The purpose of giving names to different kinds of music is to understand, more or less, what to expect from a musical work, but there are people in the classical music world who are literally obsessed with categories, as if it was possible to scientifically determine the genre of a musical work.
Well, it's not possible: as soon as you formulate a rule to determine if something is classical music or not, someone will give you an example of a work that doesn't fit the rule.
Some examples here below.
Two days ago I listened to a contemporary violin concerto (2017) in Youtube and I read this comment below the video.
------------
He is writing in the style of modern film music..... this is not classical, just listen to the last movement blasting I - V - vi - IV. That is called instant gratification, which is how pop music works.------------
Basically, what this guy wrote, is that in classical music should be forbidden to use determined chord progressions.
If you use I - V - vi - IV, your musical work should be expelled from the genre.
Furthermore he speaks about film music as if it was a different genre in respect to classical music, while in reality the style of many soundtracks is so close to the neoromantic music of the 20th Century that it makes sense to label them as "classical music".
For example, listen to this movement of Joly Braga Santos between 00:38 and 01:52 and tell me that it doesn't sound exactly like the opening of an american movie, maybe with the score written by John Williams!
I call this "american neoromanticism": I think that this style was born with the Symphony No. 9 of Dvorak in 1893 and that while some composers at the beginning of the 20th century were experimenting dissonance, other composers were developing this new kind of romantic style music, which became the standard in soundtracks of american films, probably because it transmits a sense of "adventure".
I'm not sure about this, as I'm not a musicologist and I've never read books about musicology: perhaps I should open a discussion about this.
So, why do many people reject the classification of american neoromantic soundtracks as classical music, when this style is clearily born inside classical music?
Other people obsessed by categories follow different paths to exclude classical-style soundtracks from classical music, for example this article written in a musical blog of the newspaper "theguardian.com": https://www.theguardian.com/music/musicblog/2008/apr/07/canfilmmusiceverbeclassical (https://www.theguardian.com/music/musicblog/2008/apr/07/canfilmmusiceverbeclassical)
Basically, this guy was angry because Classic FM promotes classical-style soundtracks.
After he has established for everyone of us that the soundtracks of Morricone are good music while the soundtracks of Hans Zimmer are bad music (as if he was any kind of authority to decide what is good and what is not good... he doesn't provide any argument to explain why Hans Zimmer sucks), he says that soundtracks can not be considered classical music because while soundtracks are composed to accompany pictures, classical music is an abstract art form designed to provoke a truly subjective response in each of its listeners.
As I wrote above, everytime you try to find a rule that makes something classical or that excludes something from classical music, someone will give you an example of a work categorized as classical music that doesn't fit that rule, but in this case the error is huge, because there are entire subgenres of classical music that are intended to accompany images: opera and incidental music.
Classical soundtracks are nothing else than a subcategory of classical incidental music, which can be divided between:
- Classical incidental music for theatre (for example "A Midsummer Night's Dream" of Mendelssohn)
- Classical incidental music for cinema and TV (for example "Star Wars" of John Williams or "The Lion King" of Hans Zimmer)
- Classical incidental music for videogames (for example "King Bowser" of Super Mario Galaxy)
"So, W.A. Mozart, this is all you have? Do you open a discussion only for the bullshit of two people in the web?"
Well, no. I've already disussed this argument in other classical music forums, and perhaps the 50% of the users had to make sure that classical-style soundtracks won't be classified as classical music.
The people obsessed by categories are a lot in the classical music world: I only provided two examples because I can not discuss every single examples.
So, I'll simply discuss about arguments that often come out.
Other people say that what makes music classical is that it's not composed or played for commercial purposes and that since soundtracks are composed for commercial pruposes they are not classical music. This is an other big error, because many (most?) highly celebrated composers of classical music created music for money.
As a side note, I'll also tell you that I think that the idea that commercial music is of a lower quality is absurd, because professional composers can dedicate their full time to music and, as a result, we can imagine that they reach a high level of craftmanship that it's difficult to reach if you have to dedicate most hours of your time to other activities).
Not surprinsingly, Mozart and Beethoven were professional composers.
A variation of this argument is that something is classical music only if the composer is free to write whatever he wants and that if the there is a client who tells you that he expects to receive X, X will be not classical music.
Basically, the idea is that in classical music there is not someone who puts his nose in your work, and since the works of the composers of soundtracks must be approved by the directors, the product will not be classical music.
So, what about the String Quartet No. 13 of Beethoven?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grosse_Fuge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grosse_Fuge)
---------------
The Grosse Fuge was originally composed as the final movement of Beethoven's Quartet No. 13 in B♭ major, Op. 130, written in 1825; but Beethoven's publisher was concerned about the dismal commercial prospects of the piece and wanted the composer to replace the fugue with a new finale. Beethoven complied, and the Grosse Fuge was published as a separate work in 1827 as Op. 133
---------------
Regarding Beethoven, I could also mention that he had to recompose parts of his incidental music for Ruins of Athens because someone else changed the lyrics.
What about Mozart? The Emperor wanted to eliminate his ballet in "Le Nozze di Figaro". A the end he didn't, but this example shows us that the public authorities had the controls of arts in the classical period.
Now, if someone told me that the industry in the modern capitalism is more business/profit oriented and that the freedom of soundtrack composers is even more restricted in respect to the one of the old composers, I might understand the argument (although the notion should be seriously verified), but really... how do you determine where is the line? Which is the point from which the music stops to be classical because there are too many intrusions in the artistic work of the composer? Where is the point from which the intrusions become "too many"?
If it was a binary matter, 1 or 0, like "Beethoven and Mozart wrote music for themselves and they didn't receive money, while John Williams receives a lot of money from a big business-profit oriented industry", the distinction would make sense... but this doesn't describe the reality.
Basically, if we decided that classical music is not commercial music, we should eliminate the music of Mozart and Beethoven from classical music.
An other argument is that classical music is the music that has passed the test of time, but since the existence of contemporary classical music is recognized, this is an other huge error.
Furthermore I might ask: is the music of the the high numbers of the forgotten classical music composers not classical?
That poor man who has composed the spurious Violin Concerto No. 6 of Mozart, Johann Friedrich Eck, has not even a wikipedia page.
Does anyone thinks that this is not classical music?
Finally, someone told me that since soundtracks don't follow the forms of classical music (such as the sonata-form), they are not classical music.
The problem of this argument is that even classical music doesn't follows the forms of classical music.
In the classical period and at the beginning of the romantic period the composers used to follow a well-defined sonata-form, but later the form was broken and it became a very generic thing, like "write some themes and some development around them", and since the generic sonata-form (theme + developments) is also used in soundtracks, why can't we not say that even soundtracks follow the forms of classical music?
In conclusion, don't try to find mathematical rules to determine if something is classical music or not.
Whether something is classical music, jazz, rock, whatever... is determined by the istinct, by our subjective perception.
So, if most people who have to label musical works agree about the fact that the music of John Williams is classical, his music will be categorized as "classical". It's easy!
Here below examples of websites that consider soundtracks as a form of classical music.
https://www.allmusic.com/genre/classical-ma0000002521
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_classical_music_genres
https://www.prestomusic.com/classical/genres
https://rateyourmusic.com/genre/cinematic-classical/ (https://rateyourmusic.com/genre/cinematic-classical/)
https://halloffame.classicfm.com/2023/
Since the classification is subjective and not objective, determined by our istinct, we might not agree about the classification of one musical work... so what? Is it so important to determine if something is classical music or not?
Some people are even obsessed with the distinction between popular music and classical music, as if they had to be rigidly separated categories, but this was not the spirit of the great composers.
In the Symphony No. 9, Dvorak borrow elements from american folk music.
The people obsessed by categories think that the contemporary classical music must be completely separated from popular music and that if a composer borrows elements from the popular music of today, his music must be not considered classical.
So, why don't they ask to expel the Symphony 9 of Dovrak from classical music? And why should the freedom of the contemporary classical composers be so restricted if this dumb rule didn't make any sense in the eyes of composers who have made the history of classical music?
Right, this gon' be good. *gets popcorn out and waits for the rest of GMG to wake up* We need somewhere to vent our pointless spleens after the extremely long piano thread got yeeted into the ocean...
I'm not commenting on the rest of the many points in your post but:
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on February 24, 2024, 03:19:20 AMTwo days ago I listened to a contemporary violin concerto (2017) in Youtube and I read this comment below the video.
------------
He is writing in the style of modern film music..... this is not classical, just listen to the last movement blasting I - V - vi - IV. That is called instant gratification, which is how pop music works.
------------
Basically, what this guy wrote, is that in classical music should be forbidden to use determined chord progressions.
If you use I - V - vi - IV, your musical work should be expelled from the genre.
I don't think that is what he is saying. The way I read it is that he's referring to the
repeated cycling of a four chord sequence which is a hallmark of contemporary pop music, and the way that this style is designed to give regular doses of micro-climax/catharsis rather than to characteristic developmental processes of classical music which tend to lead to less frequent but more dramatic macro-climaxes.
A classic illustration of this, because so clear, is in the Chopin E minor Prelude, which dramatises a simple descent from B to E so that it tells a long, non-repeating musical narrative, leading to some sub-climaxes and a final, larger one it all happens in approximately the length of a pop song, which, generically speaking, would tend to fill that time with a repeating chord pattern or two, ie with lots of small, satisfying returns. It's not a value judgement - they're just two ways to approach the issue of tension and release. The youtube comment you quote seems to me to be referring to this.
.
Duke Ellington on how to classify Music:
Quote
There are simply two kinds of music, good music and the other kind ... the only yardstick by which the result should be judged is simply that of how it sounds. If it sounds good it's successful; if it doesn't it has failed.
Music is music and labels are labels. I don't care if the movie scores by John Williams are classified as classical music or not. It tells nothing about how much John Williams' music improves the movies he has wrote the score for. It only tells about how broad or narrow the definition of the concept "classical music" is.
Some people want to boost their ego by declaring to the World what is or isn't good enough to be called classical music. Who cares? John Williams' scores are movie music heavily influenced by classical music. You can call it classical music or not depending on how loosely you want to use that term. Context matters. The music for Star Wars is not so much classical music compared to "real" classical music such as Beethoven, but it is quite classical music sounding compared to the Beatles. :D
We can speculate about what's good or bad music till the cows came home, but in the end the only thing that matter is what the music means to us. I enjoy music considered complete garbage. I enjoy music considered some of the greatest in the history of music. I like what I like and other people like what they like. Stressing about what music belongs under what label is pretty unnesessary unless you are a record store owner and you want to know in what shelf which record needs to be put for sale...
Quote from: 71 dB on February 24, 2024, 05:57:24 AMMusic is music and labels are labels. I don't care if the movie scores by John Williams are classified as classical music or not. It tells nothing about how much John Williams' music improves the movies he has wrote the score for. It only tells about how broad or narrow the definition of the concept "classical music" is.
Some people want to boost their ego by declaring to the World what is or isn't good enough to be called classical music. Who cares? John Williams' scores are movie music heavily influenced by classical music. You can call it classical music or not depending on how loosely you want to use that term. Context matters. The music for Star Wars is not so much classical music compared to "real" classical music such as Beethoven, but it is quite classical music sounding compared to the Beatles. :D
We can speculate about what's good or bad music till the cows came home, but in the end the only thing that matter is what the music means to us. I enjoy music considered complete garbage. I enjoy music considered some of the greatest in the history of music. I like what I like and other people like what they like. Stressing about what music belongs under what label is pretty unnesessary unless you are a record store owner and you want to know in what shelf which record needs to be put for sale...
I absolutely get this, and agree; with Leo's Ellington quotation too.
However, as my post above maybe suggests, I also find it interesting to speculate upon these sort of questions, of what constitute the differences in technique and aesthetic between various approaches to music-making, because I find the results thought provoking and illuminating. It's not about judgements of good or bad, just about the fun of inquiry.
Labels are useful for organizing large collections. I worked as a professional librarian and genre classifications were a necessary method of organizing the collection so that users could find what they were looking for more easily. Libraries have film music separate from classical music, jazz, pop, r&b, blues, etc. - because when someone wants to find a soundtrack they don't want to plow through Beethoven and Mozart to find what they want.
IMO genres classifications do not connote quality. I personally feel that classical music is not the highest form of musical expression; I don't think that way of any genre. Often a genre reflects a cultural association. Blues is an musical expression from a different culture from classical music.
One way I use to categorize musical genres is the function or purpose for which the music was written. If it was written for a film, and the composer consider himself writing in the tradition of Bernard Hermann or John Williams, it is film music. If it were written for a concert performance and the composer see himself as continuing in the tradition of Bach-Beethoven-Mahler-Schoenberg, it is classical music.
Stylistic criteria is not definitive, but can indicate the tradition in which the composer locates himself.
Quote from: San Antone on February 24, 2024, 06:30:42 AMIMO genres classifications do not connote quality
Agreed, to the point where I am tempted to say this should be obvious.
Quote from: Luke on February 24, 2024, 04:35:47 AMI'm not commenting on the rest of the many points in your post but:
I don't think that is what he is saying. The way I read it is that he's referring to the repeated cycling of a four chord sequence which is a hallmark of contemporary pop music, and the way that this style is designed to give regular doses of micro-climax/catharsis rather than to characteristic developmental processes of classical music which tend to lead to less frequent but more dramatic macro-climaxes.
A classic illustration of this, because so clear, is in the Chopin E minor Prelude, which dramatises a simple descent from B to E so that it tells a long, non-repeating musical narrative, leading to some sub-climaxes and a final, larger one it all happens in approximately the length of a pop song, which, generically speaking, would tend to fill that time with a repeating chord pattern or two, ie with lots of small, satisfying returns. It's not a value judgement - they're just two ways to approach the issue of tension and release. The youtube comment you quote seems to me to be referring to this.
Ok, I get your argument. But the point is: would you say that a piece of music written in a classical music form (in this case, a concerto), composed by a classical musician, played by classical musicians and with a classical style/aesthetic, is not classical music only because in the finale (which is usually the movement in which the composers try to increase the excitement of the audience by firing off a series of climaxes in a row) there are some parts with techniques similar to popular music?
I mean, if the finale didn't sound classical at all, I'd understand the polemic, but the classical elements are enough to consider it as classical music.
Furthermore, while I understand that there are statistical differences between the harmony of classical music and the one of popular music, the problem is that the harmony is probably the least consistent element inside the category of classical music.
I mean, the evolution of classical music throghout the history consists in large part of harmonic reinvention... am I not right?
What does it mean "classical harmony"? Is the harmony in the music of Schönberg the same of the music of Mozart?
The essential point is that there is no such thing as an authentic classical harmony, unless you don't restrict classical music to only one period of music (for example, if you say that classical music is only the music written between 1750 and 1800, of course you can speak about a pure classical harmony).
Finally, as I've already written, if to borrow some elements from popular music would make your music not classical, what about the ninth Symphony of Dvorak, which borrows elements from american folk music?
I see that many people who defend the purity of classical music are usually fans of avantgarde music... how exactly is avantgarde music "purely classical"? This is a big contradiction: refusing to consider neoromantic works with some elements of modernity as classical music while considering at the same time as "classical music" some works which violate almost any rule of the traditional classical music.
Quote from: 71 dB on February 24, 2024, 05:57:24 AMMusic is music and labels are labels. I don't care if the movie scores by John Williams are classified as classical music or not. It tells nothing about how much John Williams' music improves the movies he has wrote the score for. It only tells about how broad or narrow the definition of the concept "classical music" is.
Some people want to boost their ego by declaring to the World what is or isn't good enough to be called classical music. Who cares? John Williams' scores are movie music heavily influenced by classical music. You can call it classical music or not depending on how loosely you want to use that term. Context matters. The music for Star Wars is not so much classical music compared to "real" classical music such as Beethoven, but it is quite classical music sounding compared to the Beatles. :D
We can speculate about what's good or bad music till the cows came home, but in the end the only thing that matter is what the music means to us. I enjoy music considered complete garbage. I enjoy music considered some of the greatest in the history of music. I like what I like and other people like what they like. Stressing about what music belongs under what label is pretty unnesessary unless you are a record store owner and you want to know in what shelf which record needs to be put for sale...
I'm taking a break from thinking about how angels are dancing on the head of a needle to completely agree with you. The only time I ever get annoyed about the defining of "Classical Music" - with a capital "C" is when by extension that definition confers on the user some sense of superiority or spirituality in their taste. Sadly, such is the failing state of music education (blame the governments/authorities and those who set the curriculum not the teachers) that the mere use of CM as a title warns off more people than it engages.
Quote from: 71 dB on February 24, 2024, 05:57:24 AMThe music for Star Wars is not so much classical music compared to "real" classical music such as Beethoven, but it is quite classical music sounding compared to the Beatles. :D
Thanks for your reply... but isn't this the logical fallacy no true scotsman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman)?
Yes, if we decided arbitrarily the the music of Mozart-Haydn-Beethoven is the REAL CLASSICAL MUSIC, the music of Star Wars wouldn't be so much classical.
However, even the music of Joly Braga Santos wouldn't be so much classical at that point.
And what about Schönberg? If the music of Mozart-Beethoven-Haydn was the only real classical music, how exactly would we be able to consider the music of Schönberg as authentic classical music?
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on February 24, 2024, 07:39:59 AMThanks for your reply... but isn't this the logical fallacy no true scotsman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman)?
Yes, if we decided arbitrarily the the music of Mozart-Haydn-Beethoven is the REAL CLASSICAL MUSIC, the music of Star Wars wouldn't be so much classical.
However, even the music of Joly Braga Santos wouldn't be so much classical at that point.
And what about Schönberg? If the music Mozart-Beethoven-Haydn was the only real classical music, how exactly we would be able to consider the music of Schönberg as authnetic classical music?
Your question is similar to "is chess or ballroom dancing a sport?"
It's not intrinsic to the music, it's a cultural thing. If people - especially experts like impresarios and academics and journalists and instrumentalists - start calling some sounds "classical music" in numbers then that's all there is to it.
Quote from: San Antone on February 24, 2024, 06:30:42 AMLabels are useful for organizing large collections. I worked as a professional librarian and genre classifications were a necessary method of organizing the collection so that users could find what they were looking for more easily. Libraries have film music separate from classical music, jazz, pop, r&b, blues, etc. - because when someone wants to find a soundtrack they don't want to plow through Beethoven and Mozart to find what they want.
If you have to create a library of music you can order it in every way you wish. For example, even the alphabetical order, if you want.
The fact that Mozart would be under the "M" and Beethoven under the "B" wouldn't make their music two separate genres.
If I had to create an online database of music, I'd create a system that allows you to assign more categories to a musical work.
I'd assign the categories "soundtrack" and "spanish music" to this piece.
"Soundtrack" + "jazz" to this one.
"Soundtrack" + "classical music" to this one.
The point is that the category "soundtrack" doesn't tell you the music genre. It only tells you that the music has been composed for a film.
If you want to give information about the style of music, soundtrack is not sufficient: you have to provide other information.
I don't see why I shouldn't assign the category "classical music" to a classical-style soundtrack and pretend that all soundtracks belong to the same musical genre.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on February 24, 2024, 07:19:07 AMI see that many people who defend the purity of classical music are usually fans of avantgarde music... how exactly is avantgarde music "purely classical"? This is a big contradiction: refusing to consider neoromantic works with some elements of modernity as classical music while considering at the same time as "classical music" some works which violate almost any rule of the traditional classical music.
Every time I see the argument for soundtrack music being called classical it is always made by someone who hates - or assumes they will hate - most of what has been composed post WW2.
The people I *don't * see advocating this are composers of soundtrack music.
My local classical station has started putting in film stuff and i can always tell, because the film music is so...facile...when separated from the images they are meant to be working with. I'm much more impressed when they program Duke Ellington or Astor Piazolla.
You say you've had this argument many times? Then why have it again? Expecting a different result? How many minds did you change previously?
Quote from: SimonNZ on February 24, 2024, 06:05:51 PMEvery time I see the argument for soundtrack music being called classical it is always made by someone who hates - or assumes they will hate - most of what has been composed post WW2.
No. It's made by people who think that the contemporary classical music must not necessarily be avantgarde music (as wished by the fanatics of avantgarde music) and that neoromantic works are a respectable form of contemporary classical music.
The point is simple.
This contemporary piece is classical music, because contemporary music must not necessarily be avantgarde music.
If it was composed for a soundtrack, it would be still classical music.
The contrary is true: most people who say that neoromantic soundtracks are not classical are usually people who think that the romantic tradition must die to leave the entire space to avantgarde music. They have arbitrarily decided that avantgarde music is the present and the future of classical music and they are angry because many composers keep the romantic tradition alive and many people prefer this music more than avantgarde music.
QuoteThe people I *don't * see advocating this are composers of soundtrack music.
Maybe because there is no need to advocate obvious things.
However there are various citations of John Williams that make clear that he is conciously composing classical music for films.
QuoteMy local classical station has started putting in film stuff and i can always tell, because the film music is so...facile...
Can you explain how exactly is this...
... easier than this?
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on February 25, 2024, 01:43:53 AMNo. It's made by people who don't think that the contemporary classical music must be necessarily avantgarde music and that neoromantic works are a respectable form of contemporary classical music.
Absolutely
nobody thinks modern classical has to be "avant-guard" (however you define that). Unless you want to dredge up some deliberately provocative Boulez quotes from way back when. They might say it shouldn't sound like an ersatz colour-by-numbers and dumbed-down reheating of the 18th century, like some poorly made costume drama - but that's not the same thing.
You're having an argument with
voices in your head, not with anything people are saying in the real world now.
And if you must keep going on about "neoromantic" then you're the one "obsessed by categories".
Quote from: SimonNZ on February 25, 2024, 01:59:21 AMAbsolutely nobody thinks modern classical has to be "avant-guard" (however you define that). Unless you want to dredge up some deliberately provocative Boulez quotes from way back when. They might say it shouldn't sound like an ersatz colour-by-numbers and dumbed-down reheating of the 18th century, like some poorly made costume drama - but that's not the same thing.
Yes, I know that the fanatics of avantgarde music want to dictate the direction of classical music and that, therefore, are against the artistic freedom. And this is why the institutions of classical music must not be controlled by them, otherwise the word "art music" won't make any sense anymore.
If they were for the artistic freedom, they wouldn't say that a contemporary composer can not take romantic music and modernize it. Until the so called "art music" will be really "art", the sentence "you can not do this" won't make any sense.
What does "dumbed-down" mean? Can you provide any scientific demonstration about the fact that the composers of soundtrack are dumbing down anything?
There is a thread of 81 pages in the main section of this forum where the users insert new soundtracks every week: https://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,8728.0.html
Apparently, many of us think that it's worth spending time listening to this music.
Your musical values are not universal. They are only YOUR PERSONAL values.
QuoteYou're having an argument with voices in your head, not with anything people are saying in the real world now.
You have just written "it shouldn't sound like", which confirms that you want to dictate the direction of arts.
Someone who supports the artistic freedom in classical music doesn't use the sentence "it shouldn't sound like...".
QuoteAnd if you must keep going on about "neoromantic" then you're the one "obsessed by categories".
"Obsessed by categories" doesn't mean that you recognize that categories are useful, but that you think that you can formulate mathematical rules to determine if something is classical music or not.
If you use categories in a generic way and you are aware that they are only words to understand, more or less, about what we're speaking about, you are not obsessed by categories.
Okay, I'm just going to leave you with those voices in your head. Bye.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on February 25, 2024, 02:32:39 AMIf they were for the artistic freedom, they wouldn't say that a contemporary composer can not take romantic music and modernize it. Until the so called "art music" will be really "art", the sentence "you can not do this" won't make any sense.
Have you explored Berio, Schnitke, Rochberg, Silvestrov, Kagel, the more recent music by Rihm and Finnissy?
Quote from: Roasted Swan on February 24, 2024, 07:36:27 AMI'm taking a break from thinking about how angels are dancing on the head of a needle to completely agree with you. The only time I ever get annoyed about the defining of "Classical Music" - with a capital "C" is when by extension that definition confers on the user some sense of superiority or spirituality in their taste. Sadly, such is the failing state of music education (blame the governments/authorities and those who set the curriculum not the teachers) that the mere use of CM as a title warns off more people than it engages.
Amen!
You remind me of an idiotic Assistant Principal at the Catholic high school for boys, where I taught for 25 years.
He was 15 -20 years younger, yet assailed me now and then for playing Classical Music in my German classes and for the musical component of my European History course: his office was nearby.
"I HATE that music! How do your students stand it?! My parents went to classical concerts and sometimes took me along: I HATED it every time!"
The young man was not very bright, and his courses (he started out as a "Social Studies" teacher) were disasters, since he often told his students things which were not true or not quite accurate, which I needed to correct in the upper-level History courses. He also showed movies quite a bit! He was in charge of a course about the Vietnam War, which should never have existed on the high-school level, but which allowed him to show the many movies made about the war!
Did I mention he was also a coach? ;)
He was "perfect" therefore to be an administrator! ;)
As was typical, he left us to become a Principal at a grade school of the local public system, where his idiocy would find good company! * :o
Anyway, I am sure he transmitted his hatred of Classical Music to his students. Fortunately, he was not with us for too many years, maybe 3 or 4.
Other teachers supported my crusade to give Classical Music a chance in the classroom.
* (Mrs. Cato and I taught in Catholic schools throughout the years, and we both had literally dozens of students, whose parents taught in or were administrators of local public schools! There was no way they would let their own children suffer through a public-school education! ;D At state and national conventions of Catholic school teachers, we discovered that this phenomenon was quite typical.
There were even Superintendents, whose children attended Catholic schools and NOT the public systems, of which their parents were in charge! Not a great vote of confidence in their own system!)
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on February 24, 2024, 08:01:46 AMIf you have to create a library of music you can order it in every way you wish. For example, even the alphabetical order, if you want.
The fact that Mozart would be under the "M" and Beethoven under the "B" wouldn't make their music two separate genres.
If I had to create an online database of music, I'd create a system that allows you to assign more categories to a musical work.
I'd assign the categories "soundtrack" and "spanish music" to this piece.
"Soundtrack" + "jazz" to this one.
"Soundtrack" + "classical music" to this one.
The point is that the category "soundtrack" doesn't tell you the music genre. It only tells you that the music has been composed for a film.
If you want to give information about the style of music, soundtrack is not sufficient: you have to provide other information.
I don't see why I shouldn't assign the category "classical music" to a classical-style soundtrack and pretend that all soundtracks belong to the same musical genre.
Love the theme of The Fabulous Baker Boys. Nice composition while the performance is just average.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on February 24, 2024, 08:01:46 AMI don't see why I shouldn't assign the category "classical music" to a classical-style soundtrack and pretend that all soundtracks belong to the same musical genre.
Why don't you and who is stopping you? When Uncle Monty stops by my house for burglary to see how I categorize music, I tell him under M for Music. He is really just there for the burglary anyway.
With your original post, I feel like I have walked in on a couple having the same argument for 25 years and they ask me who is right. Instead of creating an OP that lays out every argument you have ever had on this subject, plus how you have supported it over that time to no avail, a simple question to the forum on 'How do you feel about categorizing film music with classical music?' would generate an organic conversation with which you could participate from its origin, while still reveling in your own backstory.
I feel you are prepared to argue based on all of your times on another forum, when in looking at the posts so far, not many people seem to care how you categorize music, but you seem to want to generate arguments for argument's sake instead of coming together for a consensus, or better yet, enjoy the sharing of differing points of view. It is like when my students ask me if a hotdog is a sandwich. They are ready for whichever answer I give, even though I just tell them to finish their work.
For my two cents, you can categorize modern music any which way you want, AND, I won't tell anyone! ;D
VS
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on February 25, 2024, 01:43:53 AM(as wished by the fanatics of avantgarde music)
YMMV, but I really don't see the New Musicoids driving the conversation anymore.
In my experience, those who are really obsessed with categories are the devotees of "pop" music. Here are the default categories from a well-known bit of music-playing software, presumably devised to coincide with the wishes of the majority of users:
Alternative
Blues
R&B
Country
Dance
Easy Listening
Electronic
Folk
Hip hop
House
Indie
Industrial
Pop
Rap
Rock
Techno
Trance
And users of this music player will also find the very useful category "Classical", which covers everything from Léonin to Dobrinka Tabakova.
Quote from: Mandryka on February 25, 2024, 03:11:13 AMHave you explored Berio, Schnitke, Rochberg, Silvestrov, Kagel, the more recent music by Rihm and Finnissy?
No, because I don't like this kind of music. I only like the most melodic contemporary classical music.
However, what does this have to do with quoted text? I wrote that if someone support artistic freedom he doesn't want to dictate a universal direction of classical music.
Infact, since I support artistic freedom, I think that the most avantgarde composers are free to go on composing for people who like this kind of music.
I only wish that some contemporary composers also create more melodic music that fit my tastes... and they do this (not only inside soundtracks), and the fanatics of avantgarde music denigrate them and the people who like their music.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on February 25, 2024, 08:19:13 AMNo, because I don't like this kind of music. I only like the most melodic contemporary classical music.
However, what does this have to do with quoted text? I wrote that if someone support artistic freedom he doesn't want to dictate a universal direction of classical music.
Infact, since I support artistic freedom, I think that the most avantgarde composers are free to go on composing for people who like this kind of music.
I only wish that some contemporary composers also create more melodic music that fit my tastes... and they do this (not only inside soundtracks), and the fanatics of avantgarde music denigrate them and the people who like their music.
Well, I guess it's perfectly understandable to want more music which fits your taste.
By the way some Sylvestrov is full of melodic material. Some Rochberg too.
I think (but I'm not sure) that the days of directing a universal direction for music are well and truely over - even in Darmstadt and Huddersfield.
Quote from: VonStupp on February 25, 2024, 06:15:06 AMWith your original post, I feel like I have walked in on a couple having the same argument for 25 years and they ask me who is right. Instead of creating an OP that lays out every argument you have ever had on this subject, plus how you have supported it over that time to no avail, a simple question to the forum on 'How do you feel about categorizing film music with classical music?' would generate an organic conversation with which you could participate from its origin, while still reveling in your own backstory.
If I create a discussion it means that I'm ready to hear to what the users have to say about the subject.
The title of the discussion is not important.
Since we're on the subject of categories... my pet peeve is people labeling any type of neotonal music as neoromantic. There is an enormous range of expression in tonal music written from 1950-present and most of it doesn't sound like Vaughan Williams! I'm just saying it might be convenient but it is not necessarily accurate.
Quote from: DaveF on February 25, 2024, 08:03:26 AMIn my experience, those who are really obsessed with categories are the devotees of "pop" music. Here are the default categories from a well-known bit of music-playing software, presumably devised to coincide with the wishes of the majority of users:
Alternative
Blues
R&B
Country
Dance
Easy Listening
Electronic
Folk
Hip hop
House
Indie
Industrial
Pop
Rap
Rock
Techno
Trance
And users of this music player will also find the very useful category "Classical", which covers everything from Léonin to Dobrinka Tabakova.
Someone is not obsessed by categories if he uses them in a generic and descriptive way. He is obsessed if he tries to find rigid paramethers to determine if something belongs to a category or an other one and he uses them in a prescriptive way.
If you have to make sure that something that people perceive as "classical music" is not categorized as such, your are obsessed by categories.
The users of that software only want to find music that they like.
Quote from: DavidW on February 25, 2024, 08:35:31 AMSince we're on the subject of categories... my pet peeve is people labeling any type of neotonal music as neoromantic. There is an enormous range of expression in tonal music written from 1950-present and most of it doesn't sound like Vaughan Williams! I'm just saying it might be convenient but it is not necessarily accurate.
You are right. Of course music can be tonal without being romantic. Infact the music of the baroque and of the classical period is not romantic, but it's tonal.
In my playlist of contemporary music I have this piece of Marcus Paus... melodic but nor romantic.
... but there is certainly also neoromantic music.
The first thing that comes to my mind is the VC of Alma Deutscher.
To the community:
The Alma Deutscher plug confirms what I had feared: this is the TC member ArtMusic.
Trying to convince him that if he actually listened to some post WW2 classical he might actually like it, instead of disparaging it based on almost no exposure will be fruitless.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on February 25, 2024, 08:30:54 AMIf I create a discussion it means that I'm ready to hear to what the users have to say about the subject.
The title of the discussion is not important.
I don't think I mentioned anything of the title, but yours has three exclamation points, so it obviously bears some emotional weight, especially as what you view as the correct answer. But then again, I would rather confront this topic from its genesis, where your OP examples are brought up as an organic component of the discussion.
