Does Star Wars soundtrack count as classical music?

[Karl Henning]

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?

Well, Poju, we've discussed the matter several times over the years, and I've not succeeded in convincing you of my viewpoint, and I should know better than to expect sudden success now. So, I leave it be.

[mc ukrneal]

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.

I am not sure that analogy holds. The sets, costumes, etc. do not change the actual perception of the performance to the same degree. But changing the music in a film is a more serious change (to me) than changing the costumes. if you don't think so, then perhaps this is the core of our disagreement.

[Monsieur Croche]

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

Old timers ≠ professional classical musician.

Professional classical musicians, historians / musicologists: you know, the ones who write and edit the books like Groves, Harvard Dictionary of Music, The Larousse Encyclopedia of Music, and the like.

[ZauberdrachenNr.7]

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 %

"In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, but in the expert's mind there are few."
Shunryu Suzuki,  "Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind."

[Monsieur Croche]

"In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, but in the expert's mind there are few."
Shunryu Suzuki,  "Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind."

I would bet a tolling bell that a Zen Master could and would discern the difference between a boulder and a pebble without a quiver of a qualm about having compromised his highest state of awareness. The Master would also be cognizant the boulder and the pebble were both the same material, formed by very similar forces and in very similar manners, and that each had different presences and energies.

[71 dB]

People say the music of Star Wars does not meet the requirement of classical music.

What exactly are those requirements? Do the worst operas and theatrical insidental music really meet those requirements? Does Ravel's Bolero meet them? Does Philip Glass' music meet them?

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 ..

Sorry but your cocky "statement" was lazy and I pointed it up. We are talking about the music in Star Wars movies, not "Movie & Television audio-tracks". Audio track is not the same thing as music soundtrack. Audio tracks contain the music plus a lot of other sounds like sound effects and dialogue.

[jochanaan]

Some 100 years ago a new art form was born. It's father was theatre and it's mother was opera. The father and mother were brought together by another relatively new invention: Photography.

When we look at soundtracks in movies, it's only logical that they are based on theatre and opera music. John Williams is Wagner of movies. How much do we demand from Wagner to be called classical music? How much do we demand from opera music in general to be called classical music? How much do we demand from Bizet's Carmen or Offenbach's Orphée aux enfers? How much do we demand from Carl Nielsen's theatre music?

In my opinion not counting Star Wars soundracks as classical music would logically lead to re-evaluation of a lot of opera and theatre music we have considered classical music.

+1

[jochanaan]

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

How can this be a "factual description" of Mozart when the concept "classical music" hadn't been invented yet?  Remember, "classical" was a word that was only applied to Mozart et al in hindsight.  The most we can say factually was that Mozart was a composer of music that has been considered great music by many well-trained musicians and musicologists.

(Karl, you know I'm mostly on your side, so this is no attack but a real question.)

[jochanaan]

...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.

Well, the Soviet authorities insisted on changes to Shostakovich's 13th Symphony "Babi Yar."  Now, the Soviets weren't involved with the actual creation of the symphony, but still, just because someone asks a composer to make changes, and he makes them, does not disqualify a composition from being classical music.  Otherwise most of Bruckner's symphonies would not count either.

[James]

Sorry but your cocky "statement" was lazy and I pointed it up. We are talking about the music in Star Wars movies, not "Movie & Television audio-tracks". Audio track is not the same thing as music soundtrack. Audio tracks contain the music plus a lot of other sounds like sound effects and dialogue.

Wasn't being lazy just pointing out the obvious .. and exactly as you phrase 'music in' Star Wars .. precisely. Star Wars is lots else than just what JW did as you point out (i.e. sound effects, dialog). It is apart of the final audio mix that accompanies it's lavish visual story line, thus in the end, it is an audio track apart of the mix and nothing more. That is it's purpose & function for being, above all else. Quite clearly, not classical composition (which includes Opera), never has been, never will be. JW tried his hand at concert music and none of that really took off. Maybe he should try to write his very own opera or ballet and mount them in that context, to see whether or not he would measure up to a Wagner or Stravinsky musically. Good luck with that & keep dreamin'.

[Karl Henning]

How can this be a "factual description" of Mozart when the concept "classical music" hadn't been invented yet?  Remember, "classical" was a word that was only applied to Mozart et al in hindsight.  The most we can say factually was that Mozart was a composer of music that has been considered great music by many well-trained musicians and musicologists.

