People obsessed by categories: "Soundtracks are not classical music!!!"

[Florestan]

if you don't like this thread please just ignore it.

Speaking from my personal exoerience (not only in this thread), this is arguably the most difficult thing to do on an internet board (not only GMG): voluntarily ignoring threads, or posts, one doesn't like. Why this is so, it's for professional psychologists to tell. 

It's been suggested here that someone should have broken the forum rules on this very thread, in order to give mods a reason to kill it. I find this reasoning wrong: it's WAM's thread and as long as HE didn't break any rule (which he didn't) killing it because somebody else doesn't like it would be completely unfair.

The following has been attributed to various people, from Voltaire to Churchill:

I am right and you are wrong, but for your right to be wrong I am ready to die.

I ask you all (including you, @W.A. Mozart ): how many of us GMG-ers (and I include me alright) can subscribe to that not only verbally, but factually?

And if that is too tall an order, how about this:



Don't get me wrong, I am just as guilty as anybody else, maybe more --- but at least I am conscious of being a sinner. As a French cardinal once said: In matters of humility, I defy anyone. 

[Luke]

Hush, I'm way more humble than you.

[W.A. Mozart]

The following has been attributed to various people, from Voltaire to Churchill:

I am right and you are wrong, but for your right to be wrong I am ready to die.

I ask you all (including you, @W.A. Mozart )

I don't... and not because I'm generally against the freedom of expression, but because I am a pragmatic person and I defend every freedom only to the extent that it doesn't create serious damages.

There are some cases in which the freedom of expression might cause serious harm: defamation, psychological violence (umiliating someone with words) and incitation to violence.

So, instead of saying that I'm in favour of freedom of expression, I prefer to say that I'm against it, although in most cases I'm in favour of it (all cases except for defamation, psychological violence and incitation to violence).


That said, since it's a discussion about politics this is the last post that I'll write about this subject.

[Karl Henning]

Hush, I'm way more humble than you.

(* chortle *)

[W.A. Mozart]

It's not about deception - you do Doyle a disservice. As I said earlier, the idea is to write music which, whilst stylistically similar, exerts the same effect on modern ears as its models did on ears of the original period. Here, for example, Doyle's music focuses on what one could simply call the more luscious and immediately expressive aspects of the style. In a true piece of the period these moments would be offset by something different, often more formulaic (Charles Rosen's word, not meant as derogatory) in order to provide structural contrast and support.

It's that overlong 'development' section, which tellingly underlies much of the dialogue - it's long so as to fit the dialogue, but stylistically and simply musically this make it disproportionate . This is a point where the music - which was originally the subject of the conversation and thus something the viewer should be actively listening to - retreats into the background so that the viewer focuses back onto the dialogue. Therefore what I call its formlessness at this point is also excellent, expert film-scoring. But it does compromise the music as a free-standing piece.

By formless, I don't mean the overall structure, I mean that the melodic line (deliberately)loses focus here and becomes generic note spinning for three minutes, enough to 'sound about right's but without attracting the viewers attention by being thematically or motivically relevant. It's effective scoring by being deliberately loose and meandering.

If it was a form it wouldn't be
 
Exposition
Development
Recapitulation

it would be

Exposition
wafflewafflewaffleinthebackground
Recapitulation

and, as I say, this is in the context of the film a good thing, but as a piece of music alone it undermines it. The music works with the images, as it was designed to - it is film music. On its own it is less successful - it is not classical music pur sang

First of all, I seriously doubt that any skilled composer of soundtracks writes music with the intent of creating music which is uninteresting once extracted from the film.
If a piece is castrated because of mounting needs, the composers will often improve it for the soundtrack album... and of course the music that we listen to outside of the film is the one of the album.

Remember that they earn money if the people buy the soundtracks. So, someone might not like the piece of Doyle, but I seriously doubt that he intentionally wrote a weak piece. It sounded right to his ears!


Infact he didn't, according to me. I like the whole piece, including the development section.

The score was nominated for the Oscar "Best original score" and "My father's favourite" not surprisingly is the first piece of the album released after the film.

There are also live perfomances of the piece, for example this one.

What I want to say is that your observation is a value judgement, but value judgements are subjective. I thought that you noticed objective elements in relation to the impurity of the piece in respect to Classical music.

[Luke]

Maybe I expressed myself badly. I thought I praised Doyle's writing strongly. The abity to shade the amount the ear should focus on the music vs the action is very well done in that scene. The music is supportive of and therefore secondary to the purposes of the film, as it should be.

Furthermore, composers' ability to play with parameters of all kinds should not be underestimated. For example, in Schumann's Dichterliebe,  a masterpiece if ever there was one, the is one song ('Ein Jüngling liebt ein Mädchen') which is deliberately awkward and ungainly; some go as far as to say that is badly written, purposefully so, as this was the best way for Schumann to achieve his desired effect 

[Florestan]

in Schumann's Dichterliebe,  a masterpiece if ever there was one, the is one song ('Ein Jüngling liebt ein Mädchen') which is deliberately awkward and ungainly; some go as far as to say that is badly written, purposefully so, as this was the best way for Schumann to achieve his desired effect 

The title is the embodiment of an awkward and ungainly cliché. Schumann composed exactly the kind of music suited to that.