Then again, I haven't had much time for music discussion on this forum this past year or so, so perhaps I am just feeling cranky and riled up today.
VS :)
Indeed there is some relevance however, since I am listening to quite of bit of Shostakovich since the new year. Here is a composer, like Prokofiev, who has a musical populous side and a musical serious side, and some in between.
Like Vaughan Williams, when I am listening to Shostakovich's film music, I usually put it in the Film Music thread, whether they are a concert suite or not. Would anyone care if I put it in the main Classical Music Listening thread; probably not. Would some care if I put Hans Zimmer there; perhaps not, but there might be a eyebrow raised against it belonging there. Often times, it is all orchestral music, so does it matter? Not to me...
Quote from: SimonNZ on February 25, 2024, 11:16:00 AMTo the community:
The Alma Deutscher plug confirms what I had feared: this is the TC member ArtMusic.
Trying to convince him that if he actually listened to some post WW2 classical he might actually like it, instead of disparaging it based on almost no exposure will be fruitless.
Thanks for the tip!
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on February 24, 2024, 03:19:20 AMBasically, what this guy wrote, is that in classical music should be forbidden to use determined chord progressions.
Incorrect.
NO MINOR CHORDS!!!!!!!!!!!!
The title is just clickbait, nothing more. And yes, I have bitten the bait, deal with it.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on February 24, 2024, 03:19:20 AMThe purpose of giving names to different kinds of music is to understand, more or less, what to expect from a musical work, but there are people in the classical music world who are literally obsessed with categories, as if it was possible to scientifically determine the genre of a musical work.
You are the person obsessed with categories but unfortunately in an inconsistent way. Because on the one hand you clearly want to "ennoble" your favorite movie soundtracks by stressing the closeness (in some respects) to some (undoubtedly) classical music, on the other hand you (correctly) stress that cultural history is not like chemistry, so there will always be some uncertain borders and borderline cases.
There cannot be another chemical element "between" hydrogene and helium [note that even here finer distinctions are possible eg. He3 and Tritium are "closer" in a sense than H and He4 but this distinction is not on the granularity level of chemical elements but nuclear physics] but there can be a whole genre like 1870s-1930s operetta on the border between classical and popular/light music.
They are played by the same orchestras and singers in the same theatres and it's hard to give exceptionless criteria (while easy to give rough, fallible criteria, like far more spoken dialogue, comic subject matter etc. in operetta) but it's not that hard to distinguish clear cases like e.g. Salome vs. Merry Widow.
The solution (inasmuch there can be a solution to a somewhat ill posed question) begins with realizing that "classical music" and "movie soundtrack" are orthogonal ways of categorization. The first is (mainly) historical, the second one is functional.
It's like asking if church music is classical music. Mozart's "Coronation mass" is both, a traditional gospel setting of "Swing low, Sweet Chariot" is churchy but not classical, and Handel's "Arrival of the Queen of Sheba" is not church music, even if someone plays an organ arrangement of this as a processional or prelude in a church service.
Similarly, some movie music is classical, some is re-arranged classical music, some is clearly not classical and there will be borderline cases.
Quote from: SimonNZ on February 25, 2024, 11:16:00 AMTo the community:
The Alma Deutscher plug confirms what I had feared: this is the TC member ArtMusic.
I am not so sure. The avatar and the posting pattern and style (especially the "How do you rate this piece? Write everything you want about it." threads) point rather to TC member HansZimmer --- but maybe HZ and ArtMusic is one and the same person.
Quote from: Florestan on February 26, 2024, 12:13:44 AMI am not so sure. The avatar and the posting pattern and style (especially the "How do you rate this piece? Write everything you want about it." threads) point rather to TC member HansZimmer --- but maybe HZ and ArtMusic is one and the same person.
I must have left before before the arrival of this HZ. Do you remember seeing the two names at the same time? Because I'm seeing many telltale signs. Including all the polls.
Quote from: SimonNZ on February 26, 2024, 12:48:47 AMI must have left before before the arrival of this HZ. Do you remember seeing the two names at the same time? Because I'm seeing many telltale signs. Including all the polls.
I haven't been following TC regularly so I can't remember. Currently, both HZ and AM are banned; the latter joined in 2013, the former in 2022 so it's quite possible they be the same person. In any case, GMG's W.A.Mozart is certainly TC's HansZimmer, there is no doubt about it.
Quote from: Florestan on February 26, 2024, 02:17:38 AMI haven't been following TC regularly so I can't remember. Currently, both HZ and AM are banned; the latter joined in 2013, the former in 2022 so it's quite possible they be the same person.
Art Music was banned from TC a couple of years ago, so I don't think these two usernames have been present there at the same time.
Quote from: Florestan on February 26, 2024, 02:17:38 AMIn any case, GMG's W.A.Mozart is certainly TC's HansZimmer, there is no doubt about it.
Yes, that's evident.
Quote from: DaveF on February 25, 2024, 08:03:26 AMIn my experience, those who are really obsessed with categories are the devotees of "pop" music. Here are the default categories from a well-known bit of music-playing software, presumably devised to coincide with the wishes of the majority of users:
Alternative
Blues
R&B
Country
Dance
Easy Listening
Electronic
Folk
Hip hop
House
Indie
Industrial
Pop
Rap
Rock
Techno
Trance
And users of this music player will also find the very useful category "Classical", which covers everything from Léonin to Dobrinka Tabakova.
Which category of these does for example
Mallsoft music belong to? Alternative? Easy Listening? Electronic? The problem of music categories is it expects music to follow those definitions. When someone mixes Industrial with Rock and Techno the result can be fresh, innovative and interesting, but the music itself is difficult to label based on a list like this. These categories work for people who are puristic about the style.
Quote from: Karl Henning on February 25, 2024, 12:01:35 PMIncorrect.
It was a hyperbole. Not forbidden by law, of course, but the concept was "don't do this in a classical music composition otherwise we won't play it in classical music concerts".
Quote from: Maestro267 on February 25, 2024, 10:31:01 PMThe title is just clickbait, nothing more. And yes, I have bitten the bait, deal with it.
Clickbait means that the content of your post doesn't coincide with the title. How exactly is the title not descriptive?
Quote from: SimonNZ on February 25, 2024, 11:16:00 AMTo the community:
The Alma Deutscher plug confirms what I had feared: this is the TC member ArtMusic.
No. However, Alma Deutscher is a successful composer (and for good reasons: her violin concerto is one of my favourite pieces) and for sure there are many people who speak about her.
QuoteTrying to convince him that if he actually listened to some post WW2 classical he might actually like it, instead of disparaging it based on almost no exposure will be fruitless.
I haven't disparaged post WW2 classical music. I actually like it. Infact, I've just written that the violin concerto of Alma Detuscher is one of my favourite pieces, so it's clear that I don't have any bias towards contemporary music.
Perhaps what you wanted to say is that I don't like determined styles of classical music. If I don't like something doesn't mean that I disparage it.
If someone writes that he doesn't like the style of the classical period, I take no offense. But you can not touch avantgarde music otherwise the world ends.
It's you, if anything, who despised determined music: the soundtracks. There isn't any attack towards avantgarde music in the OP or in any post written by me. In your first two posts of this discussion there are clear attacks towards soundtracks.
Quote from: VonStupp on February 25, 2024, 11:56:40 AMLike Vaughan Williams, when I am listening to Shostakovich's film music, I usually put it in the Film Music thread, whether they are a concert suite or not. Would anyone care if I put it in the main Classical Music Listening thread; probably not. Would some care if I put Hans Zimmer there; perhaps not, but there might be a eyebrow raised against it belonging there. Often times, it is all orchestral music, so does it matter? Not to me...
Regarding Shostakovich: if his music for films was written in a completely different style in respect to his concert music, it would be correct to consider his compositions for films as something separate.
However this is not the case. Since his film music is classical, why shouldn't you be allowed to post it in a classical music thread?
To say that something is not classical music because it's a soundtrack it's like to say that something is not classical music because it's an opera, or that the boy of my avatar is not a male because he is a child.
Regarding Hans Zimmer: he is an eclectic composer whose music covers many different genres. Is he specialized in classical music? No. Can some of his soundtracks be classified as classical music? Yes. For example this neoclassical piece that he composed for the Lion King.
Can the imitation of classical music be considered classical music?
People, be warned: the exactly corresponding thread on TC, started by exactly the same guy, ran for 243 pages (!) over two years (!!).
Quote from: Florestan on February 26, 2024, 05:27:34 AMPeople, be warned: the exactly corresponding thread on TC, started by exactly the same guy, ran for 243 pages (!) over two years (!!).
Thanks, Andrei!
I wish him all the best!
Do we need some sort of exorcism? >:D ::)
Quote from: pjme on February 26, 2024, 05:40:56 AMDo we need some sort of exorcism? >:D ::)
Common sense and sound judgment will do just fine. ;)
Quote from: Florestan on February 26, 2024, 05:27:34 AMPeople, be warned: the exactly corresponding thread on TC, started by exactly the same guy, ran for 243 pages (!) over two years (!!).
More popular than Dave Hurwitz or Havergal Brian! :laugh:
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on February 26, 2024, 05:16:45 AMSince his film music is classical, why shouldn't you be allowed to post it in a classical music thread?
Not really engaged with this thread beyond reading, so far. Regarding the above, we are fortunate to have a long-standing thread dedicated to Film Music on the forum; for the sake of easily finding relevant posts and information, it makes sense and probably good manners to predominantly if not exclusively, post film music there :)
Makes life far easier for people like me.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on February 26, 2024, 04:35:44 AMIt was a hyperbole. Not forbidden by law, of course, but the concept was "don't do this in a classical music composition otherwise we won't play it in classical music concerts".
Still both tendentious and incorrect.
You just want to rant. I get it. You can't assume that any of us find it entertaining.
Quote from: DavidW on February 26, 2024, 05:53:33 AMMore popular than Dave Hurwitz or Havergal Brian! :laugh:
NO-ONE is more popular than Havergal Brian........!!
I don't have a strong view on this and am often told that the symphonic music that I like 'sounds like film music' - but so what? ;D
This thread has reminded me, however, of how much I enjoy Braga Santos's 3rd Symphony.
Quote from: ritter on February 26, 2024, 05:23:15 AMCan the imitation of classical music be considered classical music?
The appellation "Classical music" is a broad, somewhat imprecise term in referring to music produced in, or rooted in the traditions of, Western art, ecclesiastical and concert music, encompassing a broad period from roughly 1000 to the present day.https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Classical_music (https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Classical_music)
According to the definition of the newworldencyclopedia, the music rooted in classical music, it's classical music. So, the answer to your question is "yes", according to this definition.
... but what does "imitation" mean exactly?
My views are the following.
If a contemporary composer writes a symphony in the same exact style of Mendelssohn, at the point that someone might think that it's a lost symphony of Mendelssohn, the work is a pastiche.
On the other hand, if a contemporary composer writes a symphony inspired to Mendelssohn, but with innovative elements, the work is an
imitation.
Now, we know that Beethoven was a great source of inspiration for many composers.
If the post-Beethoven composers would have written only pastiches of Beethoven's music, classical music today would be still like the one of the beginning of the 19th century.
We all know that, in reality, many composers were only generically inspired by Beethoven, so they wrote imitations of his music and not pastiches.
What I want to say is that writing imitations of older works, and not only pastiches, is fundamental for the evolution of classical music.
If we decided that Mozart-Haydn-Beethoven was the only authentic classical music and that new musical works had to sound EXACTLY like their music to be classified as "classical music", the music of Prokofiev couldn't be classified as classical music. Someone might say that even the ninth symphony of Dvorak would be outside of the boundaries if imitation of classical music wouldn't be classical music.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on February 26, 2024, 07:11:25 AMWhat I want to say is that writing imitations of older works, and not only pastiches, is fundamental for the evolution of classical music.
This is true. It was precisely this that the pioneers of total serialism were out to avoid -- Stockhausen and Boulez most notably. Their thought was that, by breaking down music into its fundamental elements, and defining a range possibilities for each, the composer is more likely to be original and fresh. If the composer starts with limitations -- for example, common practice ideas about what harmonies work and what harmonies don't-- then he's more likely to write music based on existing music.
This way of thinking was only mainstream for a very short time. Some composers still follow it possibly, but most don't as far as I know, and they haven't done for years.
Two additional random things, which may be related. One is this interview with Michael Finnissy, where he talks about how he starts composing with existing music in mind.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZMCOw4hAZA&ab_channel=CassandraM
And a personal anecdote of no consequence. I remember in an academic seminar on postmodernism I argued that Beethoven helps himself to existing music like, for example, Christian Marclay -- that the two E-flat major chords at the start of the Eroica were just as much found objects as the samples in, let's say, Christian Marclay and Otomo Yoshihide's Sliced and Diced.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on February 26, 2024, 07:11:25 AMThe appellation "Classical music" is a broad, somewhat imprecise term in referring to music produced in, or rooted in the traditions of, Western art, ecclesiastical and concert music, encompassing a broad period from roughly 1000 to the present day.
The most salient element of that sensible definition of classical music is "imprecise." Getting worked up over what is and isn't classical music seems like a very poor way to expend mental energy and time.
Quote from: vandermolen on February 26, 2024, 06:47:04 AMI don't have a strong view on this and am often told that the symphonic music that I like 'sounds like film music' - but so what? ;D
This thread has reminded me, however, of how much I enjoy Braga Santos's 3rd Symphony.
At first I was indignant on perceiving (as I thought) that
Jas Horner's opening credits music for
Aliens was a rip-off of
Shostakovich. Impassioned debate here at GMG got me to reassess my "priors" and I freely owned that there isn't the plagiarism I first alleged.
Back when I worked in thw Museum gift shop, a co-worker (who was studying at Berklee) told me that a piece of mine which had favorably impressed him "sounded like film music." He clearly meant it as a compliment, and I simply took it as meaning that he founf that the music was suggestive of [whatever.]
Quote from: vandermolen on February 26, 2024, 06:47:04 AMI don't have a strong view on this and am often told that the symphonic music that I like 'sounds like film music' - but so what? ;D
This thread has reminded me, however, of how much I enjoy Braga Santos's 3rd Symphony.
Me too!!
Quote from: vandermolen on February 26, 2024, 06:47:04 AMThis thread has reminded me, however, of how much I enjoy Braga Santos's 3rd Symphony.
How was the reminder triggered?
I never heard of Braga Santos before!
Quote from: DavidW on February 26, 2024, 01:08:02 PMI never heard of Braga Santos before!
One of my favorite scores of his:
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on February 26, 2024, 04:58:57 AMNo. However, Alma Deutscher is a successful composer (and for good reasons: her violin concerto is one of my favourite pieces) and for sure there are many people who speak about her.
I haven't disparaged post WW2 classical music. I actually like it. Infact, I've just written that the violin concerto of Alma Detuscher is one of my favourite pieces, so it's clear that I don't have any bias towards contemporary music.
Perhaps what you wanted to say is that I don't like determined styles of classical music. If I don't like something doesn't mean that I disparage it.
If someone writes that he doesn't like the style of the classical period, I take no offense. But you can not touch avantgarde music otherwise the world ends.
It's you, if anything, who despised determined music: the soundtracks. There isn't any attack towards avantgarde music in the OP or in any post written by me. In your first two posts of this discussion there are clear attacks towards soundtracks.
*sigh*
Alma Deutscher writes ersatz Classical/Romamntic like she's been living in a cell with no listening or life experience except hearing those few c.1800 works. She's not innovating on that style, merely reproducing it. The composers she's imitating put their actual lived experience and personal worldview into their music and it represented an engagement with the time and place and even the foreign cultural fads of the world they were living in. Sometimes even the politics of the moment. And an engagement with the other arts of their moment. Like it if you want, but it doesn't give you a pass on dismissing so much of modern classical.
And I like soundtracks just fine. A handful I have on cd, most others I would no more want to hear away from the rest of the film than I would want to hear an isolated audio of the dialogue or an isolated audio of the foley work.
(hmm...actually...please all join me on my new thread: Is Foley Work The New Classical?)
I guess if someone has the appropriate credentials in composition then you can justify calling any of their creations "classical music" if you wish, such as the electronic and tape works of Stockhausen, Cage and Xenakis.
Quote from: DavidW on February 26, 2024, 01:08:02 PMI never heard of Braga Santos before!
Seriously - you must try and listen to some of his work. Instantly appealing I reckon....
Quote from: Karl Henning on February 26, 2024, 11:22:39 AMHow was the reminder triggered?
First post on the thread
Karl.
Quote from: Karl Henning on February 26, 2024, 11:11:25 AMAt first I was indignant on perceiving (as I thought) that Jas Horner's opening credits music for Aliens was a rip-off of Shostakovich. Impassioned debate here at GMG got me to reassess my "priors" and I freely owned that there isn't the plagiarism I first alleged.
Back when I worked in thw Museum gift shop, a co-worker (who was studying at Berklee) told me that a piece of mine which had favorably impressed him "sounded like film music." He clearly meant it as a compliment, and I simply took it as meaning that he founf that the music was suggestive of [whatever.]
There is a similarity, I think between, the 'March' from Prokofiev's 'Love of Three Oranges' and 'Parade of the Ewoks' from Star Wars: Return of the Jedi. ;D
Quote from: SimonNZ on February 26, 2024, 03:02:42 PMAlma Deutscher writes ersatz Classical/Romamntic like she's been living in a cell with no listening or life experience except hearing those few c.1800 works. She's not innovating on that style, merely reproducing it.
The German composer Moritz Eggert (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moritz_Eggert) has had unpleasant "collisions/altercations" with Almas father....
https://blogs.nmz.de/badblog/2019/12/11/dealing-with-guy-deutscher/
It is not a pleasant read.
P.
Quote from: pjme on February 26, 2024, 11:41:51 PMThe German composer Moritz Eggert (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moritz_Eggert) has had unpleasant "collisions/altercations" with Almas father....
https://blogs.nmz.de/badblog/2019/12/11/dealing-with-guy-deutscher/
It is not a pleasant read.
P.
That was fascinating. Thank you for that.
Quote from: Spotted Horses on February 26, 2024, 08:58:06 AMThe most salient element of that sensible definition of classical music is "imprecise." Getting worked up over what is and isn't classical music seems like a very poor way to expend mental energy and time.
I agree with this and this is is basically what I'm trying to say in this discussion. If the definition of classical music is generic and not scientific, why do many people swear for the fact that some film music is labelled as "classical"?
Quote from: vandermolen on February 26, 2024, 06:47:04 AMI don't have a strong view on this and am often told that the symphonic music that I like 'sounds like film music' - but so what? ;D
Exactly. Who cares? So what? If you enjoy the music you are listening to, whatever it is, you are doing it right. My advice to people: Explore music, broaden your taste and make discoveries, but make your
own discoveries. How is film music defined anyway? Music used in movies vary a lot. Some of it is heavily influenced by classical music. Some of it isn't. Some movies use "real" classical music. So what? We like what we like...
Quote from: Karl Henning on February 26, 2024, 11:11:25 AMAt first I was indignant on perceiving (as I thought) that Jas Horner's opening credits music for Aliens was a rip-off of Shostakovich
I don't know, but I think that James Horner (not Jas Horner) took inspiration from "The Planets - Jupiter" for the main theme of his score for Braveheart.
Infact there are similarities between the epic theme of Jupiter and the main theme of Braveheart.
Quote from: DavidW on February 26, 2024, 01:08:02 PMI never heard of Braga Santos before!
I see people talk about Braga Santos a lot here, but I don't know his music myself.
Could be one of the next composers to check out someday...
Quote from: Florestan on February 26, 2024, 05:27:34 AMPeople, be warned: the exactly corresponding thread on TC, started by exactly the same guy, ran for 243 pages (!) over two years (!!).
Why do you speak about my highly successful discussion as if it was a criminal act?
Many of my discussions were successful, with 20+ pages. Some users have written that they don't understand the reasons of the ban and that they have missed me, since I created interesting debates.
They don't understand the reasons because infact they are silly reasons. TC is highly authoritarian.
HansZimmer is not ArtMusic.
P.S. what's your nickname there?
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on February 27, 2024, 02:02:46 AMWhy do you speak about my highly successful discussion as if it was a criminal act?
If by highly successful you mean that people who adore to hear themselves talking (or rather, to read themselves) went on and on and on making the same and the same and the same points over and over again and over and over again and over and over again, not a single one of them having changed their initial views by the end --- then yes, that discussion was highly successful. In the real world, though, that is called
intellectual masturbation a huge waste of time and mental energy.
QuoteP.S. what's your nickname there?
It doesn't matter because I never posted anything.
Quote from: Maestro267 on February 25, 2024, 10:31:01 PMThe title is just clickbait, nothing more. And yes, I have bitten the bait, deal with it.
A reminder:
Clickbait is a term used to describe deceptive and misleading link texts and thumbnails, created with the mere purpose of seducing link clicks. Multiple questions or exclamation marks stand out among the rest of your newsfeed items, attract attention and create a sense of importance. However, after the over-promise in the headline, we tend to face disappointment upon clicking. Etc. https://www.link-assistant.com/seo-wiki/clickbait/
Quote from: Karl Henning on February 26, 2024, 06:38:23 AMYou just want to rant. I get it. You can't assume that any of us find it entertaining.
No, this discussion is about people who rant.
I'd like to paste some texts that people have written in an other discussion to understand what I've read, otherwise you all think that I'm speaking about ghosts.
After the line, I'll paste some texts written by MANY DIFFERENT PEOPLE. The reasons for which I speak about this is that I think that this snobbish culture inside the classical music world is toxic and that we need to overtake it to relaunch the popularity of classical music.
----------------------------------------------------------
"Nate Miller is taking the right tack. There's no point feeding this view from children who are in love with and get excited over film music jingles and then want to bring them into the classical music fold on some personal mission."
------------
""if you are trying to say that video game music and TV spots are art music you have one more screw loose than I thought
I actually play, so you aren't going to be able to convince me that film music is on the same level as the Beethoven Sonata I was working on this weekend""
------------
""I bet he [John Williams] is referring to his classical/concert works, you know the pieces you don't like, the violin and cello concertos for example. He's not so stupid as to think his film work is written in totally the same manner and comes from the same place as his classical work.""
------------
"It's so hilarious that some posters think film music is as good as, or better, than the music of Bach or Beethoven. Sorry but just because you don't understand the depths of Bach's or Beethoven's music, it does not mean that it is comparable to film music. I'm reminded of a blind person trying to convince those who can see that stick men is better art than Monet (or pick your favorite painter)."
------------
«Further, hz [Hans Zimmer] is a brand and a name that people pay for now, which is a ridiculous concept created by this idiotic industry and has helped create this mess.
[...]
Or like saying we can conclude hitler had good ideas because he had millions of supporters so he couldn't have been that wrong.»
------------
«We can all call our music whatever we want and other people can laugh at us.»
------------
«The question for me is always, why would I categorize it as classical? Why would we teach young people that it's a classical work? What will happen if we do?[...]Young people can easily be turned off by the dumbing down and relativism all around them.»
------------
«This conversation is silly, with you and others acting like there is no difference between the market and audience expectations that all composers from Bach to John Adams write within and the work-for-hire that film composers are working under.»
------------
«I'm surprised that as an educator you're not concerned about the natural laziness of students and the dumbing down of categories»
------------
«Think about the consequences when any technical subject is dumbed down.»
------------
«I find Gladiator unwatchable because of the crudity of the soundtrack.[...]Films have been 'downgraded' to a certain extent because the audience is younger [and more stupid? or at least less educated]»
------------
"I have a keen ear. I am a musician.[...]The music to Pearl Harbor is trite output. I have to say now that I don't really care if someone says 'Oh but it moved me so much!' Big deal. That's not a critical appreciation. And with a carefully-crafted get-out clause of claimng to love the music for its own sake completely disassociated from the film. I don't even believe the get-out clause, I think it's just a made-up lie for the sake of argument.[...]I really don't care what awards are mentioned or what ratings of Classic FM say. Classic FM is not a serious classical music radio station, it is a 'classic pops' station. One that also has broadened out to include popular film scores for the sake of its middling listenership. It is largely concerned with revenue, not 'art'.
Hans Zimmer is a rock musician-turned-hack film composer. I know some people think his music is godly. I don't.»
------------
«That you think they are "the best soundtracks of the last decades" is laughable really and says more about the rapid decline of film music.»
------------
«Anyway, I'm not attacking your taste, I'm attacking your silly assertion that film music can stand with the best of what classical music has to offer. It can't and never will.»
------------
«You can argue for a myopic dumbing down of music and a return to a different age as much as you want though, fortunately it'll have zero impact on the profession.»
------------
«Right, so it's still running [the old tonal classical music] then. Best send in the clowns [composers of soundtracks] to divert everything.»
------------
«You "quote" me saying something I don't remember saying in this thread and something I certainly wouldn't have said because the music that accompanied the first Star Wars film gets played in concerts. I would have said "so what?" and "what has that got to do with its merit?" 22 years is nothing and there will always be a big audience for the trashy.
Personally, I think we can tell quite a lot about how well a piece will survive over centuries. Some will be popular as well while other pieces may - like much of Mozart and Beethoven - be for more refined tastes.»
------------
«This is madness of the sort [people who think that some soundtracks are excellent music like the best concert works of classical music] that might be expected in a thread of more than 100 pages on whether or not film music stands up as classical.»
Strong adjectives and superlatives
Whatever you come across in a clickbait headline is likely to be shocking, astonishing, sensational, the best, the easiest, or the quickest. ;)
Quote from: Florestan on February 27, 2024, 02:24:53 AMIf by highly successful you mean that people who adore to hear themselves talking (or rather, to read themselves) went on and on and on making the same and the same and the same points over and over again and over and over again and over and over again, not a single one of them having changed their initial views by the end --- then yes, that discussion was highly successful. In the real world, though, that is called intellectual masturbation a huge waste of time and mental energy.
Online forums are only entertainment, nothing else. You might say that partecipating to an online forum in general is a waste of time.
No more or less a waste of time than "discussing" these things face-to-face with people.
Quote from: pjme on February 27, 2024, 02:48:06 AMStrong adjectives and superlatives
Whatever you come across in a clickbait headline is likely to be shocking, astonishing, sensational, the best, the easiest, or the quickest. ;)
An attractive title is not clickbait. It's only good marketing.
People use the word "clickbait" when the title lies.
For example, "Panic in the flight U4567 - All passengers have survived".
And then you open the news and you read "The plane had a failure to the left engine and reverted back the the departing airport".
The title makes you think that the passengers have surived for some sort of miracle, while in reality the loss of ONE engine is not a so critical issue.
The title of my discussion doesn't lie. It's descriptive.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on February 27, 2024, 02:34:55 AMNo, this discussion is about people who rant.
I'd like to paste some texts that people have written in an other discussion to understand what I've read, otherwise you all think that I'm speaking about ghosts.
After the line, I'll paste some texts written by MANY DIFFERENT PEOPLE.
Okay, so what? Why are you so obsessed with what anonymous people say on an internet board? Can't you enjoy your favorite music, including film music, because someone somewhere says they don't like it? Can't you sleep well over night because of that? Does that have any relevance whatsoever to your life, or anyone else's for that matter? Will the Earth stop revolving around the Sun and the Nile start flowing southward because of that?
I thought so. Then why all this fuss about such an insignificant matter?
QuoteThe reasons for which I speak about this is that I think that this snobbish culture inside the classical music world is toxic and that we need to overtake it to relaunch the popularity of classical music.
Who is this "we" you're talking about? And which segment of people not familiar with, or downright dismissive of, "classical" music will Alma Deutscher's ripping off Vieuxtemps and Wieniawski, or Moscheles and Litolff, make see the light?
Quote from: Maestro267 on February 27, 2024, 03:00:12 AMNo more or less a waste of time than "discussing" these things face-to-face with people.
Yes, and you might say that chatting is a waste of time. I even agree with this to some extent, but chatting is a form of entertainment... and there is nothing wrong in entartainment.
Quote from: Florestan on February 27, 2024, 03:04:00 AMOkay, so what? Why are you so obsessed with what anonymous people say on an internet board? Can't you enjoy your favorite music, including film music, because someone somewhere says they don't like it? Can't you sleep well over night because of that? Does that have any relevance whatsoever to your life, or anyone else's for that matter? Will the Earth stop revolving around the Sun and the Nile start flowing southward because of that?
I'm not obsessed. I speak about it. I only think that these kind of people are toxic for the classical music world.
First of all because they always try to start fights with you and so they are unpleasant, and second, because more control have this kind of people of the classical music institutions and more the snobbish culture becomes institutional.
QuoteWho is this "we" you're talking about? And which segment of people not familiar with, or downright dismissive of, "classical" music will Alma Deutscher's ripping off Vieuxtemps and Wieniawski, or Moscheles and Litolff, make see the light?
I have a youtube channel called "Classical Music & Soundtracks".
https://www.youtube.com/@ClassicalMusicAndSoundtracks/videos (https://www.youtube.com/@ClassicalMusicAndSoundtracks/videos)
Most of my videos can be inserted in one of the two following categories:
- Concert works of classical music with pictures of beautiful landscapes (most of theme are works of Mozart, Mendelssohn and Beethoven)
- Soundtracks of films with pictures from the film.
Regarding the second category: the soundtracks of films are published as suites, and to listen to a full suite requires a lot of time... and as you can imagine a lot of pieces in the suite are not so interesting once extracted from the film.
What my channel does is to compress a suite of one hour into a small suite of 15-20 minutes.
How I do this? I listen to the full suite and I take notes of all the themes I hear.
The following for example are my notes for the suite of "Beautiful Mind" (James Horner)
The exclamation mark means "interesting piece".
MT means "main theme".
T2, T3, T4, tn,.... means theme 1, theme 2, theme 3, theme n
"climax" means the the piece has a high energy and emotional impact.
-----------
A Kaleidoscope Of Mathematics ! (T2, MT, climax)
Playing A Game Of "Go!"
Looking For The Next Great Idea (MT)
Creating "Governing Dynamics" ! (T2, MT, climax)
Cracking The Russian Codes ! (T2)
Nash Descends Into Parcher's World
First Drop-Off, First Kiss (MT, T3)
The Car Chase ! (T3, climax)
Alicia Discovers Nash's Dark World ? (T3, climax)
Real Or Imagined? (T3)
Of One Heart, Of One Mind ! (MT, intro?)
Saying Goodbye To Those You So Love ! (T3, MT, T2)
Teaching Mathematics Again (MT)
The Prize Of One's Life...The Prize Of One's Mind
All Love Can Be ! (MT)
Closing Credits
-----------
Once I've produced these notes, I eliminate all repetitions by taking only ONE version for each theme. Of course the version that I select for each theme is the one with the exclamation mark.
Only the main theme is repeated twice: at the beginning and at the end. For the final repetition, I always take a piece marked with "climax".
So, the usual structure of my videos is the following:
- Exposition of main theme
- Best version of theme 2
- Best version of theme 3
- Best versionf of theme 4
- Best version of theme n
- Final reprise of the main theme with climax
This is how I was able to reduce the suite of "A Beautiful Mind":
00:00 Of One Heart, Of One Mind [main theme]
06:22 Cracking The Russian Codes
09:44 End Credits [final reprise of the main theme with climax]
In 16 minutes you hear all the themes of the soundtracks (MT,T2 and T3).
Basically, I create summaries of soundtracks and I give them a structured form, so that they make more sense outside of the film.
Now, the point is that this format is more successful in respect to the other one: concert classical music with pictures of beautiful landscapes.
My most popular videos are the ones of the second category.
My most successful video is this one (20'879 views). the soundtrack of the film "The English Patient".
The video is structured as follows:
00:00 As Far As Florence (exposition of the main theme)
05:16 Opening
08:54 Read Me To Sleep
13:56 Let Me Come In (final reprise of the main theme with violin solo)
What I want to say is that we need to understand that in the modern world soundtracks might be more relevant for most people in respect to the concert works of our beloved historical composers.
Do you want to ignore classical soundtracks and pretend that they don't exist? Good, but then don't ask why classical music is probably losing popularity. This is what happens when you snob the tastes of people.
My point of view is simple: if the soundtrack of The English Patient is so appreciated by the public, you should play it in the concert hall together with the symphony 40/41 of Mozart.
A lot of people will come to listen the English Patient, but they will also hear the Mozart's symphony... and some of them might realize that they like it.
I've created this video to try to attract the fans of soundtracks inside Mozart's music and I'd like to see more initiatives like this instead of people who snob soundtracks and their fans.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on February 27, 2024, 03:51:00 AMI'm not obsessed. I speak about it. I only think that these kind of people are toxic for the classical music world.