(Karl, you know I'm mostly on your side, so this is no attack but a real question.)

Well, and in all events, I view this thread in the light of a discussion of ideas, so I should never take your question as any sort of attack.

I'll restrict myself to a brief observation, itself open to discussion, of course.  But my point (which does not really address your own excellent observations, jo) is that whether Mozart and John Williams belong in the same category, in overlapping categories, or in entirely distinct categories, that question will be determined (if it be determined) by reason, consideration, and consensus.  Mozart is not going to be a classical composer because I, a sole individual, decree so.

If others contest my decree, and I shrink back into the assertion (perfectly true) that Art is ever expanding, and something for which we shall never find a definition which is both satisfactory and true, I am not engaging the ambient questions, but just want my feelings, of what great stuff Mozart writes, validated by my personally insisting that he is a classical composer.

[Karl Henning]

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

Thank you for your kind remark, and thank you too for reminding me of this post.

I know you're asking that, prepared for an answer, rather than with the subtext, See? There is no answer . . . .

Once on a time I tried making my viewpoint reasonably plain.  Rather than try to re-construct those comments, here is a fresh expression:

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 . . . .

I have not today Bowdlerized this post;  but I do wish, back when I first composed it, that I had removed even the odd hint of testiness in there, since of course it works against my argument.

[71 dB]

Maybe he should try to write his very own opera or ballet and mount them in that context, to see whether or not he would measure up to a Wagner or Stravinsky musically. Good luck with that & keep dreamin'.[/size][/font]

Why would John Williams need to measure up to a Wagner or Stravinsky musically? There are lesser composers and their output is classical music too.

[James]

The attempt (more like desperately grasping for straws) by some here 'to imagine' a realistic, substantial & true parallel that audio presented within the art of film (yes, audio) is similar to staged classical ballet or opera is utterly ridiculous. It simply does not exist.

[Karl Henning]

Why would John Williams need to measure up to a Wagner or Stravinsky musically? There are lesser composers and their output is classical music too.

This is a fair point.

[James]

Why would John Williams need to measure up to a Wagner or Stravinsky musically? There are lesser composers and their output is classical music too.

Audio tracks remember, just audio tracks, that is where it ends up, that is what it is made for, within a mix - it is not classical composition, including opera. HOWEVER if you're seriously going to call him a classical composer, in the true sense of that - then he should earn his place within it's History like Wagner and Stravinsky did. Two very respected & innovative musicians. So if you're going to give what he does the kind of artistic merit you think it does have, and what the legacy is built upon, than he should divorce himself from all that stuff found in a movie and write for the stage to see what he's made of. Let him write an opera or ballet. You see, he isn't the Wagner of film, there is no such thing. And if there is .. than it would be folks like Hitchcock or Stanley Kubrick.

[71 dB]

Audio tracks remember, just audio tracks, that is where it ends up, that is what it is made for, within a mix - it is not classical composition, including opera.

I don't get your audio track talk. Movie soundtracks are sold as their own. Have you ever listened to a Star Wars soundtrack?

HOWEVER if you're seriously going to call him a classical composer, in the true sense of that - then he should earn his place within it's History like Wagner and Stravinsky did. Two very respected & innovative musicians. [/QUOTE]

I wouldn't be worried about that. It's possible in the future the music of John Williams is more popular than Wagner.

So if you're going to give what he does the kind of artistic merit you think it does have, and what the legacy is built upon, than he should divorce himself from all that stuff found in a movie and write for the stage to see what he's made of. Let him write an opera or ballet. You see, he isn't the Wagner of film, there is no such thing. And if there is .. than it would be folks like Hitchcock or Stanley Kubrick.[/size][/font]

If John Williams is not the Wagner of movies, who is?

[Karl Henning]

It's possible that Jn Williams's music is already more popular than Wagner's.

Popularity isn't really the metric, is it? 

[Karl Henning]

If John Williams is not the Wagner of movies, who is?

For Jn Williams to be the Wagner of movies, he would need to write his own script, direct the cinematography, compose the soundtrack, and have control over the final cut.  That ain't John Williams.

Maybe Charlie Chaplin was the Wagner of movies.

[71 dB]

For Jn Williams to be the Wagner of movies, he would need to write his own script, direct the cinematography, compose the soundtrack, and have control over the final cut.  That ain't John Williams.

Maybe Charlie Chaplin was the Wagner of movies.

How about the Bizet of movies?