This reminds me of the oft-expressed criticism that Verdi was a composer of superficial, facile ditties, to wit La donna è mobile --- but for God's sake, the Duke of Mantua is no Plato, he's just --- well, just a superficial Lothario bent on facile amorous conquests, and as such his aria is spot on, one of the most fitting and faithful musical characterizations in the whole history of music.

IMHO both Schumann and Verdi were geniuses, both in those particular cases and in general.

[Karl Henning]

Maybe I expressed myself badly. I thought I praised Doyle's writing strongly. The ability to shade the amount the ear should focus on the music vs the action is very well done in that scene. The music is supportive of and therefore secondary to the purposes of the film, as it should be.

I think Patrick Doyle a great undersung composer of scores.

[Roasted Swan]

First of all, I seriously doubt that any skilled composer of soundtracks writes music with the intent of creating music which is uninteresting once extracted from the film.
If a piece is castrated because of mounting needs, the composers will often improve it for the soundtrack album... and of course the music that we listen to outside of the film is the one of the album.

Remember that they earn money if the people buy the soundtracks. So, someone might not like the piece of Doyle, but I seriously doubt that he intentionally wrote a weak piece. It sounded right to his ears!


Infact he didn't, according to me. I like the whole piece, including the development section.

The score was nominated for the Oscar "Best original score" and "My father's favourite" not surprisingly is the first piece of the album released after the film.

There are also live perfomances of the piece, for example this one.

What I want to say is that your observation is a value judgement, but value judgements are subjective. I thought that you noticed objective elements in relation to the impurity of the piece in respect to Classical music.

Andre Rieu - the carrier of the flame of all things Classical........

[Luke]

What I want to say is that your observation is a value judgement, but value judgements are subjective. I thought that you noticed objective elements in relation to the impurity of the piece in respect to Classical music.

Yes, I did (although I wouldn't put it in those terms). I noted some of them, e.g. the absence of contrasting and/or more formulaic passages which would be present in a classical (or indeed a galant) style piece. Maybe you didn't see that bit. But in any case, I would also say that my observance of the deliberately slackened focus of that elongated middle section is not a value judgement, it would also be demonstrable by music analysis with reference to the score, too.

[SimonNZ]

I forgot about this thread.  Okay, friendly reminder if you don't like this thread please just ignore it.  It doesn't violate forum policy, and as long as we keep religion or politics out of it, there is really no issue with this debate.

Also, as a reminder, if you feel frustrated with how the discussion has unfolded there is an easy solution... just stop posting hoping for something different.  That is the definition of insanity after all.

Thank you for your patience.

I'm going to push back on this a little. Because isn't there a trolling element to this thread? Isn't the insanity in the OPs asking for discussion then only reiterating what he has already said?

"Stop posting hoping for something different" would be true only if we were also just reiterating what we've already said, but the people replying have be constantly trying new approaches, not a single one of which has got a "that's a good point, I hadn't considered that", which again suggests trolling.

[Luke]

Personally although I might respond to WAM I'm aware by now that he

a) won't really read my replies very carefully, or
b) he will be deliberately selective with them so that he can misconstrue my meaning, or
c) he will claim that what I am really trying to say is [what he would rather I meant]

so at this point it doesn't really bother me. As I say I have no flesh in the game, I just enjoy discussion for its own sake, with everyone here.

[Karl Henning]

Personally although I might respond to WAM I'm aware by now that he

a) won't really read my replies very carefully, or
b) he will be deliberately selective with them so that he can misconstrue my meaning, or
c) he will claim that what I am really trying to say is [what he would rather I meant]

so at this point it doesn't really bother me. As I say I have no flesh in the game, I just enjoy discussion for its own sake, with everyone here.

Hear, hear!

[DavidW]

I'm going to push back on this a little. Because isn't there a trolling element to this thread? Isn't the insanity in the OPs asking for discussion then only reiterating what he has already said?

"Stop posting hoping for something different" would be true only if we were also just reiterating what we've already said, but the people replying have be constantly trying new approaches, not a single one of which has got a "that's a good point, I hadn't considered that", which again suggests trolling.

I actually thought about that before re-opening the thread.  I revisited the guidelines.  Here is the section on trolling:

Don't be a Forum Troll
A forum troll is someone who intentionally posts derogatory or inflammatory messages about sensitive topics in an online discussion forum with the deliberate intent to bait users into responding. This can range from very subtle jibes to outright personal attacks. The sensitive topic can be anything from a member's ethnic origin, religious beliefs, or any deeply held view, including opinions about certain pieces of music.

Again, by all means discuss the issues presented, but do not try to deliberately provoke another member into an ill-natured argument. Trolls will not be tolerated, and any trolling activity will be dealt with.