These people, besides being entitled to their opinions, have zero relevance for the classical music world at large.
QuoteFirst of all because they always try to start fights with you and so they are unpleasant,
Excuse me??? Both here and on TC it's
you who started the whole kerfuffle. They wouldn't have expressed their negative views toward film music had you not started the topic in the first place, and in a belligerent manner for that matter. It's
you alone who is responsible for providing them a reason and a place for trashing film music.
Quoteand second, because more control have this kind of people of the classical music institutions and more the snobbish culture becomes institutional.
Please, show me one single real-world musical institution controlled by these people.
Quote from: Luke on February 24, 2024, 04:35:47 AMI don't think that is what he is saying. The way I read it is that he's referring to the repeated cycling of a four chord sequence which is a hallmark of contemporary pop music
Isn't this also the structure of the Pachelbel Canon? If yes, it means that this structure is born inside classical music and not inside popular music and that the latter has simply borrowed a technique from classical music.
However, is Pachelbel an outsider? I doubt this: usually the composers are inspired to the works of other composers, so I suspect that there were many works written like this in the period/location of Pachelbel and that the Pachelbel Canon is simply the most popular work of this category, but not the only one.
QuoteA classic illustration of this, because so clear, is in the Chopin E minor Prelude, which dramatises a simple descent from B to E so that it tells a long, non-repeating musical narrative, leading to some sub-climaxes and a final, larger one it all happens in approximately the length of a pop song, which, generically speaking, would tend to fill that time with a repeating chord pattern or two, ie with lots of small, satisfying returns. It's not a value judgement - they're just two ways to approach the issue of tension and release. The youtube comment you quote seems to me to be referring to this.
Why do you relate the harmonic structure with the matter of microclimaxes vs macroclimaxes? Do you need repeating chords to create microclimaxes?
The works of my two favourite composers - Mendelssohn and Mozart - contain a lot of microclimaxes in a row, and this is probably why they are my favourite composers. They maintain high tension throughout the entire piece.
A good example is the last movement of Jupiter.
The entire exposition is full of microclimaxes and at the end of the exposition there is the big climax.
In the development section, the themes of the exposition are dramatized, they become darker.
Probably what you wanted to say is that if a piece has a slow development is probably a piece of classical music, and not that all classical music is lacking of a constant dose of climaxes.
I'd say that most romantic symphonies are full of microclimaxes and I'd even say that this is obvious: they people didn't go to the symphony to sleep.
Everyone, let's please follow the golden rule and engage with WAM's ideas and not who they are as a person. And previous history on another forum should not be relevant on this forum. I also know that the mods on TC also don't allow the same about this forum nor CMG.
Quote from: Roasted Swan on February 26, 2024, 10:52:14 PMSeriously - you must try and listen to some of his work. Instantly appealing I reckon....
Alright queued up for today!
Quote from: 71 dB on February 27, 2024, 01:52:06 AMI see people talk about Braga Santos a lot here, but I don't know his music myself.
Could be one of the next composers to check out someday...
Definitely! Try symphonies 3 and 4. (1 and 2 are also excellent).
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on February 27, 2024, 01:30:22 AMI agree with this and this is is basically what I'm trying to say in this discussion. If the definition of classical music is generic and not scientific, why do many people swear for the fact that some film music is labelled as "classical"?
...and why do you swear for the fact that film music isn't? It's a grey area. Speaking for myself only, very little strikes me as really being classical, and the composer would have to extract a symphonic suite to make the music stand on its own, as Vaughan-Williams did for the seventh symphony and as many composers of ballet music did for their stage works.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on February 27, 2024, 04:34:47 AMIsn't this also the structure of the Pachelbel Canon? If yes, it means that this structure is born inside classical music and not inside popular music and that the latter has simply borrowed a technique from classical music.
Yes, this is true. But note that a) it isn't coincidental that Pachelbel's Canon is about as close to 'popular music' as 'classical music' gets; that the Pachelbel canon sequence is famously used in a large number of pop songs; and c) that this technique of playing over repeating chord patterns was born in the popular music of the day eg the Passamezzo antico (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passamezzo_antico) or the Romanesca (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanesca) (there are many more). In other words, that the short repeating chord sequence has always been a particularly popular and accessible form - relatively easier to play, to improvise on, to extend, to remember, to add new words to, to join in with.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on February 27, 2024, 04:34:47 AMHowever, is Pachelbel an outsider? I doubt this: usually the composers are inspired to the works of other composers, so I suspect that there were many works written like this in the period/location of Pachelbel and that the Pachelbel Canon is simply the most popular work of this category, but not the only one.
Yes.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on February 27, 2024, 04:34:47 AMWhy do you relate the harmonic structure with the matter of microclimaxes vs macroclimaxes? Do you need repeating chords to create microclimaxes?
I think you are misunderstanding my use of the term microclimax - which is fair enough, as I am using it in a way that I'm rather making up! For me it doesn't mean simply a smaller or subsidiary moment of climax, but instead something that happens on an almost imperceptible level. When we journey from one chord to another each one adds a new step on the journey, a new harmonic vista opens up... but with a repeating chord pattern we quickly return to the beginning and do it again, which gives us this small sense of release at having completed one cycle and started a new one. It's as if every four bars (usually four) we get a tiny thrill of pleasure at this return, over and over again. Because in much 'classical' music this repetition is absent and the harmonic development is more spun out and complex, the release takes longer to happen, but is bigger - more of a real climax - when it does.
The repeating chord sequence can do some quite subtle things that would be hard to do in any other way. In this song for example
the unusual harmonic movement, especially with the third chord, imbues the whole song with an interestingly hard-to-pin-down atmosphere. The four chords move from:
1) the comforting solidity of the home major chord, I
...to...
2) a tiny movement in the bass which turns major to a questioning minor chord, III
...to...
3) an interesting thirdless chord, neither major nor minor, which adds an open and unsure quality to the music, VI
...to...
4) the broad solidity of a subdominant major, IV, which shares a pivot note with the previous chord thus resolving it in a satisfying way, but which itself prepares for the return of 1)
The song then repeats this pattern over and over, so that our minds are filled with this repeating progression of feelings. When I teach children about this I ask them what the mood of this song is. They always find it hard to pin down - and this repeated journey from away from and back to major I, via that mysterious third chord, is why.
The microclimax here, then, is simply that return to I, reinforcing itself over and over for most of the song's length.
In general 'classical' music does not do this but, like the Chopin E minor Prelude, it explores a longer, more varied and less repetitive journey.
Again, I am not making a value judgement, just observing a difference. The rest of your post rest on the wrong assumption of what I meant by microclimax.
Quote from: vandermolen on February 27, 2024, 05:57:07 AMDefinitely! Try symphonies 3 and 4. (1 and 2 are also excellent).
Thank! At least I have an idea were to start. ;)
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on February 27, 2024, 03:51:00 AMWhat I want to say is that we need to understand that in the modern world soundtracks might be more relevant for most people in respect to the concert works of our beloved historical composers.
Do you want to ignore classical soundtracks and pretend that they don't exist? Good, but then don't ask why classical music is probably losing popularity. This is what happens when you snob the tastes of people.
My point of view is simple: if the soundtrack of The English Patient is so appreciated by the public, you should play it in the concert hall together with the symphony 40/41 of Mozart.
A lot of people will come to listen the English Patient, but they will also hear the Mozart's symphony... and some of them might realize that they like it.
It makes sense to program music that people want to hear, I believe this sort of mix is what Classic FM broadcasts.
Quote from: Luke on February 27, 2024, 06:08:46 AM2) a tiny movement in the bass which turns major to a questioning minor chord, III
I think popular music appreciates chord three more than classical music.
Quote from: Luke on February 27, 2024, 06:08:46 AM4) the broad solidity of a subdominant major, IV, which shares a pivot note with the previous chord thus resolving it in a satisfying way, but which itself prepares for the return of 1)
I think I generally prefer IV-I Plagal cadences in music to V-I Perfect cadences.
Quote from: vandermolen on February 26, 2024, 11:31:32 PMFirst post on the thread Karl.
Ah, yes, I'd forgotten that it included a YouTube link to
Braga Santos. I guess the tortuous
For example, listen to this movement of Joly Braga Santos between 00:38 and 01:52 and tell me that it doesn't sound exactly like the opening of an american movie, maybe with the score written by John Williams! prompted an immediate tune-out.
Quote from: Luke on February 27, 2024, 06:08:46 AMYes, this is true. But note that a) it isn't coincidental that Pachelbel's Canon is about as close to 'popular music' as 'classical music' gets; that the Pachelbel canon sequence is famously used in a large number of pop songs; and c) that this technique of playing over repeating chord patterns was born in the popular music of the day eg the Passamezzo antico (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passamezzo_antico) or the Romanesca (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanesca) (there are many more). In other words, that the short repeating chord sequence has always been a particularly popular and accessible form - relatively easier to play, to improvise on, to extend, to remember, to add new words to, to join in with.
Ok, thanks for the information!
However, the point is that there are classical music pieces with repeating chords. Unless we don't want to expel them from classical music, at the moment repeating chord progressions can not be seen as something that makes something not classical.
We might say that developing chord progressions connotate classical music but that they don't define it.
QuoteYes.
Yes what?
QuoteI think you are misunderstanding my use of the term microclimax - which is fair enough, as I am using it in a way that I'm rather making up! For me it doesn't mean simply a smaller or subsidiary moment of climax, but instead something that happens on an almost imperceptible level. When we journey from one chord to another each one adds a new step on the journey, a new harmonic vista opens up... but with a repeating chord pattern we quickly return to the beginning and do it again, which gives us this small sense of release at having completed one cycle and started a new one. It's as if every four bars (usually four) we get a tiny thrill of pleasure at this return, over and over again. Because in much 'classical' music this repetition is absent and the harmonic development is more spun out and complex, the release takes longer to happen, but is bigger - more of a real climax - when it does.
The repeating chord sequence can do some quite subtle things that would be hard to do in any other way. In this song for example
the unusual harmonic movement, especially with the third chord, imbues the whole song with an interestingly hard-to-pin-down atmosphere. The four chords move from:
1) the comforting solidity of the home major chord, I
...to...
2) a tiny movement in the bass which turns major to a questioning minor chord, III
...to...
3) an interesting thirdless chord, neither major nor minor, which adds an open and unsure quality to the music, VI
...to...
4) the broad solidity of a subdominant major, IV, which shares a pivot note with the previous chord thus resolving it in a satisfying way, but which itself prepares for the return of 1)
The song then repeats this pattern over and over, so that our minds are filled with this repeating progression of feelings. When I teach children about this I ask them what the mood of this song is. They always find it hard to pin down - and this repeated journey from away from and back to major I, via that mysterious third chord, is why.
The microclimax here, then, is simply that return to I, reinforcing itself over and over for most of the song's length.
In general 'classical' music does not do this but, like the Chopin E minor Prelude, it explores a longer, more varied and less repetitive journey. Again, I am not making a value judgement, just observing a difference.
The rest of your post rest on the wrong assumption of what I meant by microclimax.
Ok, I know what you want to say, but I wouldn't speak simply of repeating chord progressions. I think that the correct sentence is: repeating themes.
For example, if someone who has never been exposed to classical music opens the first movement of the symphony 40 of Mozart, right at the beginning he might think: "What a beautiful theme", but after only 30 seconds the beautiful theme goes away and it returns only after 1 minute and 20 seconds.
The theme is repeated in the original form only three times and only for a short time (exposition, repetition, recapitulation). There also the variations in the development section, but they are not the same thing.
Now, the person might be disappointed, because if it was a pop song the beautiful theme would be repeated many times with slight variations.
A guy in the web told me that Mozart's music has no melody and I was confused since Mozart is considered a skilled melodist. Later, I realized that his issue was that the themes have only a short life in Mozart's music.
For the people who have been exposed only to popular music, a melody is a repeating hook. If you give them a complex melody, they will tell you that it's not a melody.
I think that if you composed a piece with repeating chord progressions but with an unpredictable melody and no hooks, it would suffer of the same problem.
We can call this the "too many notes" issue.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on February 27, 2024, 10:41:19 AMOk, thanks for the information!
However, the point is that there are classical music pieces with repeating chords. Unless we don't want to expel them from classical music, at the moment repeating chord progressions can not be seen as something that makes something not classical.
No, and I didn't say they were. I was just trying to explain what I think the person you quoted in your OP was referring to. To me it is self-evident that a piece of classical music
can be built on a repeating chord sequence, but interesting to note that popular music of all sorts does so routinely (in fact, essentially ubiquitously these days), and that classical music which does so tends to have close roots in such popular sources, like all though Romanescas etc that I mentioned. Just an observation, that's all.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on February 27, 2024, 10:41:19 AMYes what?
Just a general statement of agreement with what you'd just said.
quote author=W.A. Mozart link=msg=1553912 date=1709062879]OK, I know what you want to say, but I wouldn't speak simply of repeating chord progressions. I think that the correct sentence is: repeating themes.[/quote]
Then I'm afraid you don't know what I'm trying to say. I'm not talking about recurring themes, I'm talking about rigidly repeating chord sequences. The Adele song I quoted has the following harmonic structure, until the chorus, which has a closely-related and also repeating one.
I
III
VI
IV
I
III
VI
IV
I
III
VI
I
III
VI
IV
I
III
VI
IV
I
III
VI
IV
Etc
Quote from: Luke on February 27, 2024, 11:51:41 AMThen I'm afraid you don't know what I'm trying to say. I'm not talking about recurring themes, I'm talking about rigidly repeating chord sequences.
No, I know what you mean: that modern popular songs are usually a loop of 4 chords.
What I was saying is that I think that what makes classical music difficult to digest for the general public is primarily the melodic complexity.
The people who have been exposed only to modern popular music are used to melodies built around hooks and the sonata-form used in classical music is difficult to digest because it's about thematic development.
Infact, when you ask people "why don't you like classical music?", some of them tell you that it lacks hooks.
I think that these people would digest classical music, despite the harmonic complexity, if it was based on strong hooks like modern popular music.
What do you think?
In regards to the Pachelbel Canon, I was thinking that it's infact a canon... isn't the repetition a normal thing in this form? Are other canons of classical music not built in the same way?
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on February 28, 2024, 02:15:20 AMWhat I was saying is that I think that what makes classical music difficult to digest for the general public is primarily the melodic complexity.
The people who have been exposed only to modern popular music are used to melodies built around hooks and the sonata-form used in classical music is difficult to digest because it's about thematic development.
Infact, when you ask people "why don't you like classical music?", some of them tell you that it lacks hooks.
I think that these people would digest classical music, despite the harmonic complexity, if it was based on strong hooks like modern popular music.
What do you think?
The melodic, harmonic and rythmical complexity of "classical" music is a feature, not a bug. If you believe that by dumbing it down you will make fans of Brittney Spears to eventually love
Brahms and
Donizetti as well (the first two names that sprang to my mind) you are deluded. This kind of music requires levels of intellectual/emotional effort and attention span which many, if not most, people not familiar with it find exhausting and not commensurate with the instant gratification they expect from music. This is not a value judgment but simply a statement of facts.
Quote from: Spotted Horses on February 27, 2024, 06:07:15 AM...and why do you swear for the fact that film music isn't?
I don't. It was simply natural for me to consider some soundtracks as classical music, and then I read people here and there in the web who wrote that we can not call determined soundtrracks "classical music" and I simply opened an innocent discussion in a forum with the title "Why do many people think that classical-style soundtracks are not classical music?".
In that discussion I realized that many people in the classical music world are obsessed by categories, because they think that they can formulate rigid and clear rules to determine if something is classical music or not, but you can't.
The position of me and other people in the discussion was: "If something sounds like classical music, it's classical music.". There is not other rule beyond this one. Is it a subjective paramether? Yes, it is, so inside a group of people there might be no agreement about the classification of a piece, but I don't see what's the problem.
The musical categories are meant to be generic and instinctive, not scientific.
Perhaps after the mentioned discussion in the other forum, the issue became a bit personal for me because I'm still angry with some unpolite users and with the moderators.
I might say that I don't really care if soundtracks are classical or not and that my concerns are more about the dogmatic idiots who scream "Classic FM is poop because it promotes soundtracks" and things like that.
I think that these people with snobbish attitudes damage the world of classical music.
QuoteIt's a grey area. Speaking for myself only, very little strikes me as really being classical
I've never written that film music = classical music.
What I'm saying is that once we agree about the fact that a soundtrack is classical, it's a good idea to play it in symphonic classical concerts if many people like it.
I don't know how many soundtracks can be considered classical. Perhaps we should discuss about concrete examples. Here below some examples of soundtracks that I consider classical.
John Williams - Star Wars: March of the Resistance
John Williams - Star Wars: Battle of the Heroes
Alan Menken - The Hunchback Of Notre Dame: Suite
Nobuo Uematsu - Final Fantasy: Maria & Draco (miniopera)
James Horner - Braveheart: For the Love of a Princess
Patrick Doyle - Sense and Sensibility: My Father's Favourite
This is the only soundtrack I know that it's inspired to the classical period and not to the romantic period like most soundtracks.
Hans Zimmer - Glladiator: suite
Someone asked why not to play Justin Bieber's music... I think it was
@Florestan, but I can't find his post.
Well, if we think that the music of Justin Bieber is classical why not? The problem is that no one considers it to be classical music.
What I'm saying is really simple: there are some soundtracks that are clearily classical and that have gained a high popularity.
If the classical musicians ignore the popular classical music of our time, they lose the contact with the real world and classical music will be damaged because it will lose popularity.
The snobs don't understand that Mozart in his time was a popular classical composer like John Williams in our time. He wasn't a beggar! As someone said in the famous discussion, the great composers of the past are highly romanticized, but most of them were PROFESSIONAL COMPOSERS WHOSE MUSIC WAS IMMEDIATELY SUCCESFUL.
It was POPULAR CLASSICAL MUSIC LIKE THE POPULAR CLASSICAL SOUNDTRACKS OF TODAY.
Quoteand the composer would have to extract a symphonic suite to make the music stand on its own, as Vaughan-Williams did for the seventh symphony and as many composers of ballet music did for their stage works.
Although I agree that it doesn't make sense to play the full original suites of soundtracks in the concert hall, I have to tell you that there usually different pieces inside the original suites that don't need any rework for the concert hall.
This live concert of the soundtrack of the Lion King is a good example.
00:00-02:41 - This Land
02:42-06:32 - To Die For
06:33 till the end - King of Pride Rock
All original pieces of the original suite, no rework. Even the concerts I put above are original pieces of soundtracks with almost no rework.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on February 28, 2024, 03:47:58 AMI don't really care if soundtracks are classical or not and that my concerns are more about the dogmatic idiots who scream "Classic FM is poop because it promotes soundtracks" and things like that.
Thank you for admitting openly that you're fighting straw men and beating dead horses just for the sake of it. In the real world film music has already made their way into many concert halls or open air performances, especially in concerts specifically targeted at a more diverse and popular audience. Instead of acknowledging this fact (which incidentally gives the lie to your claim that musical institutions are controlled by elitist avant-garde fanatics) you keep harping on a handful of anonymous internet posters whose relevance to and influence on the musical life worldwide is zero. Do you really not realize how ridiculous all this sounds?
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on February 28, 2024, 02:15:20 AMNo, I know what you mean: that modern popular songs are usually a loop of 4 chords.
What I was saying is that I think that what makes classical music difficult to digest for the general public is primarily the melodic complexity.
The people who have been exposed only to modern popular music are used to melodies built around hooks and the sonata-form used in classical music is difficult to digest because it's about thematic development.
Infact, when you ask people "why don't you like classical music?", some of them tell you that it lacks hooks.
I think that these people would digest classical music, despite the harmonic complexity, if it was based on strong hooks like modern popular music.
What do you think?
Well, I don't think it's a lack of hooks, which is really another word for a designedly catchy variety of what in the world of classical music is usually called a motive or something similar. I think it's to do with rhythmic regularity/predictabilty more than anything. A hook isn't effective if it comes where it's not expected, but is almost physically satisfying when it does, thanks to the power of rhythm/metre. So the power of hooks in popular music goes hand in hand with the harmonic looping I've been talking about, being heard as fitting into a kind of matrix where we get fed something nice, like a homeopathic dose of dopamine (harmonic return; hook etc) at exactly the moment we expect and want it.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on February 28, 2024, 02:15:20 AMIn regards to the Pachelbel Canon, I was thinking that it's infact a canon... isn't the repetition a normal thing in this form? Are other canons of classical music not built in the same way?
The thing about the Pachelbel Canon is that it is
both a) a canon and b) built on a repeating chord sequence. What Pachelbel has done, in effect, is to find a lot of short melodic phrases that fit that eight chord loop and then strung them together to create a single longer melody that will therefore automatically work as a canon if each entry starts at the beginning of the loop. Building canons over a repeating bass line like is a relative simple technique and a very effective one - Pachelbel's example is the most successful of all, but other pieces that do similar things are amongst the biggest 'hits' of the time and of the preceding century - for example Merula's sparkling Ciaconna, which isn't exactly a canon but which features bags of imitative and quasi-canonic writing (there's a small spoken introduction to this video, and the fast-cutting direction is a bit annoying, although it's trying to emphasize the imitation, but musically I love the vitality of it):
But this is not the usual practice in canons, where actually a lot of the interest can be found in making the same melodic lines exist in
different harmonic contexts. Where in the Pachelbel each canon entry occurs when a harmonic loop restarts, there is no such loop in most canons, and so - for example - if the first entry occurs in bar 1 in one harmonic context, the second entry might occur in bar 3 in a different one.
Quote from: Florestan on February 28, 2024, 03:28:21 AMThe melodic, harmonic and rhythmical complexity of "classical" music is a feature, not a bug.
Very well played.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on February 28, 2024, 02:15:20 AMInfact, when you ask people "why don't you like classical music?", some of them tell you that it lacks hooks.
I've never heard that. And I've never read that anywhere. You just made that up.
Talking to the voices in your head again.
Original soundtracks of scenes of famous films replaced with the music of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and other composers.
Quote from: Florestan on February 28, 2024, 04:27:00 AMThank you for admitting openly that you're fighting straw men and beating dead horses just for the sake of it. In the real world film music has already made their way into many concert halls or open air performances, especially in concerts specifically targeted at a more diverse and popular audience. Instead of acknowledging this fact (which incidentally gives the lie to your claim that musical institutions are controlled by elitist avant-garde fanatics) you keep harping on a handful of anonymous internet posters whose relevance to and influence on the musical life worldwide is zero. Do you really not realize how ridiculous all this sounds?
Ok. We should develop this point, as it's interesting for this discussion.
Perhaps my perception is based on my local orchestra, which plays almost only old music and in the rare occasions in which a contemporary piece is programmed, it doesn't clearily belong to the category of "popular classical".
I don't know what other orchestras do, but in the discussion that you know very well the matter came out, and some people wrote that film music is usually played in events in which only film music is played.
I don't know if you are saying that it's usual to play film music together with the classics of concert music, but you should admit that if film music is played separately it doesn't help the overall promotion of classical music.
My idea is that the people who like determined classical-style soundtracks learn the historical roots of the music they like and that they are led to deepen their culture about classical music.
Quote from: Florestan on February 28, 2024, 03:28:21 AMThe melodic, harmonic and rythmical complexity of "classical" music is a feature, not a bug. If you believe that by dumbing it down you will make fans of Brittney Spears to eventually love Brahms and Donizetti as well (the first two names that sprang to my mind) you are deluded. This kind of music requires levels of intellectual/emotional effort and attention span which many, if not most, people not familiar with it find exhausting and not commensurate with the instant gratification they expect from music. This is not a value judgment but simply a statement of facts.
I was not saying that it's a bug FOR ME, but that it's a bug for some people whose conception of music and melody is reduced to hooks over looping chords.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 01, 2024, 05:09:24 AMI was not saying that it's a bug FOR ME, but that it's a bug for some people whose conception of music and melody is reduced to hooks over looping chords.
So what?
Quote from: Luke on February 28, 2024, 05:36:45 AMWell, I don't think it's a lack of hooks, which is really another word for a designedly catchy variety of what in the world of classical music is usually called a motive or something similar.
It's not the same thing.
In popular music you have usually a singable hook that covers almost the entire piece, with slight variations here and there.
In classical music a sequence of various themes is exposed at the beginning and in the development you usually find variations... and the variation of the theme A is basically a new theme, so it doesn't count as a repetition.
Furthermore the themes are not always so singable: they are written for instruments, not for voice, so they must not be necessarily lyrical.
Basically, a theme is repeated in its original form only three times in a movement of 8-15 minutes: the average pop song contains much more melodic repetitions in 3 minutes in respect to a big classical movement.
However I agree about the fact that the loopping chords can further reinforce the sense of repetition. I also think that a pop song with a more complex harmonic structure would be tolerated if they had strong hooks.
Quote from: SimonNZ on February 28, 2024, 01:28:23 PMI've never heard that. And I've never read that anywhere. You just made that up.
Talking to the voices in your head again.
It's the second time that I'm accused of speaking about the voices in my head, but I've already showed that I speak about real things: https://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,32903.msg1553823.html#msg1553823 (https://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,32903.msg1553823.html#msg1553823)
I might do the effort required to show that I'm speaking about real things even in this case, but I don't want to, because it would requires too much effort, since I'd have to search the messages inside a enormous amount of data.
The only thing that I can easily find is the following: two discussions opened in an other forum.
Title: Symphonies with clear straightforward melodies and themes.
---------------------
I have a hard time finding much if anything where you have a strong melodic line or theme thats repeated throughout the piece but it varies a little in its chords and instrumentation in each section but you u can hear its all tied together.---------------------
Title: Support or Refute
----------------
Classical music tends to lack strong hooks. A large sum of it is largely forgettable.----------------
I know what they are speaking about. Unlike some people who says that have listened to classical music since their childhood, I have grown up with pop music and I started listening to classical music only in my thirties.
If you have been exposed only to pop music for your entire life, it requires a bit of effort to get used to the complex forms of classical music.
When I was a newbie of classical, the only thing I used to like were miniatures with repeating themes, like the Rondo alla Turca of Mozart.
When I listened to big romantic symphonies, I had the feeling to be inside an infinite travel without stopovers.
The fact that the duration of the average pop song is about 3-4 minutes and with rapid cycles makes things much easier.
I might also mention a letter of Mozart, in which he wrote: "If you want to be applauded by the public you have to write something that even a coachman can sing".
Why is the Rondo alla Turca the most popular piece of Mozart?
James Horner for the film "Titanic" he had to write a piece of music to promote the film.
He already wrote the entire score. Why didn't he use this piece ("Death of Titanic") to promote it?
Why did he write this song if he already had a lot of music?
Note that the song has not been used in the score, so it's clear that it was an addition.
The answer is: because every crafted composer knows the thing that Mozart wrote in his letter. If you have to compose a piece with high commercial success, you have to compose something like the song here above. Something that even a child of the primary school can play with his recorder and with a simple melodic fragment repeated over and over.
The same child wouldn't be able to play "Death of Titanic" with his recorder or sing it in the bathtube, so it can not be used for commercial promotion.
So, the problem with classical music is that it isn't pop music?
And the solution to that problem is to take whatever run-of-the-mill film soundtrack and say it's classical music?
O ciel, che noia!
Quote from: Florestan on March 01, 2024, 05:11:41 AMSo what?
You should read the discussion between Luke and me, which is about why pop music is written with looping chords.
It's basically an OT in respect to the main subject of this discussion.
Quote from: ritter on March 01, 2024, 09:10:07 AMSo, the problem with classical music is that it isn't pop music?
No, see my previous post. It's an OT. The subject is "why is pop music written with looping chords". Perhaps we should start a new discussion about this, because it has nothing to do with the main subject of this discussion.
QuoteAnd the solution to that problem is to take whatever run-of-the-mill film soundtrack and say it's classical music?
No, you don't have to call "classical music" soundtracks that are not classical music. Only the ones that are really classical music. The most popular classical soundtracks should be played regularly by all orchestras together with the classics of concert music.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 01, 2024, 09:00:11 AMWhy is the Rondo alla Turca the most popular piece of Mozart?
It isn't.
edit: thinking about this a little and I'm going to guess that in terms of record sales it would be Symphony 40 and in terms of ticket sales it would far and away be one of the operas - perhaps even in the top three spots.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 01, 2024, 09:00:11 AMJames Horner for the film "Titanic" he had to write a piece of music to promote the film.
He already wrote the entire score. Why didn't he use this piece ("Death of Titanic") to promote it?
Why did he write this song if he already had a lot of music?
Note that the song has not been used in the score, so it's clear that it was an addition.
The answer is:
See...these questions will have actual answers. You could look to interviews with Horner or interviews with James Cameron, but you haven't done that.
So who is it you're listening to for these oh so certain answers? There's nobody else...just the voices in your head.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 01, 2024, 09:17:50 AMYou should read the discussion between Luke and me, which is about why is pop music it's written with looping chords.
It's basically an OT in respect to the main subject of this discussion.
You didn't get my point.
There are people for whom "classical" music is too complex. So what?
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 01, 2024, 09:22:23 AMThe most popular classical soundtracks should be played regularly by all orchestras together with the classics of concert music.
Says who?
Quote from: ritter on March 01, 2024, 09:10:07 AMO ciel, che noia!
Non si da follia maggiore
Che d'amar un solo oggetto...
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 01, 2024, 09:00:11 AMI might also mention a letter of Mozart, in which he wrote: "If you want to be applauded by the public you have to write something that even a coachman can sing".
Which letter by Mozart?
Because I've just spent a bit of time and I can't find that. Most places that repeat that quote don't give a specific source. One said it was from a letter to his father from 1782, but none of the ones in my edition have that quote. And a keyword search on Project Gutenberg of the Mozart Letters doesn't bring up that quote.
But there is a longer version of it free-floating out there:
"True perfection in all things is no longer known or prized - you must write music that is either so simple a coachman could sing it, or so unintelligible that audiences like it simply because no sane person could understand it"
...which has quite a different meaning than the one you'd have.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart link=msg=1554352I might also mention a letter of Mozart, in which he wrote: "If you want to be applauded by the public you have to write something that even a coachman can sing
This is a gross misquote which completely misrepresents what Mozart really said.
Quote from: Florestan on March 01, 2024, 10:38:49 AMYou didn't get my point.
There are people for whom "classical" music is too complex. So what?
Word.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 01, 2024, 09:00:11 AMTitle: Support or Refute
Classical music tends to lack strong hooks. A large sum of it is largely forgettable.
First: the title is a tip-off to how uninvested the poster is in serious discussion of the question.
Second: it isn't simply that this false equivalency is a cartoon, but pretending that it's a viable hypothesis raises wilful ignorance/disdain into supposedly a kind of virtue.
Third: relatedly,
Moby-Dick requires more effort to read than does
Hop on Pop. Guess which has "strong hooks?"
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 01, 2024, 10:23:52 AMIt isn't.
edit: thinking about this a little and I'm going to guess that in terms of record sales it would be Symphony 40 and in terms of ticket sales it would far and away be one of the operas - perhaps even in the top three spots.
The people who go to classical music concerts and buy recordings are the ones who really like classical music.
The highest popularity of a piece is reached when even the casual listener likes it.
In youtube the most popular videos with the Rondo alla Turca have milions of views. With the two most popular videos you already reach 90 milions views.
QuoteSee...these questions will have actual answers. You could look to interviews with Horner or interviews with James Cameron, but you haven't done that.
So who is it you're listening to for these oh so certain answers? There's nobody else...just the voices in your head.
There is also the fact that it's the typical product of the music industry. You can change the style and make it more rock, more reggie, more dance, more jazz... whatever you want, the important thing is that the structure is more or less like this.
A singable melodic fragment used to construct the entire melody.
Note the climax at 3:24, the technique is really simple. Simply increase the pitch of the theme and you are done. This is how the climax is obtained in the typical pop song. Not even the climax creates real surprises.
What James Horner did is obvious: he simply copied the typical pop songs with high commercial success.
Why does this form work so well for commercial success? Because for some complex neurological reasons, the perceived beauty of a melody increases with repetition.
Since in a piece of classical music a theme is typically repeated only three times in the original form (exposition, repetion, recapitulation), at the first listening you only hear each theme three times for a short time.
You will really start to love a piece after different listenings.
In a pop song the simple melodic fragment used to construct the entire melody is repeated so many times in a row that you get instant gratification.
Quote from: Florestan on March 01, 2024, 10:38:49 AMYou didn't get my point.
There are people for whom "classical" music is too complex. So what?
