, I'm still not comfortable with dignifying it as "classical music" rather than "orchestral pop," but until we have a satisfying definition for "classical music" (other than James's subjective assessment of quality, not kind), I doubt the question can be answered to everyone's satisfaction.

[karlhenning]

Yea lots of talk has transpired .. but the bottomline is that no really substantial film music stuff has been presented.

The bottom line is exactly the Pink Harp's bottom line: the terms are slippery, and you and the Harpster can both satisfy yourselves that no one has "convinced you."

[Philoctetes]

Yea lots of talk has transpired .. but the bottomline is that no really substantial film music stuff has been presented. All some could come up with was Koyaanisqatsi lol

Multiple links have been provided for you, but I hope that you continue down this path. Like Newman, I think you're awesome.

[Scarpia]

Yea lots of talk has transpired .. but the bottomline is that no really substantial film music stuff has been presented. All some could come up with was Koyaanisqatsi lol

The fact that you are immune to the presentation of evidence and rational argument is nothing to boast of.

[karlhenning]

The fact that you are immune to the presentation of evidence rational argument is nothing to boast of.

QFT

[jowcol]

Yea lots of talk has transpired .. but the bottomline is that no really substantial film music stuff has been presented. All some could come up with was Koyaanisqatsi lol

Yup, Prokofiev, Vaughan Williams, Shostakovitch , Alywn and Arnold were pretty insubstantial.  And poor Stravinsky and Schoenberg lost out on their chance to be insubstantial, despite the interest they showed.

Yep.  Usually folks tire sooner of such one-sided discussions in which the other party isn't really capable of responding.

There is always the entertainment value, if nothing else.

http://www.youtube.com/v/zKhEw7nD9C4

Yet here, as with Newman on Mozart, the topic itself has generated enough interest for many participants to explore it more deeply than before. 

This is actually a very interesting point.

When a topic is debated where the different parties take time to develop their points , a lot of interesting material can be unearthed, and those of us who appreciate the opportunity can take advantage. (You know, they say a mind is like a parachute...)   

I appreciate the links, they were great reading, and Luke's analysis alone was worth the price of admission.  Williams comments on his score not being really pop (while I might not have agreed with him), do shed some interesting insights into his intentions, which would definitely shed more value than having us speculate on them without any basis of reference.

[mc ukrneal]

I appreciate the links, they were great reading, and Luke's analysis alone was worth the price of admission.  Williams comments on his score not being really pop (while I might not have agreed with him), do shed some interesting insights into his intentions, which would definitely shed more value than having us speculate on them without any basis of reference.

I also thought it interesting that Billboard called it non-pop (if my memory isn't playing tricks on me). That in itself said rather a lot.

[karlhenning]

Well, of mild interest. I find it hard to think of Billboard as a reference ; )

[mc ukrneal]

Well, of mild interest. I find it hard to think of Billboard as a reference ; )

Well, that's true. Still...

[jowcol]

I also would not tend to accept Billboard, but this discussion is interesting.  I've added some highlights.

CB: The album itself was in the top 20 on Billboard's charts. That was relatively unheard of for a non- pop score. How did you respond to that?

JW: I don't think we ever had in the history of the record industry or a film business something that was so non-pop, with a small "p," reach an audience that size. I have to credit the film for a lot of this. If I had written the music without the film probably nobody ever would have heard of the music; it was the combination of things and the elusive, weird, unpredictable aspect of timing that none of us can quite get our hands around. If we could predict this kind of phenomenon or produce it consciously out of a group effort we would do it every year and we'd all be caliphs surrounded [laughs] with fountains of riches.

But it doesn't work that way, it's a much more elusive thing than that. Any composer who begins to write a piece would think, "this will be a successful piece." But you can't and we don't pull them out of the air that way. It also reminds us that as artists we don't work in a vacuum. We write our material, compose it or film it or whatever, but we're not alone in the vacuum, the audience is also out there and it's going to hit them. With all the aspects of happenstance and fad, and the issue of skirt length for example, which is to say style and fad, and what is à la mode? When all of these things come together and create a phenomenon like this, we then, as we're doing now, look back on it say, "Why did it happen?" It's as fascinating and inexplicable to me as to any viewer.

FWIW-- I tend to think of this as "Pop" in my lexicon, and calling it "non-pop" is a stretch-- but this is my subjective opinion. .  His comments on collaboration and intent are interesting.

CB: It's interesting that you brought up opera and Wagner. On a certain level it seems like the three scores are almost your "Ring Cycle." How did it become so interwoven when you originally were only scoring one film?

JW: I think if the score has an architectural unity, it's the result of a happy accident. I approached each film as a separate entity. The first one completely out of the blue, but the second one of course connected to the first one; we referred back to characters and extended them and referred back to themes and extended and developed those. I suppose it was a natural but unconscious metamorphoses of musical themes that created something that may seem to have more architectural and conscious interrelatedness than I actually intended to put there. If it's there, to the degree that it is there, it's a kind of happy accident if you like.

That may be sound deprecating—I don't mean it quite that way—but the functional aspect and the craft aspect of doing the job of these three films has to be credited with producing a lot of this unity in the musical content the listeners perceive.

[/b]

Okay-- even though I'm not a Wagner fan, I'd consider this over the top.  Although it is also telling that he did feel that any organic unity outside of the film was a coincidence, as opposed to Copeland's take.

[Grazioso]

Found this interesting lecture by Richard Davis, professor at Berklee and film/TV scorer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLdg5MU7sgk

Some interesting quotes, the first attributed to Spielberg, saying that without the music his films wouldn't exist.

The second, by Davis himself: "What we're doing with music in a film is storytelling; we're telling the story of an entire movie," and not just creating individual cues for disparate scenes.

[jowcol]

Found this interesting lecture by Richard Davis, professor at Berklee and film/TV scorer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLdg5MU7sgk

Some interesting quotes, the first attributed to Spielberg, saying that without the music his films wouldn't exist.

The second, by Davis himself: "What we're doing with music in a film is storytelling; we're telling the story of an entire movie," and not just creating individual cues for disparate scenes.

Interesting indeed, particularly how this differs from William's take.  There are probably as many different perspectives on music and film as there are composer who lived in the age of film.

[Tapio Dmitriyevich]

a) "Anakins theme" is very lovely classical music
b) The Darth Vader theme IMO is borrowed from Shostakovich Symphony 1, 2nd mvmt.

[Philoctetes]

Evidence? Pfff Hardly .. let's present this amazing film stuff everyone is alluding to (but doesn't exist).. so far all we have is just Koyaanisqatsi which is well lol

Only to exhort:

Eleni Karaindrou:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-kekZGK-d4

[(poco) Sforzando]

This has to the one of the longest troll threads. Where one side consistently says nothing (almost like Newman), and the other side says things (but not really, like those that replied to Newman).

Why thank you, Kevin. Do you have anything other to contribute other than to complain about other participants?

[Philoctetes]

Why thank you, Kevin. Do you have anything other to contribute other than to complain about other participants?

'

Why not read my other posts, twat?

[jowcol]

Evidence? Pfff Hardly .. let's present this amazing film stuff everyone is alluding to (but doesn't exist).. so far all we have is just Koyaanisqatsi which is well lol

Denial is not a river in Egypt.....

[Scarpia]

Evidence? Pfff Hardly .. let's present this amazing film stuff everyone is alluding to (but doesn't exist).. so far all we have is just Koyaanisqatsi which is well lol

I'm just surprised to hear that Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Frankel, Alwynn, Vaughan Williams, among others, are not "worthy."  In any case, I'm already tailing to take my own advice by not ignoring the bait.