Nothing WAM has posted falls into any of those categories.  He might be very stubborn and dogmatic in his opinions, but he is not deliberately baiting posters. 

[W.A. Mozart]

Maybe I expressed myself badly. I thought I praised Doyle's writing strongly. The abity to shade the amount the ear should focus on the music vs the action is very well done in that scene. The music is supportive of and therefore secondary to the purposes of the film, as it should be.

Infact I didn't write that you said that Doyle is a bad composer. You basically wrote that Doyle is a good composer of muzak, that "My father's favourite" is good muzak, and infact I responded to this.

As a fan of soundtracks, I'd hate someone who fill films with muzak. I like only the soundtracks that I don't perceive as muzak, i.e. the ones that I find powerful in the concert hall.
According to me, if you only consider the films nominated for "Best Original Score", 1-2 out of 5 are interesting enough for live performances (we can call them the group A) and among them there are some which are even powerful in the concert hall (we can call them the group B).
Finally, there is the group C: the soundtracks which are not interesting enough for live perfomances.


Now, when I listen (usually in Youtube) to a soundtracks of the group C, I'm bored to death.

After I've listened to a soundtrack of the group A, I'm happy to have listened to it at least once, but I return frequently only to the soundtracks of the group B.


Since I have listened to "My Father's Favourite" many times, it's clear that for me it belongs to the group B.
Not only I find it powerful in the concert hall, but I find it more powerful than many slow movements of piano concertos of the classical period.


This is precisely the point: I don't agree with you because I think that Patrick Doyle might be a good composer of concert music, not of muzak, because I absolutely don't agree about the fact that the development of "My Father's Favourite" is muzak: for me it's powerful music.


If I wrote that every single soundtrack deserves a place in the concert hall I might be accused of bad judgement, but since I'm saying that "My Father's Favourite" for me belongs to a minority of a minority of a minority of soundtracks, it means that my considerations about the piece are the results of an accurate selection.



Now, I'm not trying to change your idea about the piece, but the reasons for which I'm explaining my point of view about it is that you should remember that this kind of considerations can not be used for argumentation.
More in general, subjective parameters are not valid arguments.

In TC some users, including @San Antone, used the argument "classical-style soundtracks are only muzak and since classical music is not muzak we can not consider them as real classical music".
The argument was not valid, because for me soundtracks are a good source for the concert hall, so I don't consider them as muzak. A subjective parameter is not an argument.

[W.A. Mozart]

Yes, I did (although I wouldn't put it in those terms). I noted some of them, e.g. the absence of contrasting and/or more formulaic passages which would be present in a classical (or indeed a galant) style piece. Maybe you didn't see that bit. But in any case, I would also say that my observance of the deliberately slackened focus of that elongated middle section is not a value judgement, it would also be demonstrable by music analysis with reference to the score, too.

Can you provide examples of what you call "contrasting/formulaic passages" in this movement?

[Luke]

Infact I didn't write that you said that Doyle is a bad composer. You basically wrote that Doyle is a good composer of muzak, that "My father's favourite" is good muzak, and infact I responded to this.

Wow. Just wow.

Stop putting words in people's mouths, it's a very unattractive thing to do.

You are perfectly free to adore this central section of the piece, it doesn't change the fact that  it's a place where attention is diverted elsewhere. The artful application of manipulating the degree of our attention is a venerable compositional skill. In fact  often the parts where the listener is allowed to stop following so closely because the music becomes more formulaic or simply 'easier' are particularly fun to hear, because of that sense of release e.g. in a typical sequential passage, which was once described to me as the moment when the composer/music/listener stops pedalling up the hill and starts freewheeling down it  (this isn't what's happening in the Doyle, but it's related).

I absolutely don't agree about the fact that the development of "My Father's Favourite" is muzak: for me it's powerful music.

Thar she blows again!

A subjective parameter is not an argument.

I'm not using subjective parameters. I'm very happy to spell out what I'm talking about and where, with bar numbers and reference to the score. But I know that you'll ignore or twist my observations or build a straw man to argue with (as above) so I'm reluctant to go to the effort.

[Luke]

Can you provide examples of what you call "contrasting/formulaic passages" in this movement?

Happily. Bars 22-3, a balancing statement at  52-3 and the final two bars.  Other places too, where you'd expect them. One could also argue that the main musical idea is it itself built on a formula - rather empty arpeggiated presentations (enlivened only by a scotch snap which itself is pretty generic) of a I IVc I pattern before the more involved melodic work.

Let's ignore the fact that this movement is based on an unknown model and go with that it's pure Mozart. That doesn't change the fact that he uses formulaic writing to round out and balance his music - it's what a good classical style composer does. Read Rosen for a wonderful account of this perfectly standard practice.

[Luke]

.

[W.A. Mozart]

Happily. Bars 22-3, a balancing statement at  52-3 and the final two bars

Could you please indicate the times in the video instead of the bars?

it's what a good classical style composer does

With classical-style you mean the classical period or classical music in general?

In other words, are you saying that classical music in general is formulaic, or only the one of the classical period?