There is not a "so". People die. So what? So people die.
So the songs with a very simple construction like this one will be always the ones with highest commercial success.
The classical music will always be in the shadow of trivial popular songs, unless we don't decide to put the relativism in the trash bin and we tell people that classical music is the highest form of western music but that it requires a bit of effort to get into it.
Perhaps more people will be incentivated to make the necessariy effort to get into classical music.
The problem is that today we are in the era of political correctness and even music has been touched by it.
Even in this discussion there is a good example.
Quote from: San Antone on February 24, 2024, 06:30:42 AMIMO genres classifications do not connote quality. I personally feel that classical music is not the highest form of musical expression;
Even in online communities this concept is repeated over and over and you can't tell that classical music is the highest form of western music, otherwise the people will start to bash you.
Now, this is the beat of a popular rap song. It's nothing else than a simple motif repeated over and over.
"So what? It's only an example!"
False! Different musical genres have different standards of qualities!
In rap music is perfectly normal to compose something like this.
If Mozart wrote something like that after he had written something like this...
... people would have suspected that he had brain cancer.
"So what? It's only an example!"
Still, no! The people elogiate the fugal writting of this piece, but it's a normal technique in classical music.
Mozart didn't compose this only because he was Mozart, but because he was a composer of a serious genre.
I'm not saying this because I hate rap music. I actually like various rap songs, but one thing is to enjoy a piece, and an other thing is to speak about artistic merits.
And since I'm a honest person I will also say that rap music is more interesting than classical music when it comes to lyrics.
The point is that rap music doesn't work as absolute music: you have to add extramusical elements to obtain a respectable product.
The rap beat alone is not interesting.
Mozart's Jupiter doesn't need lyrics. It's absolute music, i.e. music that it's complete in itself. This is why Mozart was a Composer (with the capital "c"), while a skilled rapper like Eminem can be called "rapper" but not "Composer" (with the capital "c").
In conclusions, different artistic movements create different standards of qualities for different things.
If you want a Composer who writes absolute music, listen to classical music!
If you want a Singer (with capital "s"), you find it in many different genres. There are pieces of classical music which combine Singers with Composers. Pop songs are usually more focused on the skills of singers.
If you want a Poet (with capital "p"), listen to rap.
Can I say that the people who pretend the everything is equal, that rap music requires the same MUSICAL craftmanship of classical music, are annoying?
I'd say the same thing if people would pretend that Mozart was a skilled lyricist like Eminem.
This (Eminem)
Vs this (Mozart)
Even the lyrics of Da Ponte can not be compared to the ones of Eminem.
Quote from: Florestan on March 01, 2024, 10:38:49 AMThere are people for whom "classical" music is too complex. So what?
A lot of people just aren't interested or complex or intellectual things in music. For a lot of people classical music would not be too complex if they just got into it, but they choose not to. They choose to do something else.
This
getting into classical music happened to me in just a few years: I went from "Who cares about classical music? Isn't it too old for modern ears?" to "OMG, the World of classical music is a cornucopia of awesome music!" I didn't have parents interested of classical music. That's why didn't have the exposure to classical music in my childhood. That's why I didn't get into classical music at age 10. I got into the drumming of Max Roach, because my father is into jazz. I got into classical music, because I met my best friend in university and he plays violin and told me some works of classical music have really good melodies etc. He was a person whose words I could take seriously, because we shared interest in the electronic dance music of the early 90s.
Not all people have other people around them encouraging to get into classical music. Instead, people go with their friends to metal/EDM concerts, raves etc. Classical music has elitistic reputation (unfairly, but it is what it is). That's why people tend to keep away from it which in turn causes them not to see what classical music really is about.
It takes effort to broaden one's music taste. People use energy to defend the music they like instead of using the same energy to understand other music better. You may understand the Symphonies of Shostakovich, but can you understand (enjoy) this?
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 02, 2024, 03:04:07 AMSo the songs with a very simple construction like this one will be always the ones with highest commercial success.
Songs like that are
manufactured for commercial success. Not all songs like this are successful, but sometimes they are. Most of the time the principle of commercial success ruin the music for me, but sometimes it doesn't. There are commercially very successful songs I do enjoy myself.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 02, 2024, 03:04:07 AMThe classical music will always be in the shadow of trivial popular songs, unless we don't decide to put the relativism in the trash bin and we tell people that classical music is the highest form of western music but that it requires a bit of effort to get into it. Perhaps more people will be incentivated to make the necessariy effort to get into classical music.
We need to remove the elitistic label from classical music. What if we didn't claim classical music to be "above" other music and let people decide themselves? Any person who gets into classical music is likely to admit sooner or later it is pretty sophisticed stuff, but in order to make people see all the effort needed, we need to make classical music attractive. Telling people it is music for smart people isn't probably the best strategy. Also, telling people the commercial music they listen to is stupid garbage (all of it is certainly not!) is likely to make them even less interested of classical music they already were.
Not all classical music is difficult. The music of composers such as Grieg and Mussorgsky is quite easy and attractive (even familiar) for newbies.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 02, 2024, 03:04:07 AMEven in online communities this concept is repeated over and over and you can't tell that classical music is the highest form of western music, otherwise the people will start to bash you.
Higher mathematics is the highest form of math. Telling this to people doesn't make everyone suddenly interested about math and start to solve open conjectures.
Classical music is the highest form of music if the criteria is the things in which classical music excels in, but music can be good in various ways. I get a lot of things from other music genres I do not get out of classical music. Even Elgar wasn't that great of a bubblegum pop or drum 'n' bass producer! :D If I want to listen to bubblegum pop, Katy Perry is an excellent choice. If I want to listen to drum 'n' bass, Jonny L it is, but if I want to listen to an epic Symphony, Elgar is the man!
How to Step Back from an obsession:- Try a temporary hiatus. Take a day or a week off from engaging with whatever you're obsessed with. (soundtracks, Celine Dion, complex music, ...)
- Change your setting or routine. ...
- Eliminate triggers. ...
- Be kind to yourself. ...
- Understand what psychological needs the obsession is fulfilling.
Quote from: pjme on March 02, 2024, 06:30:38 AMHow to Step Back from an obsession:
- Try a temporary hiatus. Take a day or a week off from engaging with whatever you're obsessed with. (soundtracks, Celine Dion, complex music, ...)
- Change your setting or routine. ...
- Eliminate triggers. ...
- Be kind to yourself. ...
- Understand what psychological needs the obsession is fulfilling.
I think excepting the Celine Dione this could be posted on the audiophile debate thread! :laugh:
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 02, 2024, 03:04:07 AMthe songs with a very simple construction like this one will be always the ones with highest commercial success.
Of course they will. Most people will always take the easiest path to anything. So what?
QuoteThe classical music will always be in the shadow of trivial popular songs, unless we don't decide to put the relativism in the trash bin and we tell people that classical music is the highest form of western music but that it requires a bit of effort to get into it.
Perhaps more people will be incentivated to make the necessariy effort to get into classical music.
If I understand correctly what you say here (which is a big if for me as a non-native English speaker --- "unless we don't decide" gives me a headache) then you contradict yourself big time: until now you maintained that "classical" music should be made as easy as possible for people not familiar with it; now you claim that it requires a bit of effort to get into it.
QuoteThe problem is that today we are in the era of political correctness and even music has been touched by it.
Even in this discussion there is a good example.
@San Antone 's post has got nothing to do with political correctness. In case you didn't notice, he said "I personally feel that...", which is the exact opposite of "Everybody should feel that..."
Quoteyou can't tell that classical music is the highest form of western music, otherwise the people will start to bash you.
Once again, if I understand you correctly --- and this time I think I do --- then you have a split personality: until now you claimed that "classical" music should be dumbed down in order for pop music fans to enjoy it as well, now you claim that it is the highest form of Western music.
QuoteDifferent musical genres have different standards of qualities!
Bingo! This very truism should put an end to your rants.
QuoteIn rap music is perfectly normal to compose something like this.
If Mozart wrote something like that after he had written something like this...
... people would have suspected that he had brain cancer.
Counterfactual history is bad enough. Anachronistic counterfactual history is awful.
QuoteAnd since I'm a honest person I will also say that rap music is more interesting than classical music when it comes to lyrics.
Obviously your honesty doesn't go so far as admitting that your knowledge of vocal "classical" music is scant --- otherwise you'd have known that, on the whole, "classical" music art songs (whether they be called Lieder, melodies, romances or whatever is immaterial) were set to poetry (not lyrics, mind you ---
Goethe,
Heine,
Baudelaire and
Pushkin, to name only a few, wrote poetry, not lyrics) compared to which rap is what manure is compared to ambrosia.
QuoteIf you want a Composer who writes absolute music, listen to classical music!
If you want a Singer (with capital "s"), you find it in many different genres. There are pieces of classical music which combine Singers with Composers. Pop songs are usually more focused on the skills of singers.
If you want a Poet (with capital "p"), listen to rap.
Talk about obsessive categorization...
QuoteIf you want a Singer (with capital "s")
Enrico Caruso, Tito Schippa, Ezio Pinza...
Jussi Bjorling, Franco Corelli, Nicolai Gedda...
Jose Carreras, Placido Domingo, Luciano Pavarotti...
QuoteIf you want a Poet (with capital "p")
Byron, Shelley, Coleridge, Wordsworth...
Hugo, Baudelaire, Verlaine...
Goethe, Heine, Rilke...
QuoteEven the lyrics of Da Ponte can not be compared to the ones of Eminem.
Da Ponte did not write lyrics, he wrote operatic libretti. If you can't make the difference between the former and the latter, then with all due respect, Sir, you'd have better stuck to pop music.
Quote from: 71 dB on March 02, 2024, 04:35:10 AMA lot of people just aren't interested or complex or intellectual things in music. For a lot of people classical music would not be too complex if they just got into it, but they choose not to. They choose to do something else.
That's right, do s/th else, don't whine about classical music not being an easy consumible like pop music.
Oh, the long since tiresome "I prefer Eminem to Rilke, therefore Eminem is greater than Rilke" fallacy.
Quote from: Karl Henning on March 02, 2024, 08:09:57 AMThat's right, do s/th else, don't whine about classical music not being an easy consumible like pop music.
Someone delights in listening to a 3-minute pop song. More power to them.
Someone delights in listening to
Don Pasquale. More power to them.
Someone delights in listening to
Bruckner's
Eighth. More power to them.
To each one's own. More power to them.
Quote from: Karl Henning on March 02, 2024, 08:09:57 AMdon't whine about classical music not being an easy consumible like pop music.
I agree with you, but I also cringe when classical music lovers say things like, "Bob Dylan is a lousy singer" or some variant of that kind of thought.
My hope for sites like TC is that lovers of any kind of music desist from taking pot shots at other kinds of music.
Quote from: San Antone on March 02, 2024, 09:56:31 AMI agree with you, but I also cringe when classical music lovers say things like, "Bob Dylan is a lousy singer" or some variant of that kind of thought.
My hope for sites like TC is that lovers of any kind of music desist from taking pot shots at other kinds of music.
Take each genre on its own terms.
Quote from: San Antone on March 02, 2024, 09:56:31 AMI agree with you, but I also cringe when classical music lovers say things like, "Bob Dylan is a lousy singer" or some variant of that kind of thought.
My hope for sites like TC is that lovers of any kind of music desist from taking pot shots at other kinds of music.
Tangentially, I am enjoying Ken Burns'
Country Music a great deal, indeed.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 02, 2024, 01:57:25 AMThe people who go to classical music concerts and buy recordings are the ones who really like classical music.
The highest popularity of a piece is reached when even the casual listener likes it.
If that's where you want to put the goalpost I'll say this: if I were to ask a lot of non classical enthusiasts to hum a piece of Mozart I strongly suspect most of the replies, when I got any, would be Eine Kleine Nachtmusik.
QuoteEven the lyrics of Da Ponte can not be compared to the ones of Eminem.
This tells be you've never seen an entire Mozart opera. I wonder why you've made the guy your username. I guessing you see him more as a talisman on the "not-modern", rather than as the composer of, say, string quartets.
If what you really really want is the highest level of popularity and accessibility of orchestra-stuff then I think its Andre Rieu you're looking for. Enjoy.
Quote from: Karl Henning on March 02, 2024, 01:29:41 PMTangentially, I am enjoying Ken Burns' Country Music a great deal, indeed.
I love his documentary film series; and that one was well done - as usual. :)
Quote from: San Antone on March 02, 2024, 04:50:44 PMI love his documentary film series; and that one was well done - as usual. :)
I'm guessing the arbitrary cutoff date was to avoid the entire issue of "alt-country", but it meant leaving out Alison Krauss.
A very fine series besides that...as usual.
To all the users who say that I wrote that classical music must be simplified to make it accessible like pop songs: I never wrote this. Give me any post in which I wrote this.
You have clearily lost the thread of the conversation.
I'll help you to find it again with a short summary.
1) In the OP I wrote that in the comments of a Youtube video containing a contemporary violin concerto, someone wrote that since in the last movement there are the chord progressions "I - V - vi - IV", the piece can not be called "classical music". This was an example of someone obsessed by categories, i.e. someone who thinks that you can formulate mathematical rules to determine the genre of a piece.
In reality, the musical categories are generic and there is only one simple rule: if it sounds like classical music, it's classical music. If it sounds like rock, it's rock. If it sounds like jazz, it's jazz.
That violin concerto sounds like classical music, so it's classical music.
2)
@Luke answered to the OP by writing that he thinks that what the person in the Youtube comments wanted to say is that there are looping chords, i.e. a loop of the chords "I - V - vi - IV".
He wrote that the so called "cycle of 4" is the hallmark of popular music and that it's a technique that it's used to make music highly accessible.
3) I answered that although I agree about the fact that looping chords are used extensively in pop music, they have been used in classical music too and that the Pachelbel Canon is a good example.
4) At the end, Luke and I agreed about the fact that looping chords don't make something not classical. At this point, I wrote that I think that the main element which makes pop music more accessible than classical music is the melodic simplicity. I wrote that, according to me, if you write a song with non-repeating chords but with strong hooks, it will be easily digestible for the mass audience and that perhaps the looping chords reinforce the sense of repetition, but they are not the key element to create a song for the mass audience.
In other words: the real reason for which classical music is less accessible is the sonata-form. In a lot of highly commercial pop songs, the entire melody is constructed with a simple melodic fragment, and this is what makes pop so accessible for the mass audience.
I don't know where you read that I want classical music to be simplified. Please do not attribute things to me that I have never said.
My thesis in this discussion is not that classical music must be simplified, but that the most popular classical soundtracks should not be completely ignored by orchestras but rather played alongside classics of concert music. The point is that many fail to realize that in the modern cultural context, classical music has primarily become incidental music. While symphonies were once more relevant than incidental music, today it's the opposite: in today's context, classical music has found its place primarily in cinema. Therefore, neglecting classical soundtracks is equivalent to losing touch with the people, who are familiar with and whistle tunes of the incidental music of John Williams et al, not those of some contemporary composers of violin concertos or symphonies. Is my point clear? You may not like the fact that classical music has become primarily incidental music, but that's the reality!
Are you looking for the Eine Kleine Nachtmusik of contemporary classical music? You will find it in soundtracks!
@Florestan @SimonNZ @Karl Henning @ritter
Quote from: San Antone on March 02, 2024, 09:56:31 AMI agree with you, but I also cringe when classical music lovers say things like, "Bob Dylan is a lousy singer" or some variant of that kind of thought.
My hope for sites like TC is that lovers of any kind of music desist from taking pot shots at other kinds of music.
We both know that you are one of those elements of TC who snub determined music for matters of categories. Your idea that soundtracks are inferior to concert music.
The most brutal snobbery of the classical music world is INTERNAL, not EXTERNAL.
In other words, if you say that you like the Beatles, or even Taylor Swift, no one cares.
If you say that pop music is not inferior to classical music, you will get a lot of likes.
However, if you write that you like Violin Concerto in G minor of Alma Deutscher as much as the Violin Concerto of Mendelssohn, the people will bash you.
The relativism that many in TC promote is thrown away as soon as we talk about classical music composers.
This is why so many people in TC have aggressive attitudes towards composers of soundtracks: they know that they are classical music composers, and when they say that the music of John Williams is not classical, it's only simple snobbery.
They think that by expelling classical soundtracks from classical music they make them less noble, but this is not true, because if you tell me that film music is a separate genre of music, I can tell you that film music is high music as much as classical music. My opinion about the great Hollywood composers doesn't change just because of silly linguistic artifices.
Quote from: Karl Henning on March 02, 2024, 08:14:17 AMOh, the long since tiresome "I prefer Eminem to Rilke, therefore Eminem is greater than Rilke" fallacy.
Rilke is not a musician. I was comparing Poets inside music.
You might say that Dante Alighieri was much better than Eminem, but he was not a musician. The point is that if you compare Eminem with most musicians, his lyrics are much more sophisticated.
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 02, 2024, 02:40:06 PMThis tells be you've never seen an entire Mozart opera.
False. I've watched all complete operas of Mozart, including the ones that he composed when he was a child: "Bastien und Bastienne", "Apollo et Hyacinthus", "Die Schuldigkeit des ersten Gebots" and "La finta semplice".
"Diggi daggi" from "Bastien und Bastienne" is one of my favourites arias.
I like almost the entire production of Mozart, from the age of 7 to the age of 35. I've repeatedly listen to Mozart's pieces about which most people don't care.
This is why I have this nickname. I consider Mozart to be the greatest musical genius of the history of music.
QuoteI wonder why you've made the guy your username. I guessing you see him more as a talisman on the "not-modern", rather than as the composer of, say, string quartets.
The String Quartet No. 15 of Mozart is one of my favourite pieces of classical music.
An other one is the String Quartet No. 6 of Mendelssohn.
Perhaps the symphonic classical music is my favourite genre, but this doesn't mean that I don't like chamber music.
QuoteIf what you really really want is the highest level of popularity and accessibility of orchestra-stuff then I think its Andre Rieu you're looking for. Enjoy.
I also listen to Andre Rieu, sometimes.
I like his rendition of the Ode To Joy.
Of course he is specialized on light music and not on serious classical music, but I don't snub light music, unlike many people in the classical music world.
The friction between me and many people in the world of classical music is simply due to the fact that I appreciate all tonal classical music, I don't snub anything. Others, on the contrary, think they can flaunt their immense culture by attacking light music (Andre Rieu), film composers, or Alma Deutscher. In reality, what they radiate is just arrogance, or rather, low culture.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 03, 2024, 03:02:17 AMMy thesis in this discussion is not that classical music must be simplified, but that the most popular classical soundtracks should not be completely ignored by orchestras but rather played alongside classics of concert music. The point is that many fail to realize that in the modern cultural context, classical music has primarily become incidental music. While symphonies were once more relevant than incidental music, today it's the opposite: in today's context, classical music has found its place primarily in cinema. Therefore, neglecting classical soundtracks is equivalent to losing touch with the people, who are familiar with and whistle tunes of the incidental music of John Williams et al, not those of some contemporary composers of violin concertos or symphonies. Is my point clear? You may not like the fact that classical music has become primarily incidental music, but that's the reality!
Film music might be considered a sub genre of classical music, a development perhaps of the tone poem, and if that's where the money is to be made could indeed be the dominant sub genre for composers of the future.
Quote from: steve ridgway on March 03, 2024, 05:57:24 AMFilm music might be considered a sub genre of classical music, a development perhaps of the tone poem, and if that's where the money is to be made could indeed be the dominant sub genre for composers of the future.
I'd say that it's more like a development of incidental music for theatre.
I wouldn't compare the Imperial March of John Williams to a tone poem, but rather to a Wedding March of Mendelssohn, which was also wrote as incidental music.
The difference between the two is that the Imperial March has been written for a cinematic work, while the Wedding March for a theatrical work. The concept, however, is similar.
An other element that make soundtracks different than tone poems is that latters are written in one unique piece/movement, while soundtracks are fragmented in many different pieces like the suites written for theatrical works.
For the rest, it seems that we agree. I'd like to add that to write soundtracks help you to also promote your pieces of concert music.
I'm quite sure that many of the people who have listened to the concertos of John Williams, know him thanks to soundtracks and not thanks to his concert works.
Composers will write what they choose to write (let the chips fall where they may); orchestras will program what they choose to program (let the chips fall where they may); and classical music fans will listen to/consume/support the kind of classical music they choose to (let the chips fall where they may).
I fail to see the purpose of this thread. It is a tiresome subject.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 03, 2024, 03:02:17 AMthe real reason for which classical music is less accessible is the sonata-form.
Right, because ALL classical music is written in sonata form...
Reducing classical music to sonata form is like reducing poetry to sonnets.
QuoteThe point is that many fail to realize that in the modern cultural context, classical music has primarily become incidental music. While symphonies were once more relevant than incidental music, today it's the opposite: in today's context, classical music has found its place primarily in cinema. Therefore, neglecting classical soundtracks is equivalent to losing touch with the people, who are familiar with and whistle tunes of the incidental music of John Williams et al, not those of some contemporary composers of violin concertos or symphonies. Is my point clear? You may not like the fact that classical music has become primarily incidental music, but that's the reality!
Nonsense on stilts.
QuoteAre you looking for the Eine Kleine Nachtmusik of contemporary classical music?
No.
"The function of pop music is to be consumed."
— Pierre Boulez
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 03, 2024, 03:52:05 AMHowever, if you write that you like Violin Concerto in G minor of Alma Deutscher as much as the Violin Concerto of Mendelssohn, the people will bash you.
They might *disagree* with you. You probably shouldn't be on a discussion board if you see disagreement about the relative merits of two works as "bashing", and if you simply cannot "agree to disagree" on any point.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 03, 2024, 03:52:05 AMif you write that you like Violin Concerto in G minor of Alma Deutscher as much as the Violin Concerto of Mendelssohn, the people will bash you.
Did one single GMGer bash you for liking Alma Deutscher's VC? No.
Did one single GMGer denied your right to like it as much as Mendelssohn's? No.
Actually, none of us could care less what you like and what you listen to. It's only when you aggressively started to push your agenda here as well, carrying into GMG your TC fights and grievances (toxic stuff which does not concern us in the least and which we absolutely do not need), that some of us reacted by telling you to stop --- and high time to stop it is.
Quote from: Florestan on March 03, 2024, 07:08:04 AMRight, because ALL classical music is written in sonata form...
Reducing classical music to sonata form is like reducing poetry to sonnets.
Nonsense on stilts.
No.
Do you realize that if you can not digest the sonata-form, you can not digest most of the masterpieces of classical music?
You might say that you know a symphony whose movements are not written in the sonata-form, but is it in this list?
https://www.classical-music.com/features/works/20-greatest-symphonies-all-time (https://www.classical-music.com/features/works/20-greatest-symphonies-all-time)
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 04, 2024, 03:19:22 AMYou might say that you know a symphony whose movements are not written in the sonata-form, but is it in this list?
https://www.classical-music.com/features/works/20-greatest-symphonies-all-time (https://www.classical-music.com/features/works/20-greatest-symphonies-all-time)
All of them, actually. There is not one single symphony, not by Haydn, not by Mozart, not by Beethoven, not by Mendelssohn, not by Mahler, not by anyone anywhere and at any time, whose movements were ALL written in sonata form. Alongside sonata form we typically have theme-and-variations (a particularly popular and attractive form which if handled by experts works wonders), minuet / scherzo (ditto) and rondo (ditto). Sonata form is just one of the many forms of classical music and your fixation on it is indeed obsessive.
Especially since the advent of Romanticism, many composers struggled with sonata form themselves or even discarded it altogether, which did not prevent them from writing masterpieces nevertheless. Not to mention that in vocal music, from Lieder to opera to oratorios, sonata form plays no role whatsoever. I sometimes got the impression that your knowledge of classical music is very scant.
Anyone read Hans Keller's book on film music?
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Film-Music-Beyond-Keller-Archive/dp/0954012372?ref_=ast_author_dp&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.tcnyTdDt78IX5Kj9M4iuuFTjhYqxWN-lYJ79wIFqx_DqnpOuLS-E6magNX-gkNX7zw9EWHnG2bn0qvvU5YKu8wBDc4jpxeBxcmx3rOK0IPrx-_tG5TDH2ntaBrwmiIbpCvZQ8pu2VnaisitNUs8RFn8d3iSBV6N7Wk7_G6HWn0N8r0e-9F8LZI7bfau2qA1r.D8qTzwy4VBaij63jBHCfAkY73YLEvMHAEY1eEuU_ZUM&dib_tag=AUTHOR
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 03, 2024, 02:20:04 PMThey might *disagree* with you. You probably shouldn't be on a discussion board if you see disagreement about the relative merits of two works as "bashing", and if you simply cannot "agree to disagree" on any point.
Do you call this "healthy criticism"?
Some comments about the VC of Alma Deutscher.
-------
Horrible. Awful pedestrian writing. Oh, and just in case I forgot to mention, this was HORRIBLE!
------
She obviously has some talent (and perhaps a future) as a violinist. But how will she ever come back from what has been done to her by those who handle her? They have really harmed her and should be ashamed of themselves. But are there really some of our members who actually enjoy (and perhaps are even inspired by) this music? That is hard to believe and, I fear, contributes to the damage being done to her.
------
When I was her age my "repertoire" as a listener - the music that might have fed a fantasy that I was a composer - was only 50 years out of date. It was some while before I liked some of the more contemporary music (but I was already a big fan of Britten and Tippett). I would have found what she does vulgar even then. I imagine grannies (I intend no offense to real life grannies) with limited experience with classical music being impressed by pretty music that reminds them of one of the pieces they have on that classical sampler they listen to. They might even feel she was a genius.
--------
No discussion of Alma should exclude her father. It's the only reason why she's famous. Youthful talent isn't the reason. Those of us who work with young composers frequently encounter youths with her level of talent.
Dealing with (Guy) Deutscher. – Bad Blog Of Musick - nmz Klassik-Blog
I'm not anti-Alma. I'm anti-cult of Alma her father produced. If you went through music conservatory, about 10% have her level of skill but none have her dad's diva level impact. She's ordinary as an extradentary student frequently encountered but none of which become known except for her having her diva demanding father.
Alma is a product of her father and no discussion of her should exclude that.
--------
I hate to be speculative, but at the rate she's going, she'll soon be on tour with André Rieu with Yanni as an opening act. Or will Alma and André be the opening act? Oh well, I'm sure they'll figure it out.
--------
Hate? You lost me, there. I certainly hate the circus that has grown up around her - including your own contribution to that.
The music is not embarrassing because she is a little girl. It's embarrassing because so much fuss is made over it. By all means praise her within the family and put the picture she painted on the fridge door. But the music might be embarrassing for those who take it seriously (I would certainly be embarrassed if I was one of them). It is also potentially embarrassing for the little girl when she is grown up and looks back at the claims that people were making for her (and with her willing participation). I suppose she has a future as her day's Andre Rieu which to me would be a waste of what is evidently a talent.
--------
-------
A lot of people love canned pasta too. Goes down easy.
-------
if you want me to believe that she is fully capable of writing music as complex as Tristan, La Mer, Rite of Spring, etc. but chooses to write her baby music, that is an extraordinary claim and I will need to see some evidence please. As it stands, I don't believe you.
-------
Mozart wrote his first composition at age 5 and even then he was far more masterful and accomplished than Alma.
-------The last one is subtle: someone might say that it's only a personal opinion presented in a polite way.
Well, it's not, because reporting false information is defamation, not an opinion.
You can not say that in the compositions of the 5 years old Mozart there is more craftmanship than in the VC of Alma Deutscher.
What I want to say is really simple: "healthy criticism" means to explain what can be improved in a work according to you.
The ones above are malignant, personal attacks towards Alma Detuscher.
After the many attacks, me and an other person have written that we like very much the piece, and we have been laughed at for this.
Quote from: Florestan on March 04, 2024, 12:22:52 AMDid one single GMGer bash you for liking Alma Deutscher's VC? No.
Did one single GMGer denied your right to like it as much as Mendelssohn's? No.
Actually, none of us could care less what you like and what you listen to.
The world of classical music doesn't end in GMG. We're in a classical music forum, it's the right place to speak about the issues of the classical music world.
QuoteIt's only when you aggressively started to push your agenda here as well
I don't see what's aggresive in my posts. Do you see any insult, offense or attack towards other members? If you think that to create debates means to be aggressive, you have a strange view about aggressiveness.
Quotethat some of us reacted by telling you to stop --- and high time to stop it is.
You told me that I can not ask "what do you think about this piece?".
You told me that I can't post youtube videos in a section called "Classical Youtube Video Library".
Now you are telling me that I can not create debates in a section for debates.
Simply say that you want me dead because everything I do is wrong!
Now, can you explain why this is not the right forum or section to create debates, even controversial debates?
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 04, 2024, 04:28:25 AMI don't see what's aggresive in my posts. Do you see any insult, offense or attack towards other members? If you think that to create debates means to be aggressive, you have a strange view about aggressiveness.
You don't create debates. You stir the shit and then complain about getting dirty.
QuoteYou told me that I can not ask "what do you think about this piece?".
Wrong. I told you to post your own opinion before asking somebody else to post theirs.
QuoteYou told me that I can't post youtube videos in a section called "Classical Youtube Video Library".
Wrong. I told you that by posting those videos which pretty much nobody's interested in anyway you waste band with which could be put to better use.
QuoteNow you are telling me that I can not create debates in a section for debates.
Wrong. What I'm telling you is not that you are in the wrong section, but that you might be in the wrong forum.
Point of information: rant is not debate.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 04, 2024, 04:28:25 AMDo you call this "healthy criticism"?
Some comments about the VC of Alma Deutscher.
Heh. Actually most of that seems pretty reasonable. Especially if you started with the declaration that she was carrying the torch of modern classical.
QuoteAfter the many attacks, me and an other person have written that we like very much the piece, and we have been laughed at for this.
Oh harden up.
And it's not you liking something that they're laughing at - it's the zealotry.
Quote from: Florestan on March 04, 2024, 03:34:43 AMAll of them, actually. There is not one single symphony, not by Haydn, not by Mozart, not by Beethoven, not by Mendelssohn, not by Mahler, not by anyone anywhere and at any time, whose movements were ALL written in sonata form. Alongside sonata form we typically have theme-and-variations (a particularly popular and attractive form which if handled by experts works wonders), minuet / scherzo (ditto) and rondo (ditto). Sonata form is just one of the many forms of classical music and your fixation on it is indeed obsessive.
Especially since the advent of Romanticism, many composers struggled with sonata form themselves or even discarded it altogether, which did not prevent them from writing masterpieces nevertheless. Not to mention that in vocal music, from Lieder to opera to oratorios, sonata form plays no role whatsoever. I sometimes got the impression that your knowledge of classical music is very scant.
First movement: sonata
Second movement: tripartite form, reminescent of the sonata-form
Third movement: minuet & trio OR scherzo
Fourth movement: sonata or rondo
So, the first movement always written in the sonata-form, the fourth movement often written in the sonata-form, the second movement written in a form which is close to the sonata-form and only the third movement written in a quite simple form.
Are you saying that we should tell the people who don't digest complex forms to only listen to the minuet & trio?
Why should they spend their time with classical music if there are genres which make things simple by default?
Yes, the sonata-form was discarded by some composers, who usually further increased the complexity of the form.
Infact a through-composed piece is more complex than a piece written in sonata-form.
I'm not obsessed with the sonata-form. It's that you are missing the point.
This is the typical pop song.
In the first 10 seconds a melodic fragment is exposed. The rest is only a repetition or a slight variation of the same melodic fragment.
At the end of the song, whose length is 280 seconds, you have been exposed to 28 sequential repetitions of a melody.
Since the perceived beauty of a melody increases with repetition, because repetition helps you to internalize the melody and become obsessed by it, this form gives you instant gratification.
The point is not in how many pieces are written specifically in the sonata-form.
The point is that I can't think of any piece of classical music written in such a simplistic form, with the same melody fired like a machine gun, with sequential repetition for 280 seconds.
There is also the fact that not always the themes in classical music are singable, and to be able to sing a melody is the key element to be able to interiorize it.
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 04, 2024, 11:10:22 AMHeh. Actually most of that seems pretty reasonable. Especially if you started with the declaration that she was carrying the torch of modern classical.
No, it was a poll which asked "How do you rate the violin concerto of Alma Deutscher?". The users were answering an open question.
The answers were not reasonable.
A group of them can be summarized with "you can not compose this kind of music today", but these people fail to realize that art is not prescriptive.
It's like to say "you can not use minor chords".
How would you feel if I told you that a composer you like is incompetent because he uses minor chords?
An other person says that the 10% of people in the conservatoir have the craftmanship to write a similar concerto, which is an other unfair observation, since the people in the conservatoir are not 9 years old.
What happens if you consider only 9 years old children?
Furthermore, the craftmanship is not everything. There is a thing called "inspiration". I strongly support that Alma Deutscher is melodically inspired. There are people who know everything about music theory and composition but that they are not able to write powerful melodies.
Among the people who attacked Alma Deutscher there is a composer whose music is, IMO, quite weak in terms of inspiration. He also attacks Hans Zimmer, but I find the soundtrack he wrote for a film weak and uninspired compared to the soundtracks for which Hans Zimmer is praised by many people.
The comparision with Andre Rieu are idiot, because Riue is specialized on light music, and the Violin Concerto of Alma Deutscher is not light music, but serious classical music.
Finally, the guy who wrote that Mozart had a greater craftmanship at the age of 5 is absurd. There is no piece composed by the 5 years old Mozart that can be compared to the VC of Alma Deutscher.
The first piece of Mozart that can be compared to the VC of Alma Deutscher is the Waisenhaus Mass, so in terms of craftmanship we can say that the 9 years old Alma = 12 years old Mozart.
5 years old Mozart > 9 years old Alma (in terms of craftmanship) is pure fantasy.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 05, 2024, 02:27:08 AMAre you saying that we should tell the people who don't digest complex forms to only listen to the minuet & trio?
People who "don't digest complex forms" will never listen to classical music because classical music IS about complex forms and cannot be simplified. It's as simple ([pun) as that.
QuoteWhy should they spend their time with classical music if there are genres which make things simple by default?
Exactly my point. They should stick to the music they enjoy. There is absolutely no problem whatsoever with that.
QuoteThe point is that I can't think of any piece of classical music written in such a simplistic form, with the same melody fired like a machine gun, with sequential repetition for 280 seconds.
Precisely. Classical music is a complex form of music which requires intellectual and emotional effort and long attention spans. Not everybody is interested in such efforts nor has such attention spans, preferring simpler music which gives them instant gratification. There is absolutely no problem whatsoever with that. Everybody listens to exactly the kind of music which offers them the greatest reward commensurate with their intellectual and emotional investment, not to mention their time and money. The only problem is your misguided and misjudged insistence that these people should, or could, be somehow lured into classical music too.
QuoteThere is also the fact that not always the themes in classical music are singable, and to be able to sing a melody is the key element to be able to interiorize it.
Beside the fact that there is a difference between singable and hummable, vocal music is part and parcel of classical music and for centuries has actually been it's backbone. The most popular form of classical music was in fact opera, which is all about singing.
But once again, this doesn't mean in the least that fans of Britney Spears should be somehow lured into listening to
Zefiro torna,
Le nozze di Figaro,
Winterreise or
A Chloris --- and once again and once for all: there is absolutely no problem whatsoever with them disliking the latter and sticking to the former. None at all --- except in your head, that is.
Quote from: San Antone on March 03, 2024, 06:55:32 AMComposers will write what they choose to write (let the chips fall where they may); orchestras will program what they choose to program (let the chips fall where they may); and classical music fans will listen to/consume/support the kind of classical music they choose to (let the chips fall where they may).
I fail to see the purpose of this thread. It is a tiresome subject.
Do you want to know where do the chips fall?
These are the statistics of my Youtube channel.
(https://i.ibb.co/30vGP96/screen.png)
Despite the fact that most of the music I upload is classical concert music, most of my popular videos contain soundtracks of films or videogames. Only one of my popular videos contains concert music (a piece of Bach).
My most popular video (21'253 views), as you can see, is the one with the soundtrack of the English Patient.
Quoteorchestras will program what they choose to program (let the chips fall where they may)
Many symphonic orchestras are sustained by public funds, so the market logics are not applied.
If the market logics were applied, they would have to play the suite of the English Patient.
I'm seriously worried for the future of classical music: if the people in the world of the classical music will fail to connect to the real world in the next years, the classical music listener might become very soon like the Panda.
Perhaps the solution is to remove the public funds.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 05, 2024, 03:06:33 AMhe first piece of Mozart that can be compared to the VC of Alma Deutscher is the Waisenhaus Mass, so in terms of craftmanship we can say that the 9 years old Alma = 12 years old Mozart.
5 years old Mozart > 9 years old Alma (in terms of craftmanship) is pure fantasy.
The problem with this comparison is that almost 250 years after his death Mozart is celebrated and revered for the works he wrote after he turned 20, and his most beloved and universally acclaimed masterpieces were written mainly in his thirties. Let's wait and see what Alma Deutscher writes in her thirties and whether 250 years after her death these works will be universally acclaimed and loved as masterpieces.
Quote from: Florestan on March 05, 2024, 03:39:37 AMThe problem with this comparison is that almost 250 years after his death Mozart is celebrated and revered for the works he wrote after he turned 20, and his most beloved and universally acclaimed masterpieces were written mainly in his thirties. Let's wait and see what Alma Deutscher writes in her thirties and whether 250 years after her death these works will be universally acclaimed and loved as masterpieces.
The comparision is between the craftmanship of the prepubescent Alma and the prepubescent Mozart.
The rest is not relevant.
I also bet that Alma Deutscher will be not productive as much as Mozart, overall. Why? First of all because Mozart was a notes machine, and most composers wouldn't be able to follow his compositional rythm.
Second, because that machine called "Mozart" lived in a healthy society which encouraged his art and his talent, while today we live in a dirty world where adult males attack a 9 years old child prodigy like if it was sidewalk poop.
Quote from: Karl Henning on March 04, 2024, 06:42:59 AMPoint of information: rant is not debate.
As I've already written, I'm not ranting. It's a debate about peope who rant. I might change the title with "Why do many people in the classical music world rant against soundtracks?".
----------------------------------------------------------
"Nate Miller is taking the right tack. There's no point feeding this view from children who are in love with and get excited over film music jingles and then want to bring them into the classical music fold on some personal mission."
------------
""if you are trying to say that video game music and TV spots are art music you have one more screw loose than I thought
I actually play, so you aren't going to be able to convince me that film music is on the same level as the Beethoven Sonata I was working on this weekend""
------------
""I bet he [John Williams] is referring to his classical/concert works, you know the pieces you don't like, the violin and cello concertos for example. He's not so stupid as to think his film work is written in totally the same manner and comes from the same place as his classical work.""
------------
"It's so hilarious that some posters think film music is as good as, or better, than the music of Bach or Beethoven. Sorry but just because you don't understand the depths of Bach's or Beethoven's music, it does not mean that it is comparable to film music. I'm reminded of a blind person trying to convince those who can see that stick men is better art than Monet (or pick your favorite painter)."
------------
«Further, hz [Hans Zimmer] is a brand and a name that people pay for now, which is a ridiculous concept created by this idiotic industry and has helped create this mess.
[...]
Or like saying we can conclude hitler had good ideas because he had millions of supporters so he couldn't have been that wrong.»
------------
«We can all call our music whatever we want and other people can laugh at us.»
------------
«The question for me is always, why would I categorize it as classical? Why would we teach young people that it's a classical work? What will happen if we do?[...]Young people can easily be turned off by the dumbing down and relativism all around them.»
------------
«This conversation is silly, with you and others acting like there is no difference between the market and audience expectations that all composers from Bach to John Adams write within and the work-for-hire that film composers are working under.»
------------
«I'm surprised that as an educator you're not concerned about the natural laziness of students and the dumbing down of categories»
------------
«Think about the consequences when any technical subject is dumbed down.»
------------
«I find Gladiator unwatchable because of the crudity of the soundtrack.[...]Films have been 'downgraded' to a certain extent because the audience is younger [and more stupid? or at least less educated]»
------------
"I have a keen ear. I am a musician.[...]The music to Pearl Harbor is trite output. I have to say now that I don't really care if someone says 'Oh but it moved me so much!' Big deal. That's not a critical appreciation. And with a carefully-crafted get-out clause of claimng to love the music for its own sake completely disassociated from the film. I don't even believe the get-out clause, I think it's just a made-up lie for the sake of argument.[...]I really don't care what awards are mentioned or what ratings of Classic FM say. Classic FM is not a serious classical music radio station, it is a 'classic pops' station. One that also has broadened out to include popular film scores for the sake of its middling listenership. It is largely concerned with revenue, not 'art'.
Hans Zimmer is a rock musician-turned-hack film composer. I know some people think his music is godly. I don't.»
------------
«That you think they are "the best soundtracks of the last decades" is laughable really and says more about the rapid decline of film music.»
------------
«Anyway, I'm not attacking your taste, I'm attacking your silly assertion that film music can stand with the best of what classical music has to offer. It can't and never will.»
------------
«You can argue for a myopic dumbing down of music and a return to a different age as much as you want though, fortunately it'll have zero impact on the profession.»
------------
«Right, so it's still running [the old tonal classical music] then. Best send in the clowns [composers of soundtracks] to divert everything.»
------------
«You "quote" me saying something I don't remember saying in this thread and something I certainly wouldn't have said because the music that accompanied the first Star Wars film gets played in concerts. I would have said "so what?" and "what has that got to do with its merit?" 22 years is nothing and there will always be a big audience for the trashy.
Personally, I think we can tell quite a lot about how well a piece will survive over centuries. Some will be popular as well while other pieces may - like much of Mozart and Beethoven - be for more refined tastes.»
------------
«This is madness of the sort [people who think that some soundtracks are excellent music like the best concert works of classical music] that might be expected in a thread of more than 100 pages on whether or not film music stands up as classical.»
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 05, 2024, 03:55:49 AM"Mozart" lived in a healthy society which encouraged his art and his talent,
Where did you read that?
Quotewhile today we live in a dirty world where adult males attack a 9 years old child prodigy like if it was sidewalk poop.
If you conflate the world of internet boards with the world, maybe. In the real world, though, Alma Deutscher's works were performed by herself accompanied by professional orchestras consisting of and conducted by adult males in concerts for the attendance of which adult males paid admission fees and at the end of which they applauded enthusiastically. Moreover, adult males have awarded her prizes.
This is what the real world looks like:
In May 2021, Deutscher received the Leonardo da Vinci International Award of 11 European Rotary Clubs. At age 16, she was the youngest person in the history of the prize ever to receive it.[75]
In October 2019, Deutscher was awarded the European Culture Prize (Young Generation Award) in a ceremony at the Vienna State Opera.[76][77]
In October 2019, Deutscher received the Beijing Music Festival Young Artist Award in a ceremony in Beijing.[78]
In September 2019, Deutscher was chosen by the German magazine Stern as one of its twelve "Heroes of Tomorrow". At 14, she was the youngest of the twelve to be chosen, with the other eleven ranging in age from 27 to 43.[79]
Notable performances, recordings and publications
Deutscher has played her own music as soloist with renowned orchestras across the world, including the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra,[80][81] Vienna Radio Symphony Orchestra,[82] Mozarteum Orchestra Salzburg, Vienna Chamber Orchestra,[83][84] Royal Philharmonic Orchestra, Shenzhen Symphony Orchestra (China), Lucerne Symphony Orchestra (Switzerland), Vancouver Symphony Orchestra, Orchestra of St. Luke's (New York). She has also given recitals of her own compositions in the renowned Lucerne Festival (Switzerland)[85] and Aix-en-Provence Festival (France).[86] At the invitation of the Austrian Chancellor, she has performed at the Chancellery in Vienna on several state occasions, including in 2018 at a service commemorating the end of the Second World War in Europe.[87]
Quote from: Florestan on March 05, 2024, 03:28:52 AMBeside the fact that there is a difference between singable and hummable, vocal music is part and parcel of classical music and for centuries has actually been it's backbone. The most popular form of classical music was in fact opera, which is all about singing.
Things that are singable for people with high training, not for a person with no musical education who want to whistle a simple motif under the shower.
QuoteBut once again, this doesn't mean in the least that fans of Britney Spears should be somehow lured into listening to Zefiro torna, Le nozze di Figaro, Winterreise or A Chloris --- and once again and once for all: there is absolutely no problem whatsoever with them disliking the latter and sticking to the former. None at all --- except in your head, that is.
In Italy the popular culture is very low/dumb. Many people think that the root cause of this is the trash of Mediaset (the television of Berlusconi), mixed with the trash of the italian cinema, mixed probably with trash of the italian popular music of the last years.
High arts are the emotional connection to the high culture. What does happen in a democracy if high arts die in favour of low arts?
That the politics will be driven by a low culture.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 05, 2024, 04:01:12 AM"Why do many people in the classical music world rant against soundtracks?".
What people in the classical music world rant against soundtracks? Give us some names of conductors, composers, instrumentalists, singers or managers who did that.
As to why anonymous posters on internet boards rant against soundtracks (which is the only evidence you ever adduced for your assertion), I don't know and I don't care. They are not people in the classical music world, they are just that, anonymous posters on internet boards. What they rant against and why is of no relevance whatsoever to the classical music world and only a person completely out of touch with reality can be obsessed by them.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 05, 2024, 04:16:00 AMThings that are singable for people with high training, not for a person with no musical education who want to whistle a simple motif under the shower.
Literally tons of such stuff in the world of opera, especially Italian and French. (I am a person with no musical education whatsoever yet I can hum or whistle in the shower lots of music from
Carmen,
Il barbiere di Siviglia and
Don Giovanni, to name only three examples out of a few dozens.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 05, 2024, 02:27:08 AMAre you saying that we should tell the people who don't digest complex forms to only listen to the minuet & trio?
Why should they spend their time with classical music if there are genres which make things simple by default?
We should tell people people that if they are so inclined they can pay attention to the structure of the music they are listing to and be aware of how it is shaped by Sonata form, or they can simply go along for the ride, and that sonata form is the underlying structure guiding the musical drama. There is nothing unnatural about Sonata form. Stripped of the musical technicalities it is: main musical theme and secondary musical theme are presented, harmonically unstable passages takes the listener on a journey far from the original material. The journey leads back to the original theme. The existence of sonata form makes it easier, not harder, to appreciate an extended musical piece, whether you pay attention to the form or not. You don't have a tick off the sections to enjoy the music. Sometimes I like to keep track of the structure, sometimes not.
After all these pages, I have no idea what your point is. There is music that is conceived to be simple and attractive, and there is music that is complex and is appreciated by people who have long experience with it. There is a continuum, and there are crossovers, excerpts of larger works that become popular and popular forms that transcend the typical limitations. Film music is a "special effect" which borrows from many genres, often classical. A small fraction of it is truly original and deserves to be performed in a dedicated concert, and some of it has.
Quote from: Spotted Horses on March 05, 2024, 06:24:24 AMWe should tell people people that if they are so inclined they can pay attention to the structure of the music they are listing to and be aware of how it is shaped by Sonata form, or they can simply go along for the ride, and that sonata form is the underlying structure guiding the musical drama. There is nothing unnatural about Sonata form. Stripped of the musical technicalities it is: main musical theme and secondary musical theme are presented, harmonically unstable passages takes the listen on a journey far from the original material. The journey leads back to the original theme. The existence of sonata form makes it easier, not harder, to appreciate and extended musical piece, whether you pay attention to the form or not. You don't have a tick off the sections to enjoy the music. Sometimes I like to keep track of the structure, sometimes not.
After all these pages, I have no idea what your point is. There is music that is conceived to be simple and attractive, and there is music that is complex and is appreciated by people who have long experience with it. There is a continuum, and there are crossovers, excerpts of larger works that become popular and popular forms that transcend the typical limitations. Film music is a "special effect" which borrows from many genres, often classical. A small fraction of it is truly original and deserves to be performed in a dedicated concert, and some of it has.
Pretty clear by now, too, who the genuinely "obsessed" party is.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 05, 2024, 03:31:53 AMI'm seriously worried for the future of classical music: if the people in the world of the classical music will fail to connect to the real world in the next years, the classical music listener might become very soon like the Panda.
Perhaps the solution is to remove the public funds.
lol the real world. What!? Please join us in it. I know so many people that discovered classical music because they play an instrument or their parents took them to the concert. When I got into classical music, I had some difficulty; but just by relistening to the works until they clicked I got it. I didn't need formal training to enjoy the music. But of course the music courses I took later did help.
I know that you enjoy classical music, so I'm not sure what imaginary audience you are representing??
Quote from: Spotted Horses on March 05, 2024, 06:24:24 AMWe should tell people people that if they are so inclined they can pay attention to the structure of the music they are listing to and be aware of how it is shaped by Sonata form, or they can simply go along for the ride, and that sonata form is the underlying structure guiding the musical drama. There is nothing unnatural about Sonata form. Stripped of the musical technicalities it is: main musical theme and secondary musical theme are presented, harmonically unstable passages takes the listen on a journey far from the original material. The journey leads back to the original theme. The existence of sonata form makes it easier, not harder, to appreciate and extended musical piece, whether you pay attention to the form or not. You don't have a tick off the sections to enjoy the music. Sometimes I like to keep track of the structure, sometimes not.
After all these pages, I have no idea what your point is. There is music that is conceived to be simple and attractive, and there is music that is complex and is appreciated by people who have long experience with it. There is a continuum, and there are crossovers, excerpts of larger works that become popular and popular forms that transcend the typical limitations. Film music is a "special effect" which borrows from many genres, often classical. A small fraction of it is truly original and deserves to be performed in a dedicated concert, and some of it has.
Excellent post.
Quote from: Spotted Horses on March 05, 2024, 06:24:24 AMStripped of the musical technicalities it is: main musical theme and secondary musical theme are presented, harmonically unstable passages takes the listen on a journey far from the original material. The journey leads back to the original theme. The existence of sonata form makes it easier, not harder, to appreciate and extended musical piece, whether you pay attention to the form or not. You don't have a tick off the sections to enjoy the music. Sometimes I like to keep track of the structure, sometimes not.
I doubt if any composer during the periods when "sonata form" was dominant ever thought of it as you describe, i. a cookie cutter form - the term didn't even exist until later theorists coined it. Composers were very creative in how they wrote in this style.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 05, 2024, 03:31:53 AMI'm seriously worried for the future of classical music
Is this really a concern that disrupts your appetite, troubles your sleep and destroys your peace of mind? If yes, you should seek professional help. If no, you should stop making such a fuss about it.
Quote from: San Antone on March 05, 2024, 07:04:59 AMI doubt if any composer during the periods when "sonata form" was dominant ever thought of it as you describe, i. a cookie cutter form - the term didn't even exist until later theorists coined it. Composers were very creative in how they wrote in this style.
As I read somewhere, Sonata form was an expansion of the ABA form that was ubiquitous in the pre-classical era - such as the individual variations in the Goldberg Variations - and was preserved in the typical menuetto and trio of the classical era (both the menuetto and trio were in ABA form). The B section starts out more harmonically adventurous and leads to a repeat of the original material, although not necessarily a literal repeat. The thing got more elaborate and became Sonata form. I don't think it was a coincidence that Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, wrote movements that stated a theme, followed with a theme in the dominant or relative major, and after a sort of fantasia ended up stating both themes in the key of the initial theme. It wasn't "cookie cutter," but it was a scaffolding that allowed a listener not to be adrift when they had only one chance in their life to listen to a piece performed live.
Quote from: Spotted Horses on March 05, 2024, 07:12:29 AMAs I read somewhere, Sonata form was an expansion of the ABA form that was ubiquitous in the pre-classical era - such as the individual variations in the Goldberg Variations - and was preserved in the typical menuetto and trio of the classical era (both the menuetto and trio were in ABA form). The B section starts out more harmonically adventurous and leads to a repeat of the original material, although not necessarily a literal repeat. The thing got more elaborate and became Sonata form. I don't think it was a coincidence that Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, wrote movements that stated a theme, followed with a theme in the dominant or relative major, and after a sort of fantasia ended up stating both themes in the key of the initial theme. It wasn't "cookie cutter," but it was a scaffolding that allowed a listener not to be adrift when they had only one chance in their life to listen to a piece performed live.
There are conceptual and historical ties to both ternary and binary, underscoring the pervasive fact that composers did what they felt worked, rather than concern themselves with "clean theory" beforehand.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 05, 2024, 02:27:08 AMThe point is that I can't think of any piece of classical music written in such a simplistic form, with the same melody fired like a machine gun, with sequential repetition for 280 seconds.
Its classical
and its a soundtrack
and its highly repetitive
and I can hum it at work
and it builds to an emotional crescendo
and it sold well with buyers outside the classical world.
This has got to be just about perfection for you, right?
Finally something we can agree on and both enjoy together.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 05, 2024, 03:06:33 AMNo, it was a poll which asked "How do you rate the violin concerto of Alma Deutscher?". The users were answering an open question.
The answers were not reasonable.
You asked people what they thought and they told you.
Don't ask the question if you won't accept answers - and a consensus at that - different from what you want.
Quote from: San Antone on March 05, 2024, 07:04:59 AMI doubt if any composer during the periods when "sonata form" was dominant ever thought of it as you describe, i. a cookie cutter form - the term didn't even exist until later theorists coined it. Composers were very creative in how they wrote in this style.
Here's something I'm curious about. If the term "sonata form" didn't exist, how did classical-era composers refer to it?
I can imagine Papa Haydn sitting with one of his students and saying: "Now I'd like you to write a ... well, I don't know what it's called exactly, but it's how I usually write the first movement of a symphony ... you know what I'm talking about?"
I doubt one can reason with someone who mistakes "I don't like the answer" for "the answer isn't reasonable."
Quote from: Karl Henning on March 05, 2024, 02:09:16 PMThere are conceptual and historical ties to both ternary and binary, underscoring the pervasive fact that composers did what they felt worked, rather than concern themselves with "clean theory" beforehand.
Quite so, and my terminology was somewhat muddled, because what I was referring to in bringing up the Goldberg variations is a binary form, which could be described as AB, alternately ABA', because the A section typically ends in a related key (dominant, relative major) and the B second picks up from that key and leads back to the original key and a return to the original material (A'). It was also a typical scheme for arias in the baroque era. I'm sure before there was a theory for it, it was doing what made sense, as you say. I can see a parallel with a classical cadenza, which is essentially a I-V-I cadence where the V gets ornamented, to the extent of becoming a wildly extended fantasia.
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on March 05, 2024, 03:13:12 PMHere's something I'm curious about. If the term "sonata form" didn't exist, how did classical-era composers refer to it?
I can imagine Papa Haydn sitting with one of his students and saying: "Now I'd like you to write a ... well, I don't know what it's called exactly, but it's how I usually write the first movement of a symphony ... you know what I'm talking about?"
AFAIK they referred to it as
the Allegro*, just as the slow movement was
the Adagio*, the third was
the Minuet or even
the Trio, and the fourth was
the Finale.
* irrespective whether the actual tempo indication corresponded
The symphony itself might have been called a symphony or an overture. They were much less obsessed with categories than some people today are. ;D
And now that I think of it, the answer to this question:
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 05, 2024, 02:27:08 AMAre you saying that we should tell the people who don't digest complex forms to only listen to the minuet & trio?
is "Yes, why not?"
It was customary in the late 18th century / early 19th century to split the movements of a symphony, so that in the first part of the concert they played the Allegro and the Adagio and in the second part of the concert they played the Minuet and the Finale. In between there were all sorts of instrumental and vocal solos. If people who breathed this music like they breathed their air had no problem with that I don't see why we should.
So, you can certainly tell someone who is not familiar with classical music "Hey, listen to this Minuet and see what you make of it!" If they like it, they might be open to listening to other parts of that symphony, or even the whole thing, which they may or may not like as a whole but at least they'll have found something classical to like, ie that minuet and from there they can explore other minuets as well if they are so inclined. Even if minuets will be the only form of classical music they'll ever listen to every now and then, it's still better than nothing at all, don't you think?
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 05, 2024, 02:43:14 PM
Its classical and its a soundtrack and its highly repetitive and I can hum it at work and it builds to an emotional crescendo and it sold well with buyers outside the classical world.
This has got to be just about perfection for you, right?
Finally something we can agree on and both enjoy together.
I still have to listen to the works of Philip Glass. Is this soundtrack written with his typical style?
It's quite good, but perhaps you didn't understand that I was speaking about the expectations of the general audience, not about mines.
In regards to me, more a piece becomes sophisticated, and more I like it. I like the music that does somersaults.
Especially in long pieces/movements it's important for me, because if nothing happens I get sleepy. On the other hand, if many things happen in a short time, or even at the same time (counterpoints), my attention remains high, increasing my levels of emotional involvement.
For example, this is the last piece I've added to my youtube playlist "Favourites". The passage between 02:34 and 03:38 is an example of something that I really like.
Unless we don't want to call Mendelssohn "a minimalist" (I support that he was exactly the opposite), it's wrong to say that for me minimalism is the perfect approach to the musical composition.
I'm not saying that a piece is better than an other one only because it's more sophisticated of course, but that if I rate something as good/excellent its sophistication is probably above a certain level.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 05, 2024, 02:27:08 AMAre you saying that we should tell the people who don't digest complex forms to only listen to the minuet & trio?
You mean like on Classic FM where they play Vivaldi's
One Season and Holst's
The Planet Mars? ::)
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 06, 2024, 04:21:43 AMI was speaking about the expectations of the general audience, not about mines.
Well, that's precisely your problem. You should concern yourself much less with the expectations and preferences of the general audience (whatever they might be) and concentrate on your own. Listen to what you like and let others do the same.
Quote from: steve ridgway on March 06, 2024, 09:05:23 AMYou mean like on Classic FM where they play Vivaldi's One Season and Holst's The Planet Mars? ::)
(* chortle *)
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 06, 2024, 04:21:43 AMI was speaking about the expectations of the general audience, not about mines.
If you really want to understand those expectations how about starting these discussions on non-classical sites? Perhaps even non-music sites, just all-purpose discussion areas.
Start a thread on Reddit called "What do you think of this violin concerto?" where you compare it to Celine Dion and see what the "general audience" - the "real people" - have to say. See if you find the real people "reasonable" and "respectful".
Ask them how much they want to pay to hear a concert of film music and see the same.
Quote from: steve ridgway on March 06, 2024, 09:05:23 AMYou mean like on Classic FM where they play Vivaldi's One Season and Holst's The Planet Mars? ::)
Vivaldi's One Season is correct.
The Four Seasons are four separate violin concertos inside a package of 12 violin concertos called "Il cimento dell'armonia e dell'inventione".
Although it's a good idea to play them together, they are actually four separate pieces.
On the other hand, a movement is not meant to be a separate piece, but it's a fragment of the same piece.
Quote from: Karl Henning on March 05, 2024, 03:13:27 PMI doubt one can reason with someone who mistakes "I don't like the answer" for "the answer isn't reasonable."
Why can't you think that the anwsers you receive are not reasonable?
If, for example, you asked in a forum: "Why is the earth a geoid?" and someone answered: "The earth is not a geoid, it's flat", you would call his answer "unreasonable" or not? Just because you have done the question, do you have to respect all answers you receive?
I'm sorry, but if someone calls the VC of Alma Deutscher "baby music" (see the pasted comments) he's not reasonable. It's like to say that a baby would be able to compose something similar, while in reality is an incredible composition for a 9 years old.
If you put down the work of a composer only for the sake of attackng the person, you are unreasonable.
Quote from: Florestan on March 05, 2024, 03:39:37 AMThe problem with this comparison is that almost 250 years after his death Mozart is celebrated and revered for the works he wrote after he turned 20, and his most beloved and universally acclaimed masterpieces were written mainly in his thirties. Let's wait and see what Alma Deutscher writes in her thirties and whether 250 years after her death these works will be universally acclaimed and loved as masterpieces.
However, this is an argumentum ad populum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum).
I mean, Mozart is great... but not ONLY because he's famous.
Infact I've found a lot of unknown pieces that I consider to be great. Just because a composer is not as famous as Mozart, or a symphony is not as famous as Jupiter, it doesn't mean that he/it is not great.
Some skilled composers don't have the luck to become famous.
Quote from: Florestan on March 05, 2024, 04:12:47 AMWhere did you read that?
Don't you think that the "Mozart family grand tour" and the fame of Wunderkind acquired by Mozart during it, was encouraging for the little Mozart?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozart_family_grand_tour (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozart_family_grand_tour)
-------------
The Mozart family grand tour was a journey through western Europe, undertaken by Leopold Mozart, his wife Anna Maria, and their musically gifted children Maria Anna (Nannerl) and Wolfgang Theophilus (Wolferl) from 1763 to 1766. At the start of the tour the children were aged eleven and seven respectively. Their extraordinary skills had been demonstrated during a visit to Vienna in 1762, when they had played before the Empress Maria Theresa at the Imperial Court. Sensing the social and pecuniary opportunities that might accrue from a prolonged trip embracing the capitals and main cultural centres of Europe, Leopold obtained an extended leave of absence from his post as deputy Kapellmeister to the Prince-Archbishopric of Salzburg. Throughout the subsequent tour, the children's Wunderkind status was confirmed as their precocious performances consistently amazed and gratified their audiences.-------------
Unless you don't tell me that in the streets there were people throwing tomatoes towards the little boy, it was not a dirty world, from this point of view.
Yes, Alma Deutscher is also encouraged, but the people throwing tomatoes towards her for silly political reasons (only because they want to dictate the direction of contemporary classical music) might make her life not so easy.
QuoteIf you conflate the world of internet boards with the world, maybe.
So, if I udnerstand your point of view correctly, it's basically that TC has become for some reasons a website for the minority of snobs and that the fact that they're all gathered there gives the impression that most fans of classical music have a determined mindset, while in reality, in the real world, they are only a minority.
Is this correct?
It might be a good point, but it should be checked.
If your theory is correct, than you're right about the fact that there isn't any real problem in the world of classical music.
However, if it's not correct, I support that there is the need of a bit of cultural renewal, because with a similar mindset it's difficult to save classical music from the lose of popularity.
Quote from: Florestan on February 27, 2024, 04:09:28 AMExcuse me??? Both here and on TC it's you who started the whole kerfuffle. They wouldn't have expressed their negative views toward film music had you not started the topic in the first place, and in a belligerent manner for that matter. It's you alone who is responsible for providing them a reason and a place for trashing film music.
Can you explain what exactly was belligerant in the OP of the discussion in TC?
Title:
Why do many people think that classical music composed for film scores is not classical music?-----------------
In the "Movie Corner" I opened a poll about the film scores which got the nomination "Best original score" in the Academy Awards (Oscars) of 1990: Talkclassical best film score award - 1990
This is for the first part of the competition Talkclassical best film score award.
Now, the score of the film "The Fabulous Baker Boys" (one of the film nominated in 1990) could be probably classified as Jazz (see for example the first theme) and Intrumental pop (see for example the second theme).
I think that no one would say that this is not jazz music because it was composed for a film. No one would say "this is not jazz but film music". Indeed, film music is not a genre of music: it only means that the music was composed for a film.
However, the other four nominated film scores, I think that can be classified as "romantic music".
Usually, the film scores which get a nomination for the "Best original scores" are more or less classical music.
That's why the radio Classic FM started to insert some film scores in the competition Classic FM Hall of Fame.
Their decision is criticized by many people. Read for example this article of the journal "The Guardian": https://www.theguardian.com/music/musicblog/2008/apr/07/canfilmmusiceverbeclassical (https://www.theguardian.com/music/musicblog/2008/apr/07/canfilmmusiceverbeclassical)
The argument of the writer of this article is that film scores can never be classified as "classical music" because they are composed for images and not for concerts (so, it is not standalone music, but a part of the movie).
If this argument is valid, then we must conclude that the score of "The Fabulous Baker Boys" is not jazz because it was composed for images and not for concerts.
However, I agree that pure "motion music" is not extractable from it's context, but the best film scores (the one who win at The Academy Awards) are not simply "motion music": it's music that can be extracted as standalone music. Indeed, the best score composers sell tickets for concerts.
Maybe the real reason of these people is that they think that John Williams is not as good as Beethoven, Mozart, Bach and so on and they see classical music as a "closed enclosure" where you can enter only if you have a special permission.
If it is so, still I don't see the logic: you don't have to be Roger Federer for being a tennis player. So, you could simply say "Peter is a tennis player but not the number one" and "John Williams is a classical music composer but not the number one".
You might say that Bach is the number one and John Williams only an ordinary composer, if you think this, but I don't see the logic of "the closed enclosure".
Someone could for example say that the composer of "The Fabulous Baker Boys" is a poor jazz composer, but it's still jazz.
To conclude, my opinion is that much of the music composed for film scores is good classical music: "good" is my personal judgement, but every one can have his own.
@W.A. Mozart I already said all I had to say and I will not waste my time in this thread anymore.
Gioia e pace per mill'anni!
In this PDF (https://cdn.bachtrack.com/files/350970-Annual%20classical%20music%20statistics%202023.pdf) published by Bachtrack (https://bachtrack.com/about-us), various statistics concerning the concert events of classical music for the year 2023 are reported.
Now, if you go to the "TOP COMPOSERS" chapter, you can read interesting statistics regarding the number of concert events for each composer.
The most played composers in 2023 were as follows (from most popular to least popular):
1. Mozart, W.A.
2. Beethoven, Ludwig van
3. Bach, Johann Sebastian
4. Brahms, Johannes
5. Schubert, Franz
6. Rachmaninov, Sergei
7. Tchaikovsky, Pyotr Ilyich
8. Strauss, Richard
9. Schumann, Robert
10. Ravel, Maurice
However, if you narrow the field to living composers, the rankings are as follows (from most popular to least popular):
1. Williams, John
2. Pärt, Arvo
3. Widmann, Jörg
4. Adès, Thomas
5. Glass, Philip
6. Adams, John
7. Gubaidulina, Sofia
=8 Shaw, Caroline
=8 Chin, Unsuk
10. Clyne, Anna
So, when it comes to composers in general, Mozart is the winner. However, John Williams is the winner for the category "living composers".
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 08, 2024, 08:18:54 AMIn this PDF (https://cdn.bachtrack.com/files/350970-Annual%20classical%20music%20statistics%202023.pdf) published by Bachtrack (https://bachtrack.com/about-us), various statistics concerning the concert events of classical music for the year 2023 are reported.
Now, if you go to the "TOP COMPOSERS" chapter, you can read interesting statistics regarding the number of concert events for each composer.
The most played composers in 2023 were as follows (from most popular to least popular):
1. Mozart, W.A.
2. Beethoven, Ludwig van
3. Bach, Johann Sebastian
4. Brahms, Johannes
5. Schubert, Franz
6. Rachmaninov, Sergei
7. Tchaikovsky, Pyotr Ilyich
8. Strauss, Richard
9. Schumann, Robert
10. Ravel, Maurice
However, if you narrow the field to living composers, the rankings are as follows (from most popular to least popular):
1. Williams, John
2. Pärt, Arvo
3. Widmann, Jörg
4. Adès, Thomas
5. Glass, Philip
6. Adams, John
7. Gubaidulina, Sofia
=8 Shaw, Caroline
=8 Chin, Unsuk
10. Clyne, Anna
So, when it comes to composers in general, Mozart is the winner. However, John Williams is the winner for the category "living composers".
Does this have to be separate from your other film music rant thread?
And, BTW, doesn't this negate your extended rant about soundtracks? Film music
is being performed.
I'm going to merge these two threads. :)
Quote from: DavidW on March 08, 2024, 08:31:18 AMI'm going to merge these two threads. :)
Two unengaged rants for the price of one!
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 08, 2024, 08:18:54 AMSo, when it comes to composers in general, Mozart is the winner. However, John Williams is the winner for the category "living composers".
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 07, 2024, 08:46:30 AMHowever, this is an argumentum ad populum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum).
Quote from: Spotted Horses on March 08, 2024, 08:23:47 AMDoes this have to be separate from your other film music rant thread?
The intention was to simply speak about statistics, but I see that the moderators have decided that the topic is related with this one.
QuoteAnd, BTW, doesn't this negate your extended rant about soundtracks? Film music is being performed.
No, because my discussion is about the many people who rant for the fact that determined soundtracks are considered classical music.
I already know the direction of society.
It's like to say: the western countries are creating the homosexual marriage. Why do many people rant against it?
Yes, I know the direction of the western countries, but there is still the fact that many people rant against this direction.
The same for soundtracks.
For the rest, if the music of John Williams is performed together with the classics of concert music, these events help promoting classical music, but if they are performed separately there is the risk that some people don't realize the connection with classical music and they think that the style of John Williams et al. is a modern invention.
@SimonNZ there is not an argument ad populum in my post, because I've only reported statistics. I've not written that they are the demonistration that Mozart has been the best composer and that John Williams is the best living composer.
The logical fallacy is in your last post: it's a strawman.
The only thing I want to say about the matter of popularity, is that if the people like something and the classical musicians ignore it, classical music will lose popularity.
The people who want to see the classical soundtracks expelled from classical music clearily want to destroy the popularity of classical music.
Quote from: Karl Henning on March 08, 2024, 09:27:41 AMTwo unengaged rants for the price of one!
I don't know what you are speaking about. I only reported statistics and I didn't even comment on them. This post shows that you read imaginary things. You should read what I write, not what you want to read.
I watch lots of movie reaction videos on Youtube. I also watch music theory videos including analyse of movie music. Watching those videos make it very clear how admired John Williams is. For example Charles Cornell (https://www.youtube.com/@CharlesCornellStudios/videos) is quite fanatic about John Williams. I think it is pretty safe to bet of all music created in my lifetime John Williams' scores or at least the famous themes from movies are still listened to and enjoyed in the future. Perhaps it is easier for the future generations to see contemporary movie music performed with an orchestra as "classical music."
Whether something belongs to a set depends on how the set is defined. Classical music can be defined in ways that clearly exclude John Williams' soundtracks. However doing so may also exclude music such as operas and ballets which are kind of precursors for film scores. Excluding or including things from a set tells very little about the things. All it tells is how the set was defined. The question of whether soundtracks are classical music or not is looking at the problem from the wrong perspective. The correct question is how should classical music be defined? These questions can be tricky to answer (what kind of convoluted, even insane, rules include just the music and nothing else one wants to be included?) and I tend to have relaxed attitude about it. I don't really care if John Williams' scores are included in the set of classical music or not. It doesn't change how the music improves the movies for me. The definition of classical music can change depending on the context. Compared to Beethoven and Mozart, John Williams' scores look less like classical music, but compared to Tangerine Dreams' synth music for movies it does look more like classical music.
I have my own principles for how to arrange my CDs on my shelves. I separate movie soundtracks from classical music, but I have to make compromises: Is John Williams' Violin and Flute Concertos classical music or do I move them with the movie scores of John Williams? I did the latter, because John Williams' output and what he is best known for is movie scores and I want all his music in the same place, on the shelf of movie soundtracks. On the other hand, Tangerine Dreams's soundtracks are with the other music of Tangerine Dream, because most of Tangerine Dream is not music for movies.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 09, 2024, 01:03:31 AMThis post shows that you read imaginary things.
There is a difference in reading between the lines and taking it too far. ::)
Quote from: 71 dB on March 09, 2024, 03:25:11 AMI don't really care if John Williams' scores are included in the set of classical music or not. It doesn't change how the music improves the movies for me.
You're taking it in the wrong way. It's not a matter of quality (if someone thinks that the music of John Williams is excellent he doesn't need to demonstrate that it's classical music to support his opinion and on the other hand someone who thinks that it's bad music doesn't need to demonostrate that it's not classical music). The point is: if you own a radio station specialized on classical music, what do you transmit? Do you transmit classical-style soundtracks or not?
If you are a conductor and you have to write a program for a classical music concert, do you include classical-style soundtracks or not?
Many people think that some soundtracks are classical, so they are promoted by some classical music radios and perhaps played in some events of classical music. There are people who rant against this classification and in the OP I summarized their arguments.
QuoteThe definition of classical music can change depending on the context. Compared to Beethoven and Mozart, John Williams' scores look less like classical music, but compared to Tangerine Dreams' synth music for movies it does look more like classical music.
Because most soundtracks are not based on the classical music of the period 1750-1820, but on the period 1880-today.
The only soundtrack I know that it's based on the classical period is this one: it sounds a lot like a slow movement of a piano concerto of the classical period.
Unless you don't want to support the idea that the classical music of the period 1880-today is not real classical music, that only the music of the classical period is real classical music, the comparision between John Williams an Mozart doesn't make sense.
The point is that if you consider the period 1880-today the music of John Williams sounds 100% classical, in my opinion.
Some people say that classical music is not a musical genre because it contains different styles. Of course if you want to reduce classical music to ONE unique style, you have to choose which of the many styles is classical music and expel the other ones from the category.
If the music of Mozart is classical, the one of Dvorak can not be classical.
The point is that the categorization doesn't work in this way. The stylistic evolution inside a genre of music is perfectly normal, and the purpose of keeping alive the definition is to understand that the different styles are historically connected between each others.
I mean, the romantic syle has not born from scratch. It's the result of an evolution of the classical style, which is an evolution of the baroque style.
Classical music is a musical genre simply because there is a continuum between the different styles.
WAM you're completely obsessing over the soundtracks of old with gorgeous melodies playing nearly constantly throughout the movie. Now soundtracks are incredibly minimalistic. Instead of having recognizable themes they usually just provide some background texture or help create atmosphere, tension, emotion. I was just rewatching Dune Part I in anticipation of today and it is completely different from like Jaws or Star Wars. Brilliantly done, but just completely subjugated to the film.
These days they seem to really just be in service of the movie and not really its own thing unlike what it used to be like a few decades ago.
I also wonder for scores that are more pop, like Daft Punk's one for Tron Legacy, do you consider that classical music? There are plenty of movies that interweave more popular songs or write in a very non-classical style.
2001: A Space Odyssey has been a very popular movie over the years. I wonder how much it increased the audience for the music of Richard Strauss and Ligeti?
(https://i.discogs.com/NZ1g_3q4XhRXHKh35OFhpSi6O_rDoILI5GCBBcL7gs8/rs:fit/g:sm/q:90/h:500/w:500/czM6Ly9kaXNjb2dz/LWRhdGFiYXNlLWlt/YWdlcy9SLTQ4Mzgz/MS0xMjM5NTQ1ODUx/LmpwZWc.jpeg)
I don't know how many people watched Shutter Island. Ligeti was used for that too, along with Scelsi, Schnittke, Penderecki, Cage, Mahler and other 20th century composers.
(https://i.discogs.com/8kaqe7Ge-TUPh5RjoQe2PDzzdx6-ztz9bJesPU3IJ9k/rs:fit/g:sm/q:90/h:586/w:600/czM6Ly9kaXNjb2dz/LWRhdGFiYXNlLWlt/YWdlcy9SLTIyNDMz/MTktMTQ5MDUzMDYz/Ny00MTc2LmpwZWc.jpeg)
Possibly "avant-garde" classical music will be picked up more for soundtracks in an attempt to find something that stands out as different, as the more obscure popular music gets rediscovered for commercials. If Suicide can be used for a perfume advert anything is possible :o.
Quote from: steve ridgway on March 09, 2024, 09:41:37 AM2001: A Space Odyssey has been a very popular movie over the years. I wonder how much it increased the audience for the music of Richard Strauss and Ligeti?
(https://i.discogs.com/NZ1g_3q4XhRXHKh35OFhpSi6O_rDoILI5GCBBcL7gs8/rs:fit/g:sm/q:90/h:500/w:500/czM6Ly9kaXNjb2dz/LWRhdGFiYXNlLWlt/YWdlcy9SLTQ4Mzgz/MS0xMjM5NTQ1ODUx/LmpwZWc.jpeg)
I don't know how many people watched Shutter Island. Ligeti was used for that too, along with Scelsi, Schnittke, Penderecki, Cage, Mahler and other 20th century composers.
(https://i.discogs.com/8kaqe7Ge-TUPh5RjoQe2PDzzdx6-ztz9bJesPU3IJ9k/rs:fit/g:sm/q:90/h:586/w:600/czM6Ly9kaXNjb2dz/LWRhdGFiYXNlLWlt/YWdlcy9SLTIyNDMz/MTktMTQ5MDUzMDYz/Ny00MTc2LmpwZWc.jpeg)
Possibly "avant-garde" classical music will be picked up more for soundtracks in an attempt to find something that stands out as different, as the more obscure popular music gets rediscovered for commercials. If Suicide can be used for a perfume advert anything is possible :o.
2001 got me into Ligeti, The Shining got me into Bartok, and Shutter Island got me into Penderecki! Worked for me. 8)
Quote from: steve ridgway on March 09, 2024, 09:41:37 AM2001: A Space Odyssey has been a very popular movie over the years. I wonder how much it increased the audience for the music of Richard Strauss and Ligeti?
(https://i.discogs.com/NZ1g_3q4XhRXHKh35OFhpSi6O_rDoILI5GCBBcL7gs8/rs:fit/g:sm/q:90/h:500/w:500/czM6Ly9kaXNjb2dz/LWRhdGFiYXNlLWlt/YWdlcy9SLTQ4Mzgz/MS0xMjM5NTQ1ODUx/LmpwZWc.jpeg)
I don't know how many people watched Shutter Island. Ligeti was used for that too, along with Scelsi, Schnittke, Penderecki, Cage, Mahler and other 20th century composers.
(https://i.discogs.com/8kaqe7Ge-TUPh5RjoQe2PDzzdx6-ztz9bJesPU3IJ9k/rs:fit/g:sm/q:90/h:586/w:600/czM6Ly9kaXNjb2dz/LWRhdGFiYXNlLWlt/YWdlcy9SLTIyNDMz/MTktMTQ5MDUzMDYz/Ny00MTc2LmpwZWc.jpeg)
Possibly "avant-garde" classical music will be picked up more for soundtracks in an attempt to find something that stands out as different, as the more obscure popular music gets rediscovered for commercials. If Suicide can be used for a perfume advert anything is possible :o.
Both fabulous movies!
Quote from: DavidW on March 09, 2024, 08:35:48 AMWAM you're completely obsessing over the soundtracks of old with gorgeous melodies playing nearly constantly throughout the movie.
So do I. A lot of modern movie soundtracks are very boring to me. Just as many movies are for that matter. I'm getting old/nostalgic and I want my movie to be from the 70s and 80s with some exceptions. :D
Quote from: DavidW on March 09, 2024, 08:35:48 AMNow soundtracks are incredibly minimalistic.
Yeah. Two semi-dissonant chords plus some percussion and that's it. ???
Quote from: DavidW on March 09, 2024, 08:35:48 AMInstead of having recognizable themes they usually just provide some background texture or help create atmosphere, tension, emotion. I was just rewatching Dune Part I in anticipation of today and it is completely different from like Jaws or Star Wars. Brilliantly done, but just completely subjugated to the film.
I fould Dune Part I a "sepian borefest." I won't be wasting my time on part II.
Quote from: 71 dB on March 09, 2024, 11:16:52 AMI fould Dune Part I a "sepian borefest." I won't be wasting my time on part II.
Interesting!
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 09, 2024, 12:58:50 AM@SimonNZ there is not an argument ad populum in my post, because I've only reported statistics. I've not written that they are the demonistration that Mozart has been the best composer and that John Williams is the best living composer.
The logical fallacy is in your last post: it's a strawman.
The only thing I want to say about the matter of popularity, is that if the people like something and the classical musicians ignore it, classical music will lose popularity.
The people who want to see the classical soundtracks expelled from classical music clearily want to destroy the popularity of classical music.
Well, I've never met or read a single person say "John Williams got me into classical", or any other film composer for that matter. I've never even heard or read anyone of old say "Maurice Jarre got me into classical". Whenever I hear of film being a gateway into classical it was from something like the use of Rach 2 in Brief Encounter, or the Ligeti and Bartok examples above.
My own feeling is that if you want to get modern teens into classical via film you should have scenes where, say, the Twilight crew go to see a Saariaho concert or a Debussy recital. Make it what the cool kids do.
As for the fiftieth repeat of your belief in programming film music: you've said everything you have to say about it, everyone has heard you, and you've persuaded nobody. Nor are you taking a moment to seriously consider any alternative to your one fixed view. Must there be another 90 pages of you repeating this with no goal other than liking the sound of your own voice? Go out into the non-classical world and try persuading the "real people" directly. Or write to orchestras directly and politely request they explain their thinking on these matters to you - they will all have had many conversations and meetings on this already.
If this thread has no chance of creating agreement but only of creating fruitless argument, should it even continue?
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 09, 2024, 12:57:34 PMAs for the fiftieth repeat of your belief in programming film music: you've said everything you have to say about it, everyone has heard you, and you've persuaded nobody. Nor are you taking a moment to seriously consider any alternative to your one fixed view. Must there be another 90 pages of you repeating this with no goal other than liking the sound of your own voice?
QFT. "My mind is shut, why don't you want to talk to me?!"
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 09, 2024, 12:57:34 PMWell, I've never met or read a single person say "John Williams got me into classical", or any other film composer for that matter.
If this thread has no chance of creating agreement but only of creating fruitless argument, should it even continue?
I have, to be fair. Not that this negates the rest of the things that you've said...
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 09, 2024, 12:57:34 PMWell, I've never met or read a single person say "John Williams got me into classical", or any other film composer for that matter.
Films get people into other films; the music in films is secondary to the movie itself. People talk about scenes, or lines from movies they like, but I rarely hear people talk about the music. And to the extent they might, they certainly don't relate it to classical music, but other film music.
Perhaps we should go back to the renaiming tie-in convention of 60s and 70s lps:
Penderecki's Symphony No.3 "Shutter Island"
Then again...perhaps not.
Quote from: DavidW on March 09, 2024, 08:35:48 AMWAM you're completely obsessing over the soundtracks of old with gorgeous melodies playing nearly constantly throughout the movie. Now soundtracks are incredibly minimalistic. Instead of having recognizable themes they usually just provide some background texture or help create atmosphere, tension, emotion. I was just rewatching Dune Part I in anticipation of today and it is completely different from like Jaws or Star Wars. Brilliantly done, but just completely subjugated to the film.
These days they seem to really just be in service of the movie and not really its own thing unlike what it used to be like a few decades ago.
I also wonder for scores that are more pop, like Daft Punk's one for Tron Legacy, do you consider that classical music? There are plenty of movies that interweave more popular songs or write in a very non-classical style.
I think that soundtracks have always been mostly minimalistic. The point is that today we speak about the old soundtracks that have passed the test of time and we have completely forgotten the rest.
The modern soundtracks which will be remembered and played in the future are a minority, but do you think that if you take a random movie of the seventies its score will be of the same quality of Star Wars?
Perhaps what you want to say that in the modern days the great soundtracks have been completely suppressed and not that they are simply a minority. I don't know what to say, to be honest. I only know the great soundtracks of the nineties and I've never listened closely to the soundtracks composed for the films of the last 5-10 yeas.
I went in the subreddit "soundtracks" and I listened to some pieces posted by the users, and I found these two composed in 2023-2024.
Would you say that the pieces are not melody-driven? I think that for the fans of soundtracks there is still good material even today.
The second one is of Hans Zimmer and it shows that he is still able to write melodies. His soundtracks are not all in the style of Dune.
I noticed that you conveniently side stepped what I said about Daft Punk since you know it unfortunately completely demolished your argument that soundtracks are classical music.
Quote from: DavidW on March 10, 2024, 07:50:56 AMI noticed that you conveniently side stepped what I said about Daft Punk since you know it unfortunately completely demolished your argument that soundtracks are classical music.
To be honest, if that piece by
Hans Zimmer and
Steve Mazzaro for
Kung Fu Panda 4 is classical, then I am the Emperor of Japan! ::)
Quote from: DavidW on March 10, 2024, 07:50:56 AMI noticed that you conveniently side stepped what I said about Daft Punk since you know it unfortunately completely demolished your argument that soundtracks are classical music.
Gotta keep the unengaged rant unengaged!
I didn't think I'd need a fourth bucket of popcorn but here we are...
At this point it's a battle of wills. Who will break first?
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 09, 2024, 12:57:34 PMWell, I've never met or read a single person say "John Williams got me into classical", or any other film composer for that matter. I've never even heard or read anyone of old say "Maurice Jarre got me into classical".
Quote from: San Antone on March 09, 2024, 04:14:20 PMFilms get people into other films; the music in films is secondary to the movie itself. People talk about scenes, or lines from movies they like, but I rarely hear people talk about the music. And to the extent they might, they certainly don't relate it to classical music, but other film music.
This poll (https://www.reddit.com/r/soundtracks/comments/1677xfp/do_you_like_classical_music_outside_of_soundtracks/) in the subreddit soundtracks (a Reddit group for people who love soundtracks) asked: "Do you like classical music outside of soundtracks?".
(https://i.ibb.co/WGqHGBb/SCM.png)
The answers of the voters:
- 76 votes: "Yes, but I prefer soundtracks"
- 56 votes: "Yes, and I like it as much as soundtracks"
- 11 votes: "Yes, and I like it even more than soundtracks"
- 4 votes: "I don't know classical music, but I'd like to explore it"
- 11 votes: "No, I only like classical soundtracks and I don't want to explore classical music"
- 6 votes: "No. I also don't like classical soundtracks."
Total = 162 votes
(76 + 56 + 11) / 162 = 88%
So, the 88% of the fans of soundtracks also like classical music and you want to tell me that there is no relation between classical music and soundtracks? Do you really want to tell me that soundtracks don't promote classical music, after you've seen this data?
I'd say that the typical fans of soundtracks are nothing else than fans of classical music whose favourite composers work for Hollywood.
Some hours ago I started a new poll in the subreddit "classicalmusic", which asks: "Were you attracted into classical music thanks to soundtracks?".
https://www.reddit.com/r/classicalmusic/comments/1bb9oa8/were_you_attracted_into_classical_music_thanks_to/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/classicalmusic/comments/1bb9oa8/were_you_attracted_into_classical_music_thanks_to/)
Since the poll is still opened, you can see the partial results only if you vote. You can see the current, partial results in my screenshot here below.
(https://i.ibb.co/WyGFMVH/screen.png)
(7 + 13 - 1) / (93 - 8 ) = 22%
I substract 1 because someone in the comments wrote that he voted the wrong option.
22% of people who listen to classical music today are here thanks to soundtracks.
You can pretend that this data is not relevant, if you want, but with this data in my hands I'll go on supporting my point.
22% is still not enough. We can do better.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 10, 2024, 09:17:53 AMThis poll (https://www.reddit.com/r/soundtracks/comments/1677xfp/do_you_like_classical_music_outside_of_soundtracks/) in the subreddit soundtracks (a Reddit group for people who love soundtracks) asked: "Do you like classical music outside of soundtracks?".
Both of your polls are leading questions. "Were you wearing that shirt when you were beating your wife?" You didn't ask them if they thought soundtracks were classical music, you instead assumed it in the question.
Quote from: DavidW on March 10, 2024, 07:50:56 AMI noticed that you conveniently side stepped what I said about Daft Punk since you know it unfortunately completely demolished your argument that soundtracks are classical music.
This a strawma, because I've never written that all soundtracks are classical music. I've written that MANY (but not all) soundtracks are based on classical music.
My point is precisely that "soundtrack" is not a musical genre because soundtracks can be based on many different genres of music, including classical music.
Quote from: ritter on March 10, 2024, 07:58:54 AMTo be honest, if that piece by Hans Zimmer and Steve Mazzaro for Kung Fu Panda 4 is classical, then I am the Emperor of Japan! ::)
An other strawman. I didn't write that they are classical, but that they are melody-focused. Examples to show that not all modern soundtracks are minimalistic, as stated by
@DavidW If we want to speak about the genre, I'll support that Kung Fu Panda 4 is not classical, while the other one it's at least close to classical music.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 10, 2024, 09:17:53 AMYou can pretend that this data is not relevant, if you want, but with this data in my hands I'll go on supporting my point.
btw if you actually read the comments you'll see that they all thought you meant classical music played within a movie instead of confusing film music with classical! Your strawman poll backfired in your face! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Quote from: DavidW on March 10, 2024, 11:33:13 AMbtw if you actually read the comments you'll see that they all thought you meant classical music played within a movie instead of confusing film music with classical! Your strawman poll backfired in your face! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
This. Exactly.
Anyway...I don't see the need for another 90 pages of this as the OP is determined to dismiss all outside opinion.
I'm out.
Quote from: DavidW on March 10, 2024, 11:33:13 AMbtw if you actually read the comments you'll see that they all thought you meant classical music played within a movie instead of confusing film music with classical! Your strawman poll backfired in your face! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Right! This is why I created a new poll this morning with a clearer title.
https://www.reddit.com/r/classicalmusic/comments/1bc09rb/were_original_classical_soundtracks_john_williams/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/classicalmusic/comments/1bc09rb/were_original_classical_soundtracks_john_williams/)
---------------------
Were ORIGINAL classical soundtracks (John Williams et al.) your entry point to classical music?Yesterday I created a poll with the title "Were you attracted into classical music thanks to soundtracks?", but I see that in the comments more users speak about already existing concert pieces USED in soundtracks, and not about classical-style soundtracks ORIGINALLY COMPOSED for films (the music of John Williams, Philip Glass, Nino Rota, and many other classical composers who work/worked for Hollywood).
Of course my question was about classical-style soundtracks ORIGINALLY COMPOSED for films. Infact, it's not particularily interesting to know how many people have heard Beethoven or Strauss for the first time in a film.
So, I'll create a new poll with a clearer question.
I read here and there that many people started to explore classical music after they felt in love with classical soundtracks ORIGINALLY COMPOSED for films. The ORIGINAL music specifically composed for the scores of films by classical composers who work/worked for Hollywood, like John Williams, Philip Glass, Nino Rota, and so on...).
I'd like to know how many people started to explore classical music thanks to them.---------------------
You can see the current results in this screenshot.
(https://i.ibb.co/6RWRhnR/screen.png)
(2 + 8 ) / (36 - 3) = 30%
With this new, clearer poll the "yes" answers have even increased, so many thanks for your assist. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Furthermore, there are also some people who started to listen to classical-style soundtracks as a consequence of their general interest for classical music.
If you sum the 30% with the other 16%, you get that the 46% of the voters think that soundtracks are relevant in respect to their interest for classical music.
What happens if the classical institutions ignore the interests of the 46% of the public of classical music? It happens that they do bad promotion of classical music. It's simple!
So, this proves my point: the people who rant against the promotion of soundtracks in the context of classical music clearily want to kill the good promotion of classical music, and therefore its popularity.
Quote from: DavidW on March 10, 2024, 07:50:56 AMI noticed that you conveniently side stepped what I said about Daft Punk since you know it unfortunately completely demolished your argument that soundtracks are classical music.
So what? They are not discussions about definitions!
According to your logic, I can't open a discussion which asks "What Is The Circumference Of The Earth?" because it doesn't consider the opinion of the people who believe that the earth is flat.
Definitions are not relevant. A 30% of people declare that they started to explore classical music thanks to soundtracks and that the 88% of people who like soundtracks also like classical concert music.
Do you really want to tell me that this data is not relevant?
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 11, 2024, 06:15:33 AMDo you really want to tell me that this data is not relevant?
Hey there. Part of my day job encompasses user research and analysis of customer data/responses. I don't have an axe to grind with any of the previous discussion in this thread, but speaking as a research and data professional, you probably need to realise that
your data isn't relevant either from a qualitative or a quantitative perspective.
I don't mean to be rude in any way by saying that. It just means that you have a tiny sample from a tiny pool of users with a particular level of interest and tech/forum use, over a tiny time frame, using a restrictive question.
Quote from: foxandpeng on March 11, 2024, 07:00:36 AMHey there. Part of my day job encompasses user research and analysis of customer data/responses. I don't have an axe to grind with any of the previous discussion in this thread, but coming from a data professional, you probably need to realise that your data isn't relevant either from a qualitative or a quantitative perspective.
I don't mean to be rude in any way by saying that. It just means that you have a tiny sample from a tiny pool of users with a particular level of interest and tech/forum use, over a tiny time frame, using a restrictive question.
The plain fact.
Quote from: foxandpeng on March 11, 2024, 07:00:36 AMHey there. Part of my day job encompasses user research and analysis of customer data/responses. I don't have an axe to grind with any of the previous discussion in this thread, but speaking as a research and data professional, you probably need to realise that your data isn't relevant either from a qualitative or a quantitative perspective.
I don't mean to be rude in any way by saying that. It just means that you have a tiny sample from a tiny pool of users with a particular level of interest and tech/forum use, over a tiny time frame, using a restrictive question.
Although I agree that this is not a peer-reviewed university research of the highest quality, your dispute in the context of this discussion sounds like "
@San Antone and
@SimonNZ can state something without any proof, while you need a university research to confutate their baseless statements".
I'm sorry, but I don't have the money to commission a university research, and it would be silly to spend it in response to completely baseless statements.
If you accuse me of inaccuracy but you forgive the baseless statements of San Antone and SimonNZ you clearily apply double standards.
It's interesting to see that while my data has been attacked, the posts of San Antone and SimonNZ have received 2-3 likes.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 11, 2024, 07:33:13 AMAlthough I agree that this is not a peer-reviewed university research of the highest quality, your dispute in the context of this discussion sounds like " @San Antone and @SimonNZ can state something without any proof and you need a university research to confutate their baseless statements".
I'm sorry, but I don't have the money to commission a university research, and it would be silly to spend it in response to completely baseless statements.
If you accuse me of inaccuracy but you forgive the baseless statements of San Antone and SimonNZ you clearily apply double standards.
It's interesting to see that while my data has been attacked, the posts of San Antone and SimonNZ have received 2-3 likes.
Hi bud. Sorry to see you take this personally. There is no attack here, simply a response to the question, 'Do you really want to tell me that this data isn't relevant?'
Well, yes, I do. It isn't relevant. I'm not encouraging you to invest in rigorous research - just encouraging you not to arrive at false conclusions while suggesting that 'data supports this'.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 11, 2024, 05:56:46 AMRight! This is why I created a new poll this morning with a clearer title.
https://www.reddit.com/r/classicalmusic/comments/1bc09rb/were_original_classical_soundtracks_john_williams/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/classicalmusic/comments/1bc09rb/were_original_classical_soundtracks_john_williams/)
---------------------
Were ORIGINAL classical soundtracks (John Williams et al.) your entry point to classical music?
Yesterday I created a poll with the title "Were you attracted into classical music thanks to soundtracks?", but I see that in the comments more users speak about already existing concert pieces USED in soundtracks, and not about classical-style soundtracks ORIGINALLY COMPOSED for films (the music of John Williams, Philip Glass, Nino Rota, and many other classical composers who work/worked for Hollywood).
Nicely done! I applaud your transparency. FYI my local orchestra plays showtunes, film music, pop hits along with the great classical warhorses. It all depends on the orchestra and the audience. :)
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 11, 2024, 05:56:46 AMWere ORIGINAL classical soundtracks (John Williams et al.) your entry point to classical music?
Interestingly not. I never thought about music in movies as
classical music. I think this is because the visuality of the movies made the audiovisual experience feel much more
cooler and
modern for me.
Quote from: 71 dB on March 11, 2024, 11:12:50 AMInterestingly not. I never thought about music in movies as classical music. I think this is because the visuality of the movies made the audiovisual experience feel much more cooler and modern for me.
So, do you see "classical" and "modern" as opposites? I don't agree, because there is old popular music and modern classical music! "Classical music" doesn't mean "old antimodern music".
While I'm watching a film I don't even notice the music, to be honest. It's in part because I'm focused on what happens in the film, in part because the music stays in background, covered by speeches and noises, most of the time.
If you want to notice the classical nature of determined soundtracks you have to listen to the music outside of the film and pay attention to the details.
I suspect that while you are watching Star Wars you don't notice the fugato in the March of Resistance, but it's an important element to understand the classical nature of the piece.
Quote from: foxandpeng on March 11, 2024, 07:42:58 AMHi bud. Sorry to see you take this personally. There is no attack here, simply a response to the question, 'Do you really want to tell me that this data isn't relevant?'
Well, yes, I do. It isn't relevant. I'm not encouraging you to invest in rigorous research - just encouraging you not to arrive at false conclusions while suggesting that 'data supports this'.
I didn't take it personal. I never take something personal unless other people make it personal.
If you read my posts, you will see that they are all focused on contents, not on people. On the other hand, many of my opponents try to make it personal, but I try not to fall in their game.
If I don't take it personal, you should also not take it personal if I attack the contents of your posts.
In regards to what you are writing (nothing personal), I'll tell you that you should simply be honest and admit that while my conclusions are based on SOMETHING, the ones of
@SimonNZ and
@San Antone are based on NOTHING.
Now the poll is closed, we can see tha final results.
https://www.reddit.com/r/classicalmusic/comments/1bc09rb/were_original_classical_soundtracks_john_williams/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/classicalmusic/comments/1bc09rb/were_original_classical_soundtracks_john_williams/)
Question: Were ORIGINAL classical soundtracks (John Williams et al.) your entry point to classical music?- 7 votes (7.9%): Yes, I started to explore classical music thanks to ORIGINAL classical-style soundtracks (John Williams et al.).
- 21 votes (23.6%): Yes, ORIGINAL classical-style soundtracks played a role, together with some pieces of concert music.
- 14 votes (15.7%): No, the opposite: after I got into classical concert music I started to explore classical-style soundtracks.
- 40 votes (44.9%): No, soundtracks didn't play any role: I've never had any interest for them.
- 7 votes (7.9%): I don't want to vote.
(https://i.ibb.co/6gJzqx8/screen.png)
We can start commenting the last data.
In this post (https://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,32903.msg1555517.html#msg1555517) San Antone wrote: "Films get people into other films; the music in films is secondary to the movie itself. People talk about scenes, or lines from movies they like, but I rarely hear people talk about the music. And to the extent they might, they certainly don't relate it to classical music, but other film music."
I can ensure you that it's not the first time that he writes similar things. He keeps repeating things like this on and on in an other forum.
Basically, his interpretation of the reality is: since I have no interest for film music, it means that it's objectively not interesting and so most people must be like me.
Now, the last data of the poll shows that he is only speaking about a part of the people (44.9%), not about MOST or ALL people.
MANY people have an interest for soundtracks.
Then he says that the small fraction (which is in reality not a small fraction) of people who like soundtracks, don't relate it to classical music.
Well, the 47.2% of the voters declare to have an interest for soundtracks in connection with their interest for classical music.
The 39.3% of the voters declare that they got into classical music thanks to soundtracks and the 15.7% of the voters declare that they started to explore soundtracks as a consequence of their general interest for classical music.
NOW, what foxandpeng was trying to explain is that this data is not highly reliable and I agree with him, but what he completely forgets to explain is that between having NOTHING (like San Antone) and having a high quality peer-reviewed research with a large sample, there is a point in the middle, which is "to have SOMETHING".
More precisely, the point is that in statistics there is a margin of error, which decreases as the sample becomes bigger.
So, a sample of 100 people is better than a sample of 10 people, a sample of 1'000 people is better than a sample of 100 people, a sample of 10'000 people is better than a sample of 1'000 people and the entire world population is better than a sample.
Now, in serious scientific research a sample of 89 people (like in my poll) it's not considered satisfactory if the studied universe is very big (and the universe of "people who listen to classical music" is certainly very big) because the margin of error is too big for the standards of science, but if foxandpeng is honest, he should admit that in the context of this discussion a sample of 89 people is at least SOMETHING (not NOTHING) simply because the high precision is not really relevant here: we can tolerate a margin of error.
I mean, is it really relevant if the people who get into classical music thanks to soundtracks are not in reality the 39%, but the 30% or the 49%?
No, it's not. I don't need precise numbers to support my thesis. An interval of 30-49% for me is relevant to support my idea.
Perhaps what foxandpeng want to say is that with a sample of 1'000 people the data might decrease to 1%, but no, the margin of error is not so big.
He also speaks about quality (not only about quantity) and I know what he wants to say: the users of Reddit might belong to a strict category of people.
Yes, I confirm that it's true: most users of the subreddit "classicalmusic" are males between 18 and 30 years old.
So, my data is about 18-29 years old males who like classical music, not about all people who like classical music.
However, is this a problem? For me, it's not, because I'm speaking about promotion of classical music, which should be thought to work especially for children, teens and young adults, since these are the people who will dictate the direction of the world in the next 70 years.
If a lot of young people get into classical music thanks to classical soundtracks and you promote the idea that the classical musicians should ignore soundtracks because you have arbitrarily decided that they are not classical music, it means that you want (conciously or inconciously) kill the good promotion of classical music, and its popularity in the next 70 years with it.
Now, I don't have the data to support this, but many people (including me) perceive that in the new generations the interests for classical music is quite low. If our perception is right, we should care about good promotions of classical music especially among the young people.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 12, 2024, 02:29:25 AMSo, do you see "classical" and "modern" as opposites? I don't agree, because there is old popular music and modern classical music! "Classical music" doesn't mean "old antimodern music".
I DID back when I wasn't into classical and knew nothing. I have been into classical music for almost 3 decades now and my views are completely different.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 12, 2024, 02:29:25 AMWhile I'm watching a film I don't even notice the music, to be honest. It's in part because I'm focused on what happens in the film, in part because the music stays in background, covered by speeches and noises, most of the time.
You notice the emotional impact of the music which is the purpose of movie music. A movie become surprisingly different experience if the music is removed or changed.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 12, 2024, 02:29:25 AMIf you want to notice the classical nature of determined soundtracks you have to listen to the music outside of the film and pay attention to the details.
Yes, but this advice comes 30 years late in my case. I have noticed the "classical nature of determined soundtracks" long ago...
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 12, 2024, 02:29:25 AMI suspect that while you are watching Star Wars you don't notice the fugato in the March of Resistance, but it's an important element to understand the classical nature of the piece.
I don't know well the music of Disney Star Wars. I'm more of a fan of Lucas Star Wars.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 12, 2024, 04:24:46 AMI didn't take it personal. I never take something personal unless other people make it personal.
If you read my posts, you will see that they are all focused on contents, not on people. On the other hand, many of my opponents try to make it personal, but I try not to fall in their game.
If I don't take it personal, you should also not take it personal if I attack the contents of your posts.
In regards to what you are writing (nothing personal), I'll tell you that you should simply be honest and admit that while my conclusions are based on SOMETHING, the ones of @SimonNZ and @San Antone are based on NOTHING.
Now the poll is closed, we can see tha final results.
https://www.reddit.com/r/classicalmusic/comments/1bc09rb/were_original_classical_soundtracks_john_williams/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/classicalmusic/comments/1bc09rb/were_original_classical_soundtracks_john_williams/)
Question: Were ORIGINAL classical soundtracks (John Williams et al.) your entry point to classical music?
- 7 votes (7.9%): Yes, I started to explore classical music thanks to ORIGINAL classical-style soundtracks (John Williams et al.).
- 21 votes (23.6%): Yes, ORIGINAL classical-style soundtracks played a role, together with some pieces of concert music.
- 14 votes (15.7%): No, the opposite: after I got into classical concert music I started to explore classical-style soundtracks.
- 40 votes (44.9%): No, soundtracks didn't play any role: I've never had any interest for them.
- 7 votes (7.9%): I don't want to vote.
(https://i.ibb.co/6gJzqx8/screen.png)
We can start commenting the last data.
In this post (https://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,32903.msg1555517.html#msg1555517) San Antone wrote: "Films get people into other films; the music in films is secondary to the movie itself. People talk about scenes, or lines from movies they like, but I rarely hear people talk about the music. And to the extent they might, they certainly don't relate it to classical music, but other film music."
I can ensure you that it's not the first time that he writes similar things. He keeps repeating things like this on and on in an other forum.
Basically, his interpretation of the reality is: since I have no interest for film music, it means that it's objectively not interesting and so most people must be like me.
Now, the last data of the poll shows that he is only speaking about a part of the people (44.9%), not about MOST or ALL people.
MANY people have an interest for soundtracks.
Then he says that the small fraction (which is in reality not a small fraction) of people who like soundtracks, don't relate it to classical music.
Well, the 47.2% of the voters declare to have an interest for soundtracks in connection with their interest for classical music.
The 39.3% of the voters declare that they got into classical music thanks to soundtracks and the 15.7% of the voters declare that they started to explore soundtracks as a consequence of their general interest for classical music.
NOW, what foxandpeng was trying to explain is that this data is not highly reliable and I agree with him, but what he completely forgets to explain is that between having NOTHING (like San Antone) and having a high quality peer-reviewed research with a large sample, there is a point in the middle, which is "to have SOMETHING".
More precisely, the point is that in statistics there is a margin of error, which decreases as the sample becomes bigger.
So, a sample of 100 people is better than a sample of 10 people, a sample of 1'000 people is better than a sample of 100 people, a sample of 10'000 people is better than a sample of 1'000 people and the entire world population is better than a sample.
Now, in serious scientific research a sample of 89 people (like in my poll) it's not considered satisfactory if the studied universe is very big (and the universe of "people who listen to classical music" is certainly very big) because the margin of error is too big for the standards of science, but if foxandpeng is honest, he should admit that in the context of this discussion a sample of 89 people is at least SOMETHING (not NOTHING) simply because the high precision is not really relevant here: we can tolerate a margin of error.
I mean, is it really relevant if the people who get into classical music thanks to soundtracks are not in reality the 39%, but the 30% or the 49%?
No, it's not. I don't need precise numbers to support my thesis. An interval of 30-49% for me is relevant to support my idea.
Perhaps what foxandpeng want to say is that with a sample of 1'000 people the data might decrease to 1%, but no, the margin of error is not so big.
He also speaks about quality (not only about quantity) and I know what he wants to say: the users of Reddit might belong to a strict category of people.
Yes, I confirm that it's true: most users of the subreddit "classicalmusic" are males between 18 and 30 years old.
So, my data is about 18-29 years old males who like classical music, not about all people who like classical music.
However, is this a problem? For me, it's not, because I'm speaking about promotion of classical music, which should be thought to work especially for children, teens and young adults, since these are the people who will dictate the direction of the world in the next 70 years.
If a lot of young people get into classical music thanks to classical soundtracks and you promote the idea that the classical musicians should ignore soundtracks because you have arbitrarily decided that they are not classical music, it means that you want (conciously or inconciously) kill the good promotion of classical music, and its popularity in the next 70 years with it.
Now, I don't have the data to support this, but many people (including me) perceive that in the new generations the interests for classical music is quite low. If our perception is right, we should care about good promotions of classical music especially among the young people.
I did wonder whether to respond or whether to just keep scrolling, as I was only answering the question,
'Do you really want to tell me that this data isn't relevant?', but here goes ;D
I do hope you really haven't taken my comments personally, although the general tone of your response suggests that maybe you have. Perhaps your use of the language of 'attack' and 'opponents' is intended to be less emotive than it sounds. Perhaps not.
Hope you don't mind me responding to a couple of points, hopefully in as warm a spirit as I can?
I would always want to simply be honest, although your doubt about that in several places was interesting and made me smile :). Without engaging with any of the comments exchanged between yourself and others - many of which I haven't taken time to read - it's probably best I speak solely to the issue I picked up about your poll and believing it provides accurate data to support your argument.
Amongst other things, you said that:
what foxandpeng was trying to explain is that this data is not highly reliable and I agree with him, but what he completely forgets to explain is that between having NOTHING (like San Antone) and having a high quality peer-reviewed research with a large sample, there is a point in the middle, which is "to have SOMETHING".I'm probably the best person to speak to what I was trying to explain, and whether I forgot to include anything in that explanation. I didn't suggest that your data wasn't highly reliable - I suggested that for the point you were seeking to make, your data was completely irrelevant and of no value to support your argument. The poll that you conducted, interesting as it may be to you, isn't better than nothing. Having 'something' isn't better and you can't draw meaningful conclusions from it. Forgive me if that sounds direct, but you seem comfortable with being direct. I don't want to sound like I am schooling you - my OP was simply to save you making claims about something based on 'data'. Your data doesn't say what you think it says, and not just because of your sample size.
It's ok to assert your opinion, because good or bad, right or wrong, true or false, it is your opinion. I just wanted to save you from saying that factual data backs up what you think, and from seeking to convince folk that you have something more empirically solid than your opinion. You might be absolutely correct in what you believe. Who knows?
This poll is interesting but you can't extrapolate from it the conclusions you wish to draw :)
Quote from: foxandpeng on March 12, 2024, 09:10:59 AMI did wonder whether to respond or whether to just keep scrolling, as I was only answering the question, 'Do you really want to tell me that this data isn't relevant?', but here goes ;D
I do hope you really haven't taken my comments personally, although the general tone of your response suggests that maybe you have. Perhaps your use of the language of 'attack' and 'opponents' is intended to be less emotive than it sounds. Perhaps not.
I'm not a native English speaker: my English has a low resolution. I always use the few words that I know, and I might not be completely aware of their precise connotation.
In a discussion, I call "opponents" the people who don't agree with you and attack your arguments. There is nothing personal in calling someone "opponent": it's only an objective description.
QuoteHope you don't mind me responding to a couple of points, hopefully in as warm a spirit as I can?
I would always want to simply be honest, although your doubt about that in several places was interesting and made me smile :). Without engaging with any of the comments exchanged between yourself and others - many of which I haven't taken time to read - it's probably best I speak solely to the issue I picked up about your poll and believing it provides accurate data to support your argument.
Amongst other things, you said that:
what foxandpeng was trying to explain is that this data is not highly reliable and I agree with him, but what he completely forgets to explain is that between having NOTHING (like San Antone) and having a high quality peer-reviewed research with a large sample, there is a point in the middle, which is "to have SOMETHING".
I'm probably the best person to speak to what I was trying to explain, and whether I forgot to include anything in that explanation. I didn't suggest that your data wasn't highly reliable - I suggested that for the point you were seeking to make, your data was completely irrelevant and of no value to support your argument. The poll that you conducted, interesting as it may be to you, isn't better than nothing. Having 'something' isn't better and you can't draw meaningful conclusions from it. Forgive me if that sounds direct, but you seem comfortable with being direct. I don't want to sound like I am schooling you - my OP was simply to save you making claims about something based on 'data'. Your data doesn't say what you think it says, and not just because of your sample size.
It's ok to assert your opinion, because good or bad, right or wrong, true or false, it is your opinion. I just wanted to save you from saying that factual data backs up what you think, and from seeking to convince folk that you have something more empirically solid than your opinion. You might be absolutely correct in what you believe. Who knows?
This poll is interesting but you can't extrapolate from it the conclusions you wish to draw :)
I don't agree. Basically, you are saying that if you don't have a peer-reviewed university research you have absolutely NOTHING. It's like to say that if you don't eat the food of an Italian restaurant, you eat poop.
The world is not black and white.
You wrote that the problem is not the size of the sample, so it means that there is something wrong in the poll itself.
Well, why don't you write your highly professional poll with question and options written by you. I'll be happy to post it in Reddit, but we will have to wait for a while, because I've already created two polls of this kind in the last days and if I'll create a new poll in the next days someone might think that I'm a bot.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 13, 2024, 03:25:32 AMI'll be happy to post it in Reddit, but we will have to wait for a while,
It would not be a good poll then. Having volunteers on of all things a subreddit is not a diverse community that adequately represents the classical music audience as a whole. Furthermore, you equate participating in a poll is tacit agreement with your assertion that soundtracks are classical which nobody on the subreddit agrees with you, nobody on this forum agrees with and nobody on TC either.
Furthermore, you KNOW that, and that is why you ask different questions and take their answers as some kind of agreement to a question you never asked them.
Your polls don't indicate agreement. Also in 13 pages you have not only failed to convince anyone on this forum, but you've managed to do the opposite: harden opinions of the more open minded people against your position.
I think you should just admit that you're really bad at this. You're terrible at spirited debate. You are not persuasive at all. And you rarely have a factual foundation for any of your arguments. Please just give up. You have utterly failed in what you have set out to do.
Quote from: DavidW on March 13, 2024, 03:50:00 AMI think you should just admit that you're really bad at this. You're terrible at spirited debate. You are not persuasive at all. And you rarely have a factual foundation for any of your arguments. Please just give up. You have utterly failed in what you have set out to do.
One big step in the right direction would be: Consider the possibility that your priors are incorrect.
I looked for relevant research on the internet - sorted ;).
(https://i.imgflip.com/s48fs.png)
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 13, 2024, 03:25:32 AMI'm not a native English speaker: my English has a low resolution. I always use the few words that I know, and I might not be completely aware of their precise connotation.
In a discussion, I call "opponents" the people who don't agree with you and attack your arguments. There is nothing personal in calling someone "opponent": it's only an objective description.
I don't agree. Basically, you are saying that if you don't have a peer-reviewed university research you have absolutely NOTHING. It's like to say that if you don't eat the food of an Italian restaurant, you eat poop.
The world is not black and white.
You wrote that the problem is not the size of the sample, so it means that there is something wrong in the poll itself.
Well, why don't you write your highly professional poll with question and options written by you. I'll be happy to post it in Reddit, but we will have to wait for a while, because I've already created two polls of this kind in the last days and if I'll create a new poll in the next days someone might think that I'm a bot.
I'm probably out at those point, my friend. I don't want to add to the offence you feel, and you are misreading what I'm saying. This, of course, may be my fault. If pushing back at you in the same way that you have pushed back elsewhere has been unhelpful, it probably isn't fruitful to engage further.
Quote from: DavidW on March 13, 2024, 03:50:00 AMFurthermore, you equate participating in a poll is tacit agreement with your assertion that soundtracks are classical which nobody on the subreddit agrees with you, nobody on this forum agrees with and nobody on TC either.
False.
In the subreddit "classicalmusic" I've seen discussions about the "best classical soundtracks". There was a lot of partecipation, many upvotes to the OP and no one wrote that classical soundtracks don't exist.
In this forum in the main section there is a discussion about soundtracks of 81 pages, where the users insert new material each week.
Most users in this discussion didn't write that they don't agree about the fact that classical soundtracks exist. The position of most of my opponents is basically "You shouldn't care about a minority of people who don't have any control of the institutions of classical music" and "You shouldn't be so rude" (and I still don't understand why do they think that I'm rude).
In TC someone created a poll some years ago which asked "Are soundtracks classical music?". Most people (about 75%) voted "Yes" and "Sometimes", a minority of users voted "No".
Of course the correct answer is "sometimes" and "Yes" and "No" are both wrong answers.
This is exactly your problem: you don't understand that the correctness of a notion has nothing to do with the popularity of the notion.
If the democracy would lead to correct conclusions, the 99% of people in the poll of TC would have voted "sometimes".
I will never create a poll to determine the truth about the subject, because it would be a logical fallacy, an argument ad populum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum).
It's like to say that the IPCC must create a popular, democratic poll to determine if the theory of the global warming is correct or not.
This is not how serious research of the truth works.
The research of the truth is about serious debates. I give you arguments, you give me counterarguments, and viceversa.
The polls are useful to ask people about their personal experiences, but not to establish the truth of determined notions.
For example, if the subject is "homosexuality" you can create a poll to ask the people if they have ever had homosexual feelings or homosexual experiences, but you don't create a poll to ask if homosexuality is genetical.
In my poll in Reddit, the users were asked about their personal experiences (how many of them arrived to classical music thanks to soundtracks), and I won't never create a poll like "Are soundtracks classical music?", because it wouldn't make any sense.
Don't you agree about the fact the soundtracks are SOMETIMES classical music? Then you can explain what's wrong in this text of the website "rateyourmusic", which recognizes "cinematic classsical" as a subcategory of "western classical music".
https://rateyourmusic.com/genre/cinematic-classical/
-------------
This genre describes the style of orchestral compositions generally associated with soundtracks to modern high-budget films, games, and other non-live media. It has its roots in Western Classical Music, particularly late Romanticism, taking inspiration from the dramatism, large orchestra, use of leitmotif, and emotiveness of the genre. There is also a notable influence from Modern Classical, with its common focus on atmosphere and texture over melody. Additionally, non-classical sources such as Traditional Folk Music, Jazz and modern popular music are often incorporated into the orchestral setting, generally to set the location, themes or time period of the accompanying media. The style is played with a large symphonic orchestra, with additional modern and non-Western instruments included if required by the composer. Whilst this form of music is associated strongly with soundtracks, not every example of it is a soundtrack, and not every orchestral soundtrack fits this style.
The development of synchronised sound allowed full symphony orchestras to accompany films, not bound by the size of a cinema. Most films of the period of the 1930s and 1940s were scored with a combination of Easy Listening and operatic romanticism, particularly influenced by Richard Wagner and Richard Strauss. Some early examples exist of scores beginning to fuse romantic and modern classical for dramatic effect however, such as Wolfgang Zeller's score to the 1932 horror film Vampyr.
The 1950s was the decade where mainstream soundtracks begun to move away from pure romanticism, into the more modern and eclectic approach described by this grouping. In this period, composers such as Miklós Rózsa begun using musicological research to inform their works to create soundtracks that would fit better with a film's setting. Composers who studied with or were influenced by avant-garde modern classical composers also began to emerge. They used new techniques like atonality, unresolved dissonance and even Serialism in their works, though not to the extent that the soundtrack would be inaccessible to the general public. Particularly influential from this time were Bernard Herrmann's works for filmmaker Alfred Hitchcock, including Vertigo and Psycho.
This approach to orchestral music became the standard. For example, Ennio Morricone's soundtrack to Il buono, il brutto, il cattivo [The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly] fuses melodic symphonic orchestral sections with tense, dissonant modernism and non-classical sources that indicate location such as Mexican Folk Music and Western music, creating the widely known sound of Spaghetti Western. John Williams fused the sweeping late period romanticism of 'Golden Age' Hollywood scores with melodic symphonic bombast, sections of 20th century atonality and dissonant cluster chords. The incorporation of some Electronic elements into the orchestral setting became common as synthesizers and digital technology became more widely accessible, for example Wendy Carlos's soundtrack to TRON. Minimalism was another important later influence on the style, with Hans Zimmer's soundtrack to Inception very clearly showing the incorporation of the genre in its repetitive nature under the Epic Music style. Note, however, that not all modern orchestral soundtracks fit this style, such as the score to The Shining which is more purely derived from avant-garde modern classical, and the score to The Age of Innocence which returns to classical romanticism to fit its setting.
Whilst mostly associated with films, the style can be found in other media. In television, the style is used mostly in cinematic, fictional series, with examples including Star Trek, Game of Thrones and Lost. Video games were initially bound by their technical limitations, though attempts were made to recreate the style in certain adventure games such as I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream. Later, pre-recorded soundtracks were made possible, which allowed for orchestral soundtracks, with examples of this style being found in games such as Halo 3 and Shadow of the Colossus.
Quote from: Karl Henning on March 13, 2024, 06:36:11 AMOne big step in the right direction would be: Consider the possibility that your priors are incorrect.
Only if there are valid counterarguments. In the OP all counterarguments that I've met till today have been confutated.
Perhaps what you want to say is that I should abandon my position even if no one give me valid arguments, but I don't see why should I.
To have the courage of your opinions is a virtue, not a defect.
Quote from: steve ridgway on March 13, 2024, 09:10:52 AMI looked for relevant research on the internet - sorted ;).
(https://i.imgflip.com/s48fs.png)
What about:
- John Williams - Star Wars: Imperial March
and
- Mendelssohn - A Midsummer Night's Dream: Wedding March
It's a format that tells you everything you have to know.
Quote from: foxandpeng on March 13, 2024, 10:04:59 AMI'm probably out at those point, my friend. I don't want to add to the offence you feel, and you are misreading what I'm saying. This, of course, may be my fault. If pushing back at you in the same way that you have pushed back elsewhere has been unhelpful, it probably isn't fruitful to engage further.
I'm not offended. I'm trying to do a serious debate with you. Apparently the one who take serious debates as a personal thing are you.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 14, 2024, 06:15:00 AMI'm not offended. I'm trying to do a serious debate with you. Apparently the one who take serious debates as a personal thing are you.
Ha. As I say, I'm out.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 14, 2024, 06:15:00 AMI'm not offended. I'm trying to do a serious debate with you. Apparently the one who take serious debates as a personal thing are you.
Okay let's not be churlish. Fox was helpful and friendly.
Quote from: foxandpeng on March 14, 2024, 06:26:52 AMHa. As I say, I'm out.
The latest one to fall into this sink-hole of a thread!
Quote from: Spotted Horses on March 14, 2024, 07:16:27 AMThe latest one to fall into this sink-hole of a thread!
I still don't understand what is the problem of this thread. It's only a debate like many other. Please, explain what would you change in this thread.
What is the point of the debate? You're stubbornly refusing to see and acknowledge other opinions, doubling, tripling down on your own flawed logic.
As you're not going to, DavidW should take us all out by tossing this thread into the ocean where it belongs.
Quote from: Maestro267 on March 14, 2024, 08:02:41 AMWhat is the point of the debate? You're stubbornly refusing to see and acknowledge other opinions, doubling, tripling down on your own flawed logic.
As you're not going to, DavidW should take us all out by tossing this thread into the ocean where it belongs.
I'm sorry, but no one here has tried to respond to what I wrote in the OP. The discussion is mostly focused on speaking about me and about the discussion in itself. It's a discussion about the discussion, not a discussion about the contents of the discussion.
If there was anyone who didn't agree with my position that some soundtracks are classical music, the debate would have been more interesting, but it seems that no one except for San Antone supports that classical soundtracks don't exist.
@Florestan might be right about the fact that I've opened the discussion in the wrong forum, but what exactly should I respond to the users who tell me that trying to launch a serious debate is wrong, because if you do so it means that you rant?
QuoteWhat is the point of the debate? You're stubbornly refusing to see and acknowledge other opinions, doubling, tripling down on your own flawed logic.
No, I'm not doing this. I give arguments and you give counterarguments, and viceversa.
No one has been assaulted by me. Apparently you think that if someone writes XY, I have to agree with XY and I don't have the right to not agree with XY and give counterarguments to XY.
You want to deny my right to my opinion.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 15, 2024, 04:30:16 AMIf there was anyone who didn't agree with my position that some soundtracks are classical music, the debate would have been more interesting, but it seems that no one except for San Antone supports that classical soundtracks don't exist.
If you really want to argue I suppose someone could take the view that derivative compositions in the styles of long ago constitute
"classical style" music rather than
"real classical" music.
Quote from: steve ridgway on March 15, 2024, 10:19:39 AMIf you really want to argue I suppose someone could take the view that derivative compositions in the styles of long ago constitute "classical style" music rather than "real classical" music.
Yes, it's one of the positions that I've met in similar debates, and it sounds very much like an attack towards all classical composers who refuse the modern fashions (atonality, atmosphere over melody, and so on...) and prefer to compose contemporary classical music based on a more traditional aesthetic.
Fortunately, the composers of soundtracks are not the only one who compose like this.
This is the last piece of contemporary music that I listened to (2-3 days ago).
Sebastian Baverstam - Cello Concerto in D minor
Now, if someone says that soundtracks inspired to traditional classical music are not classical music, then he should also say the same thing about the piece of Sebastian Baverstam and many other contemporary composers who refuse modern fashions, but I don't see what is the point of starting internal wars in a musical genre that it's probably already losing popularity.
Do we really want to reduce classical music to a highly prescriptive artform (note that "highly prescriptive" and "art" are opposites)?
I don't like the modern fashions of classical music, but I have nothing against them: there are people who like this kind of music and the composers are free to please them, but I expect the same tolerance towards my personal tastes and towards the contemporary composers who want to compose the music that I like.
If a fan of avantgarde music throws poop towards determined artistic movements, he can't complain if the people do the same with avantgarde music.
Considering that the traditional classical music is clearily the core of classical music (the one that everyone knows and associates with the "classical sound"), to sell the idea that avantgarde is not real classical music is esier than selling the idea that the Cello Concerto in D minor of Sebastian Baverstam or the Hedwig Theme of John Williams is not real classical music.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 16, 2024, 01:48:58 AMIf a fan of avantgarde music throws poop towards determined artistic movements, he can't complain if the people do the same with avantgarde music.
Considering that the traditional classical music is clearily the core of classical music (the one that everyone knows and associate with the "classical sound"), it's esier to sell the idea that avantgarde is not real classical music is esier than selling the idea that the Cello Concerto in D minor of Sebastian Baverstam or the Hedwig Theme of John Williams is not real classical music.
True, I don't know when avant garde stopped developing and became a style in turn, but it must be something like fifty years now.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 14, 2024, 07:57:07 AMI still don't understand what is the problem of this thread. It's only a debate like many other. Please, explain what would you change in this thread.
I can't claim to have read every post in this thread, but the gist of it is that you obsessively repeat your contention that film music "is classical music," repeating arguments that no one seems to find compelling, and dismiss any disagreement without any serious consideration. As I argued somewhere above, the definition of classical music is vague, are individuals (including you, and including me and everyone else) are free to decide for ourselves what is and what isn't classical music. Performers, concert producers and record producers are also free to decide what they consider classical music. I don't see why you would devote so much time to trying to compel people to accept your view.
My view is that film music is a "special effect." It is like CGI (computer generated imagery) or a stunt. Putting film music in a concert hall would be like putting a frame from Star Wars in an art gallery, or having Jackie Chan perform a fight sequence from
Rumble in the Bronx on a ballet stage. Maybe you could argue people who come to an art museum to see Star Wars CGI might stay to look at Rembrandt paintings, or people who came to the ballet to see Jackie Chan would stay to see Swan Lake, but I doubt it.
Speaking only for myself, an important characteristic of classical music is that it is self-sufficient and compelling, and demands attention. There have been instances where composers of film music have used the themes and other elements from their film music to create concert pieces. I wouldn't hesitate to call such efforts classical music. Probably 0.1% of film music would qualify.
And, as I prepare to press save, I ask myself why I have let myself get drawn into this thread again.
Quote from: Spotted Horses on March 16, 2024, 09:41:53 AMAnd, as I prepare to press save, I ask myself why I have let myself get drawn into this thread again.
(https://nerdinthecity.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/g6m0rhy.gif)
>:D
Quote from: steve ridgway on March 16, 2024, 05:50:06 AMTrue, I don't know when avant garde stopped developing and became a style in turn, but it must be something like fifty years now.
If avant garde isn't classical, nothing is.
Quote from: DavidW on March 16, 2024, 10:49:16 AMIf avant garde isn't classical, nothing is.
Not to mention, many things were avant garde in their time. "I'm looking at you, Beethoven 9!"
-Bruce
Quote from: DavidW on March 16, 2024, 10:49:16 AMIf avant garde isn't classical, nothing is.
I don't think the definition of
classical music as a genre is all that clear. Why is Boulez' music "classical." Isn't it just weird? Some of it has weird electronic gimmickry, and is it ever really performed in a concert? Not that I want to open another can of worms.
Quote from: Spotted Horses on March 16, 2024, 10:39:48 PMI don't think the definition of classical music as a genre is all that clear. Why is Boulez' music "classical." Isn't it just weird? Some of it has weird electronic gimmickry, and is it ever really performed in a concert? Not that I want to open another can of worms.
The only rule left standing in the end was that the music had to be composed by, or at least bear the name of, an accredited classical composer.
In June 1945, Boulez was one of four Conservatoire students awarded premier prix. He was described in the examiner's report as "the most gifted—a composer". - Wikipedia
I don't think what defines classical music is the surface aspect, i.e. the sound or style.
To me the defining aspect of classical music is the intention of the composer:
- for what purpose is this work being written?
- in what tradition do I consider myself a part?
- what primary audience am I writing for?
- where, what venue, would be most open to having this work performed?
If, after asking these questions, the genre of classical music seems right, then the work is a classical work.
Quote from: Spotted Horses on March 16, 2024, 09:41:53 AMI can't claim to have read every post in this thread, but the gist of it is that you obsessively repeat your contention that film music "is classical music," repeating arguments that no one seems to find compelling
No one except for the society?
Perhaps it's important to explain that I'm not claiming an "alternative theory". The people who support an alternative theory are the ones who say that classical soundtracks don't exist.
Websites which list "classical film score"/"classical soundtrack" among the subcategories of classical music.
https://rateyourmusic.com/genre/cinematic-classical/
https://www.allmusic.com/genre/classical-ma0000002521
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_classical_music_genres
https://www.prestomusic.com/classical/genres
https://www.naxos.com/Catalogue
https://halloffame.classicfm.com/2023/
There are some people who support the alternative theory that classical soundtracks don't exist. My discussions give them the opportunity to express their opinion.
I think that it's important to note that most people who reject this classification don't deny that classical-style soundtracks exist.
The problem is that the widely accepted way to classificate music is the one based on styles, therefore classical-style = classical.
What I'm trying to prove in this discussion is that if you reject the classification based on style, "classical music" means nothing.
In the OP I refute the consistency of other classifications:
- "Classical music is absolute music" ---> False, unless you don't remove opera, incidental music and programmatic music from the genre.
- "Classical music is music that is not commercial" ----> False, unless you dont' remove Mozart and Beethoven (examples of professional composers) from classical music.
- "Classical music is music that has been composed in total freedom" ---> False, unless you don't remove the String Quartet No. 13 of Beethoven from the genre.
- "Classical music is music that has passed the test of time" ---> False, unless you don't remove contemporary music and old composers of classical-style music that no one knows from the category.
The majority of the classical composers of the past are unknown, so you should remove their works from the category.
There is not even a wikipedia page for Johann Friedrich Eck. Was he a composer of classical music or not?
My question for the supporters of the alternative theory is really, really simple: can you formulate a consistent definition of "classical music" not based on form-style? Can you demonostrate that the classification in the real world is not based on form-style?
Quoteand dismiss any disagreement without any serious consideration.
To say that I don't give serious consideration to the arguments of the supporters of the alternative theory is unfair, since I've opened a discussion to summarize their arguments and I've written a very long text to respond to them.
Perhaps in your mind to take in serious consideration their opinions means that I have to agree with them and not writing counterarguments that show the logical inconsistency of their alternative classifications.
For me, the fact that I take the time to respond to their arguments means that I take them in serious consideration.
QuoteAs I argued somewhere above, the definition of classical music is vague, are individuals (including you, and including me and everyone else) are free to decide for ourselves what is and what isn't classical music.
Of course every definition is subjective, but every serious deifnition is based on logical consistency. I'm asking to show the logical consistency of alternative definitions of "classical music" not based on form-style.
The point is that the definition exclusively based on form-style is consistent, and this is why it's the widely accepted definition.
The definition based on form-style include classical-style soundtracks.
Before someone tells me that the classification is not consistent because classical music includes different styles, I'll tell you that this is called "stylistic evolution" and that it's a thing that happens in every genre.
The reason for which the classification based on form-style is consistent is that if I say "classical music + 1780" you are able to tell me the style, if I say "classical music + 1880" you are able to tell me the style and it's possible to demonostrate that the style of 1880 is an evolution of the style of 1780 and that therefore there is a historical continuum between the two different styles.
QuotePerformers, concert producers and record producers are also free to decide what they consider classical music.
Yes, and they freely decide to include the music of Vivaldi, Mozart and Brahms for a simple matter of style-form, not because their music is absolute (Mozart's opera is not absolute music), because it was not commercial (only the music of Vivaldi was not commercial), not becuse they have passed the test of time (otherwise they would reject the classical-style music of any unknown composer of the past and the classical-style music of any contemporary composer), not because there were not intrusions in the artistic freedom (otherwise the would reject the String Quartet No. 13 of Beethoven).
The problem is precisely that the supporters of alternative theories don't accept the implicit, widely accepted deifnition based on form-style, which is consistent and which, by logic, also include classical-style soundtracks.
QuoteMy view is that film music is a "special effect." It is like CGI (computer generated imagery) or a stunt. Putting film music in a concert hall would be like putting a frame from Star Wars in an art gallery, or having Jackie Chan perform a fight sequence from Rumble in the Bronx on a ballet stage.
You would be right if there was a substantial difference between classical-style soundtracks and classical-style concert music, but the problem is that there is not a substantial difference: they are both based on melody and harmony.
If soundtracks would be something like this...
... I'd understand your observation, but the kind of soundtracks about wich we are speaking are not like this. They are classical-style soundtracks based on melody and harmony.
Now, if a composers of soundtracks write a classical-style piece with a beautiful melody-harmony, why should it be out of place in the concert hall?
Perhaps what you don't understand is that the reason for which the film music of John Williams was the most performed contemporary music in 2023 (source: Bachtrack (https://cdn.bachtrack.com/files/350970-Annual%20classical%20music%20statistics%202023.pdf)) is that it's based on beutiful melodies and harmonies and that it's more likely to find something like this (see video here below) in contemporary concert music.
QuoteSpeaking only for myself, an important characteristic of classical music is that it is self-sufficient and compelling
Speaking for myself, an important characteristic of classical music is that it's orchestral and tonal, so I tend to prefer film music more than piano sonatas and atonal concert music.
Everyone has his own interests, but the difference between me and you is that I don't use my personal interests as an argument to remove piano sonatas and atonal music from the category "classical music".
However if you want music that it's self-sufficient you should also reject ballet music, opera and incidental music for theatre.
Ths video supports the idea that you shouldn't listen to an aria of an opera outside of the context: it's very similar to what many people say about soundtracks.
You will probably tell me that opera and ballets work as absolute music too, but the same can be said for film music... otherwise how do you explain that John Williams was the most performed composer in 2023?
Quoteand demands attention.
In this video you can find an orchestral suite of 23 minutes, which is nothins else than a selection of pieces from the original soundtrack of The Hunthback of Notre-Dame.
If we want to use the language of concert music, it's divided in four movements:
00:00 And He Shall Smite the Wicked [exposition and development of the main theme]
08:05 The Cathedral
15:37 The Pillory
19:31 Emergence + The Bells Of Notre Dame Reprise [final reprise of the main theme with climax]
In this other video you can find the Cello Concerto "Alla Rustica" of Vivaldi, which is divided in three movements.
Now, to listen to the music of the first video requires 23 minute (and only because it's a selection... the full suite is more demanding) and the length of the longest movement (the first one) is 8 minutes.
To listen to the music of the second video requires 10 minutes and the length of the longest movement is 4 minute and 20 seconds (the first one).
Which of the two requires more attention?
Yes, if the only thing you consider of classical music is romantic music, it's correct to say that concert music usually requires more attention than film music, since in film music the movements tend to be shorter.
However, compared to baroque music and early classical music, film music is usually more demanding, because the lenght of a single movement is similar, but the overall length of a suite of film music is higher.
Yes, you can extract a single piece from a suite of film music, if you want, and at that point it only requires 2-5 minutes of attention, but you can also extract a single movement from a concerto of Vivaldi, if you want.
In both cases, however, you are listening to a fragment of a piece outside of its context, which means that you might lose something which is important to evaluate the overall artistic product.
QuoteThere have been instances where composers of film music have used the themes and other elements from their film music to create concert pieces. I wouldn't hesitate to call such efforts classical music. Probably 0.1% of film music would qualify.
In the case of John Williams, the 100% of his music qualify, because the arrangement of his soundtracks into concert suites is a fundamental part of his activity: he's doing concerts in the entire world (the last one in Japan) with himself as a conductor.
However, a lot of his pieces don't need recomposition and they are played in concerts in the same form of the original soundtrack. Why? Simply because it's not true that there is a so great difference between soundtracks and concert music. Although it's true that they were originally composed for a film, they can be easily recycled as concert music for the simple fact that they are based on the same fundamental elements of concert music: melody and harmony.
In the context of contemporary music, if a piece of classical music is "weird" (not based on melody and harmony), it's more likely concert music. Soundtracks are in average more accessible.
However, it doesn't matter, because "classical music" doesn't mean "concert music" or "absolute music", otherwise opera, ballets and incidental music for theatre should be removed from the category.
It's based on form-style, because it's the only consistent definition. Even if it was true that classical-style soundtracks were not self-sufficient and compelling and they they didn't work outside of films, they would be still classical music, because the self-sufficiency is not relevant for the definition... and if you think it is, you should start removing opera, ballets and incidental music for theatre from the category.
Quote from: DavidW on March 16, 2024, 10:49:16 AMIf avant garde isn't classical, nothing is.
How exactly is avantgarde music the core of classical music? If you tell people in the street "classical music" they answer "Mozart!", not "John Cage!".
Come on!
Quote from: San Antone on March 17, 2024, 03:25:48 AMI don't think what defines classical music is the surface aspect, i.e. the sound or style.
To me the defining aspect of classical music is the intention of the composer:
- for what purpose is this work being written?
- in what tradition do I consider myself a part?
- what primary audience am I writing for?
- where, what venue, would be most open to having this work performed?
If, after asking these questions, the genre of classical music seems right, then the work is a classical work.
This is what I would have written were I more articulate.
To be honest, classical music is very much an "I know it when I see it" (or rather, "...when I hear it") case.
Quote from: ritter on March 17, 2024, 06:11:32 AMTo be honest, classical music is very much an "I know it when I see it" (or rather, "...when I hear it") case.
For some of the more esoteric jazz pianists it is not clear how to exclude them from being classical. Are Art Tatum fantasias less classical than Poulenc piano miniatures?
Quote from: Spotted Horses on March 16, 2024, 10:39:48 PMI don't think the definition of classical music as a genre is all that clear. Why is Boulez' music "classical." Isn't it just weird? Some of it has weird electronic gimmickry, and is it ever really performed in a concert? Not that I want to open another can of worms.
I don't think having it performed in concert is a necessary condition. After all, what fraction of the music we listen to will we never hear in concert or even be able to drive within 500 miles to hear it?
Robert Simpson actually wrote one of his symphonies solely for the purpose of it being recorded and not played live.
Finally performing purely on acoustic instruments is not a prerequisite for classical music or music at all. Instruments and production techniques evolve. After all they have to dig out a Viennese oboe just to play a glissando in the M3 because a modern oboe is not the same instrument!
Imposing these kind of surface level "this is what I want classical music to be" definitions is exactly what WAM is doing, don't fall into the same trap!
Quote from: DavidW on March 17, 2024, 06:55:31 AMImposing these kind of surface level "this is what I want classical music to be" definitions is exactly what WAM is doing, don't fall into the same trap!
It's not a trap for me, I am pretty indifferent to the category music officially falls into. I'm just looking for clues as to whether I am likely to enjoy an unfamiliar piece of music.
Generally I prefer to listen to music of its time rather than something written in a similar style a century or more later. The historical context and fresh ideas make it more interesting to me.
Quote from: San Antone on March 17, 2024, 03:25:48 AMTo me the defining aspect of classical music is the intention of the composer:
Yes: the result will be classical music if the intention of the composer is to write classical music, of course.
The point is that there is no need to interview the composer to understand if his intention was to compose classical music, since it's self-evident.
The relevant part for the classification however is the end result, otherwise we should classify "Baby" as classical music if Justin Bieber told us that it's classical music... wouldn't it be absurd? In order to demonstrate the logical consistency of your classification, you have to tell us that you would accept a similar case.
Now, if John Williams, who is a composer of classical concert music, writes a piece with the title "Scherzo for Motorcycle and Orchestra" for a soundtrack and the form-style is clearily classical, do we really need to interview him to understand if his intention was or not to write classical music?
... not to mention the fact that it was played by the Berliner Philharmoniker.
Quote from: ritter on March 17, 2024, 06:11:32 AMTo be honest, classical music is very much an "I know it when I see it" (or rather, "...when I hear it") case.
Yes, this is precisely what I'm saying!
Quote from: DavidW on March 17, 2024, 06:55:31 AMImposing these kind of surface level "this is what I want classical music to be" definitions is exactly what WAM is doing, don't fall into the same trap!
No, actually what I'm saying is that a piece of music is classical if it has a classical nature: my position is the same of ritter
"To be honest, classical music is very much an "I know it when I see it" (or rather, "...when I hear it") case."My definition is not based on surface level elements. It's based on the nature of the music, which is the only relevant thing when it comes to determine if something is classical, jazz, rock, or whatever...
Quote from: steve ridgway on March 17, 2024, 11:44:18 PMGenerally I prefer to listen to music of its time rather than something written in a similar style a century or more later. The historical context and fresh ideas make it more interesting to me.
Yes! The most frequent exceptions being, say
Prokofiev's "Classical" Symphony,
Hindemith's neo-Baroque
Kammermusiken, and several
Stravinsky scores, e.g. where the composer adds clear value (cf.
fresh ideas.)
Quote from: Karl Henning on March 18, 2024, 04:35:36 AMYes! The most frequent exceptions being, say Prokofiev's "Classical" Symphony, Hindemith's neo-Baroque Kammermusiken, and several Stravinsky scores, e.g. where the composer adds clear value (cf. fresh ideas.)
And Beethoven's Great Fugue. Taking an old form and re-imagining it in a fresh way may be definitely interesting!
I wonder how an artist would be perceived if he painted in the style of the Old Masters, without bringing anything new to the work? I doubt he would be lauded.
Just because a film composer may imitate a classical composer, e.g. Holst, or Mahler, etc., does not make his score a classical work.
Quote from: Spotted Horses on March 17, 2024, 06:43:18 AMFor some of the more esoteric jazz pianists it is not clear how to exclude them from being classical. Are Art Tatum fantasias less classical than Poulenc piano miniatures?
Good call!
Quote from: San Antone on March 18, 2024, 07:03:48 AMJust because a film composer may imitate a classical composer, e.g. Holst, or Mahler, etc., does not make his score a classical work.
I don't care if music written for movies is called classical music or just movie music. It is all about how we define labels. It doesn't change the music. What I have an issue with is the tone of this sentence of yours which makes it seem composers of film music are nothing but imitators and hacks. That is not true.
Quote from: Karl Henning on March 18, 2024, 04:35:36 AMYes! The most frequent exceptions being, say Prokofiev's "Classical" Symphony, Hindemith's neo-Baroque Kammermusiken, and several Stravinsky scores, e.g. where the composer adds clear value (cf. fresh ideas.)
Quote from: San Antone on March 18, 2024, 07:03:48 AMI wonder how an artist would be perceived if he painted in the style of the Old Masters, without bringing anything new to the work? I doubt he would be lauded.
Just because a film composer may imitate a classical composer, e.g. Holst, or Mahler, etc., does not make his score a classical work.
First of all: the great composers of Hollywood (and I stress the word "great") are not imitations of the composers of the past. They are contemporary classical composers with their distinct voices. Just because they write tonal music doesn't mean that they are imitation of past composers.
While I was watching the film "Men of Glory", I thought: "The score sounds very much like James Horner". I checked Wikipedia and it was indeed Horner.
No one here is saying that John Williams, James Horner, Ennio Morricone and many others are composers of classical music because they are copies of the composers of the past. What I'm saying is that they are legit CONTEMPORARY composers of classical music who write more accessible music in respect to many other contemporary composers.
The reasons for which they can be considered CONTEMPORARY classical composers are very simple:
1) The genres of music (classical music, jazz, rock,...) are defined by the nature of the music, and a lot of soundtracks composed by Williams, Horner, Morricone have a classical nature.
2) The fact that a piece with a classical nature has been composed for a soundtrack doesn't change the nature, therefore it also doesn't change the musical genre.
That said, the matter of originality has absolutely nothing to do with classification.
You can divide classical composers between the categories "conservative" / "innovative", if you wish, but I don't see why we should create new genres of music for one of the two categories if we can simply create subcategories of classical composers.
So, do you think that John Williams has not brought innovation to classical music and that his music is stuck in the past? Well, if this is what you think you can call him "conservative"... there is no need to expel him from the category of classical composers.
It's quite clear that these strange theories come from fans of avantgarde music who want to delegitimize the more conservative composers. It's also clear that to be called "conservative" you only have to write tonal, melodic and accessible music, which means that Their mission is to eliminate beautiful contemporary music in order to deliver the coup de grâce to the popularity of a genre that is already losing ground among younger generations.
So, to say that something is not classical music because it's conservative it's a nonsense, since you can simply use the subcategory "conservative classical music".
However, if you want, you can say that "conservative classical music" is inferior in respect to "innovative classical music", but you should keep in mind that your personal values are not universal values.
For me, for example, innovation has not a great value.
I think that the quality of classical music is mainly related to the beauty of the tunes and to the epicness of the music: as the beauty of the tunes and the epicness increases, the quality of the music increases.
According to my personal values, I've established that the greatest pieces of classical music ever composed are:
- Mozart: Piano Concerto No. 20, Symphony 25+40+41, Requiem, the first movement of the Great Mass in C minor, Sinfonia Concertante
- Dvorak: Symphony 9
- Beethoven: Moonlight Sonata, Piano Concerto No. 3, Symphony 9
- Mendelssohn: most pieces composed by Mendelssohn are epic music with nice tunes, but the Violin Concerto, all his pieces of sacred music, the String Quartet No. 6, the symphony 4+5, for me are the absolute winners
- Brahms: Symphony 4 + many pieces of chamber music
- Schubert: his sacred music
- Bach: Passacaglia and Fugue in C minor, many other organ pieces and Violin Concerto in A minor
- Roman Kim: Violin Concerto
- Alma Deutscher: Violin Concerto
- James Horner: Braveheart, Apollo 13 and Titanic
- John Williams: Star Wars, Nixon and Home Alone
- Hans Zimmer: Gladiator and The Lion King
- Alan Menken: all of his score composed for the Disney in the nineties are pure gold, but the winners are probably "The Huntchback of Notre Dame" and "Pocahontas"
- David Newman: Anastasia
I wouldn't say that the mentioned composers of soundtracks are copies of the past composers of classical music (each one of them has a distinct voice), but I don't deny that their music is more conservative in respect to the music of many other contemporary composers.
The point is that I dont' care: they write epic music with excellent tunes, so they compose music of high quality.
When I hear the music of some highly original contemporary composers, I have the istinct to kill myself, so for me it's bad music.
Quote from: 71 dB on March 19, 2024, 02:34:23 AMI don't care if music written for movies is called classical music or just movie music. It is all about how we define labels. It doesn't change the music. What I have an issue with is the tone of this sentence of yours which makes it seem composers of film music are nothing but imitators and hacks. That is not true.
Nothing in what I wrote there (and more importantly what I have posted previously) would indicate that I thought that "composers of film music are nothing but imitators and hacks". But it is true that often a film composer will write in a "classical music stye." In fact that what this entire thread is about.
I have posted before that I think that film composers have written very fine music for their film scores. It is just not classical music.
Quote from: 71 dB on March 19, 2024, 02:34:23 AMI don't care if music written for movies is called classical music or just movie music. It is all about how we define labels. It doesn't change the music. What I have an issue with is the tone of this sentence of yours which makes it seem composers of film music are nothing but imitators and hacks. That is not true.
Why do you think they want to remove music that is clearly of a classical nature from the category of classical music? Because they have biases against film composers and think that by removing it from classical music they make it of inferior quality. Too bad it's not true, because then I can still say that the quality of film music is just as high as that of classical music (and this is exactly what I think).
Quote from: 71 dB on March 19, 2024, 02:34:23 AMI don't care if music written for movies is called classical music or just movie music. It is all about how we define labels. It doesn't change the music. What I have an issue with is the tone of this sentence of yours which makes it seem composers of film music are nothing but imitators and hacks. That is not true.
You have no grounds to take issue, SA used the word MAY. You misinterpreted what you read.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 19, 2024, 03:58:03 AMAccording to my personal values, I've established that the greatest pieces of classical music ever composed are:
- Mozart: Piano Concerto No. 20, Symphony 25+40+41, Requiem, the first movement of the Great Mass in C minor, Sinfonia Concertante
- Dvorak: Symphony 9
- Beethoven: Moonlight Sonata, Piano Concerto No. 3, Symphony 9
- Mendelssohn: most pieces composed by Mendelssohn are epic music with nice tunes, but the Violin Concerto, all his pieces of sacred music, the String Quartet No. 6, the symphony 4+5, for me are the absolute winners
- Brahms: Symphony 4 + many pieces of chamber music
- Schubert: his sacred music
- Bach: Passacaglia and Fugue in C minor, many other organ pieces and Violin Concerto in A minor
- Roman Kim: Violin Concerto
- Alma Deutscher: Violin Concerto
- James Horner: Braveheart, Apollo 13 and Titanic
- John Williams: Star Wars, Nixon and Home Alone
- Hans Zimmer: Gladiator and The Lion King
- Alan Menken: all of his score composed for the Disney in the nineties are pure gold, but the winners are probably "The Huntchback of Notre Dame" and "Pocahontas"
- David Newman: Anastasia
I am curious, do you have a points system or some other means of measurement? For example, what personal value do you hold that establishes that Dvorak's Symphony No. 9 is superior to No. 8 or 7? Or Mozart Piano Concerto No. 20 but not 24? Do the other works fall short in some specific fashion?
Quote from: 71 dB on March 19, 2024, 02:34:23 AMI don't care if music written for movies is called classical music or just movie music.
then you, like most of us, do not (as against the thread title)
obsess about categories.
Quote from: San Antone on March 19, 2024, 04:22:54 AMI have posted before that I think that film composers have written very fine music for their film scores. It is just not classical music.
A sound and powerfully defensible thesis.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 19, 2024, 03:58:03 AMJames Horner: Braveheart, Apollo 13 and Titanic
John Williams: Star Wars, Nixon and Home Alone
Hans Zimmer: Gladiator and The Lion King
Alan Menken: all of his score composed for the Disney in the nineties are pure gold, but the winners are probably "The Huntchback of Notre Dame" and "Pocahontas"
It has long been clear that you are the titular
person obsessed by categories, and that specifically, the bee in your bonnet is that film music
must be considered "classical." It is equally clear that you are deaf to any remark that does not feed your preferred narrative. That is all. I'm not posing you any question, since you'll just trot out more of your boilerplate, which grew tiresome six pages ago.
LIke others, I don't "obsess" about categories; but I do value them for reasons of organization.
This morning I was listening to music by Sigur Rós and one of his albums is a series of untitled tracks.
(https://i.postimg.cc/cCk1t09h/Screenshot-2024-03-19-at-10-23-01-AM.png)
I thought this is a bit unsatisfying, sort of like thinking of music without any genres. For one thing I couldn't attach something to the music (if I enjoyed it) to find it again. Also, the tracks would blur into one another without my thinking of them as distinct works.
So, for me categories, genres, are helpful if for no other reason to manage the huge amount of musical information stored in my brain.
Quote from: San Antone on March 19, 2024, 07:26:26 AMLIke others, I don't "obsess" about categories; but I do value them for reasons of organization.
This morning I was listening to music by Sigur Rós and one of his albums is a series of untitled tracks.
(https://i.postimg.cc/cCk1t09h/Screenshot-2024-03-19-at-10-23-01-AM.png)
I thought this is a bit unsatisfying, sort of like thinking of music without any genres. For one thing I couldn't attach something to the music (if I enjoyed it) to find it again. Also, the tracks would blur into one another without my thinking of them as distinct works.
So, for me categories, genres, are helpful if for no other reason to manage the huge amount of musical information stored in my brain.
Exactly. Finding categories/genres of use is not "obsession." I mean, why is a clam not a "fish?"
Quote from: Karl Henning on March 19, 2024, 07:15:14 AMthen you, like most of us, do not (as against the thread title) obsess about categories.
Categories can be useful, but I don't obsess about them.
Quote from: San Antone on March 19, 2024, 04:22:54 AMNothing in what I wrote there (and more importantly what I have posted previously) would indicate that I thought that "composers of film music are nothing but imitators and hacks". But it is true that often a film composer will write in a "classical music stye." In fact that what this entire thread is about.
I have posted before that I think that film composers have written very fine music for their film scores. It is just not classical music.
Is it wrong to say Beethoven wrote music in a "classical music style?" Just turning this upside down. Are we granting Beethoven he wrote classical music, because that was the only music he
could write. There was no demand for movie music in his days.
Quote from: DavidW on March 19, 2024, 06:06:00 AMYou have no grounds to take issue, SA used the word MAY. You misinterpreted what you read.
I had no grounds, but I extrapolated from what he wrote.
Quote from: 71 dB on March 19, 2024, 10:16:49 AMIs it wrong to say Beethoven wrote music in a "classical music style?" Just turning this upside down. Are we granting Beethoven he wrote classical music, because that was the only music he could write. There was no demand for movie music in his days.
There is a 1500 year tradition of the music we call "classical." There are many different styles, Machaut wrote in a different style than Beethoven, who wrote in a different style than Debussy. But we call it all classical music because of the intention of the composer, the purpose of the music, and the kind of audience and venue that has programed this kind of music, for hundreds of years.
Two things:
1. Because some music is called "classical music" does not necessarily mean it is of higher quality than some music called "film music."
2. The intention of the composer, i.e. if he considers himself part of that 1500 year classical music tradition, is important and is what defines him as a classical composer. A film composer is also part of a tradition, a different tradition, and a composer who writes for film knows he is continuing the film music tradition.
Classical music and film music might share some superficial stylistic aspects. But the relative traditions the composer identifies with and the specific purpose the composer is fulfilling with his work, are more important and definitive considerations.
I've been reading but not commenting ever since the OP repeatedly told me what I was really thinking in response to some of my earlier posts. I found that quite annoying, as I wasn't thinking those things and object to having words put into my mouth. But two thoughts raised from the last page or so:
1) The OP's recent insistence that film composers are classical composers with their own styles had the opposite effect on me than intended, perhaps. Previously not hugely averse to thinking of e.g. John Williams as a composer of classical music, the OP has made me consider this matter of personal style more closely, and I think I may now be inclined to disagree more forcefully. In his concert works, sure, Williams allows his own voice through. No problem in accepting them as classical. But in his (massively skilful and hugely enjoyable) film scores that personal style is adulterated by other mannerisms and appropriations - other styles, in fact. He is not being fully himself (And nor should he be - that's part of his job). Same goes for other film composers. Just pointing it out.
2) As some recent posts have also suggested, I do actually find pondering on categories really useful, interesting and illuminating. I don't really go in for the superficially attractive notion of dismissing the boxes we put music into, if only because the choice of those boxes can be so revealing and thought provoking.
For instance, take the following two works:
(https://i.discogs.com/dAzFl70kkkd3SF4IgA_VKKVlfgAw9QoveHdIIm4Walg/rs:fit/g:sm/q:90/h:594/w:600/czM6Ly9kaXNjb2dz/LWRhdGFiYXNlLWlt/YWdlcy9SLTI2MjAz/NzMtMTI5MzYzMTQw/NC5qcGVn.jpeg)
(https://www.discogs.com/release/2620373-Karlheinz-Stockhausen-Telemusik-Mixtur/image/SW1hZ2U6NDUzNjkzNg==)
Composed by Stockhausen in 1966 Telemusik is characterised by the use of field recordings of 'world music,' electronically treated and brought into juxtaposition with each other
(https://i.discogs.com/mpLYHAdqibdoOlzb9OGzLNlU5fVMnhqrHYDR6giKXRw/rs:fit/g:sm/q:90/h:579/w:597/czM6Ly9kaXNjb2dz/LWRhdGFiYXNlLWlt/YWdlcy9SLTMyNTky/OS0xMzk5Mjg3OTM0/LTg5MTQuanBlZw.jpeg)
(https://www.discogs.com/release/325929-Holger-Czukay-Rolf-Dammers-Canaxis/image/SW1hZ2U6MTIyNjQ1MzA=)
Composed by a Stockhausen pupil in 1969, using techniques learnt from Stockhausen and Stockhausen's own studio/equipment, Canaxis is characterised by the use of field recordings of 'world music,' and of 'early music' electronically treated and brought into juxtaposition with each other.
At times Canaxis and Telemusik sound almost indistinguishable from each other. So why is one considered 'classical' and the other not? I'm not trying to be provocative: there is actually something that distinguishes the two; we can all feel it. But what is it, when they are in every concrete way similar? I find the consideration of this question really revealing. This is why I wouldn't be without categories.
Quote from: Karl Henning on March 19, 2024, 07:16:51 AMA sound and powerfully defensible thesis.
How exactly?
If someone composed a symphony and wrote this for the third movement, would it be classical music or not?
If the same person composed this piece as a standalone scherzo, and not as a part of a symphony, and called it "scherzo for orchestra", would it be classical music or not?
Finally, if the answer to the first two questions is "yes", can you explain how exactly would be a sensible anwser to reply "No" to this last question: "If the same composer wrote this piece for a film and called it 'scherzo for motorcycle and orchestra', would it be classical music or not?".
You will probably tell me that it's because the category "soundtrack" is useful. Yes, it's useful, as well as the categories "symphony", "opera", "string quartet", "incidental music" and so on... but they are all additional information in respect to the category "classical music", not categories that replace "classical music".
Categorization is multidimensional, not monodimensional, and if we accept that something can be
classical music + symphony
classical music + opera
classical music + string quartet
classical music + incidental music
I don't see what's the problem with
classical music + soundtrack (which is nothing else than a subcategory of incidental music)
Could you please explain why in the case of the category "soundtrack" do you think it's sensible to think that the category "soundtrack" is not an additional information but a category that replace "classical music"?
Quote from: Karl Henning on March 19, 2024, 07:36:29 AMExactly. Finding categories/genres of use is not "obsession." I mean, why is a clam not a "fish?"
This is exactly the point. Categories are useful, and if a website to find pieces of classical music omit classical soundtracks it's censorship. It's a disservice!
Can you explain what is the logic of omitting classical soundtracks in a database of classical music?
A person obsessed by categories is not someone who thinks that categories are useful but knows that the function of them is to know, more or less, about we're speaking about.
A person obsessed by categories is someone who thinks it's possible to trace well defined boundaries and says we're all doing the wrong thing if we consider determined soundtracks as classical music.
Unless you are not able to demonstrate that there is a logic in excluding classical soundtracks from the category of classical music, the day I'll create a database for classical music I'll include classical soundtracks.
To differentiate the different kind of works I'll use the categories "opera", "symphony", "string quartet", "soundtrack",... so, if someone want to find all classical music except for soundtracks he will be able to create a filter.
I don't see, however, why a fan of classical music who doesn't discriminate the category "soundtrack" doesn't have the right to find the soundtracks too.
Perhaps even
@San Antone might want to explain why the fans of classical music like me who don't discriminate soundtracks don't have the right to find the music.
Quote from: San Antone on March 19, 2024, 11:35:24 AMThere is a 1500 year tradition of the music we call "classical." There are many different styles, Machaut wrote in a different style than Beethoven, who wrote in a different style than Debussy. But we call it all classical music because of the intention of the composer, the purpose of the music, and the kind of audience and venue that has programed this kind of music, for hundreds of years.
It's called "stylistic evolution". The style changes with the time, it's perfectly natural: it happens in every genre of music. The rock of the 2200 will be not the same style of the rock of the eighties!
Classical music is older than many other genres so we can already see a great stylistic evolution.
If the category "classical music" had nothing to do with style, then it wouldn't be possible to tell the style of a classical music composition of the 1780, but it is!
It's clear that the purpose of the category "classical" is to trace the evolution of a determine style of music through different centuries. It's the only consistent definition, unless you can show the consistency of other definitions.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 20, 2024, 05:57:57 AMIt's clear that the purpose of the category "classical" is to trace the evolution of a determine style of music through different centuries. It's the only consistent definition, unless you can show the consistency of other definitions.
Was it perhaps "professional" music that was taught academically, as opposed to "amateur" folk music?
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 20, 2024, 05:57:57 AMIt's clear that the purpose of the category "classical" is to trace the evolution of a determine style of music through different centuries. It's the only consistent definition, unless you can show the consistency of other definitions.
Your classic move of claiming that an assertion is
de facto truth. You've just said "It's the only consistent definition,
unless there are other consistent definitions. There have been other participants on GMG who would repeat their pet assertions
ad nauseam out of apparent love for the sound of their own voice, but you really take the cake.
The suggestion that not calling soundtracks classical is *censorship* really takes the cake as well. That one is a new low. And like many here I've seen this debate go round and round before (though never so obstinately), always relying on the same cherry-picking of a dozen or so soundtracks as though they make the case for the massive whole. And an even smaller number of cherry-picked composers. As someone said upthread the number of orchestral soundtracks that any people might want to hear in a concert hall would be 0.001 percent, if even that.
Why are orchestral soundtracks no considered classical? Because 99.999 percent of them function only to tell you if the situation is sad face or happy face, to beat you over the head with the mood of the moment.
Why are soundtracks different to opera and ballet as orchestral music in support of a visual medium? Because Home Alone would still be Home Alone if you replaced John Williams with Danny Elfman - and there's only those small number of cherry-picked films where that might not be true. Change the composer on any opera or ballet and you've got an entirely different work, or rather you're starting over from the beginning.
(Yeah, I know I've said goodbye twice already.)
Quote from: Brian on March 19, 2024, 06:16:20 AMI am curious, do you have a points system or some other means of measurement? For example, what personal value do you hold that establishes that Dvorak's Symphony No. 9 is superior to No. 8 or 7? Or Mozart Piano Concerto No. 20 but not 24? Do the other works fall short in some specific fashion?
I agree about the fact that Dvorak 8 is close to 9. Perhaps the 9 is the absolute winner because of the iconic theme of the fourth movement and because it is an outstanding work, since it's inspired to american folk music and so it brings a new sound in respect to the classical romanticism.
I see Dvorak 9 as a beginning of a new era that I call "american neoromanticism", which is the primary source of inspiration for the classical soundtracks.
While in the modern era many composers were experimenting dissonance to various degrees, there were modern composers who were still composing tonal music with a new flavour. Atterberg, Joly Braga Santos, Copland.
I think that the "american sound" is recurrent there.
In regards to the Piano Concerto No. 24 of Mozart, I think that the tunes are not so convicing. Not as much as PC 20.
This is why I consider PC20 as a better piece in respect to PC24.
I speak about personal preferences. I don't have a formal points system. I can only say that the quality of the tunes for me is of a primary importance. However the quality of a melody is subjective, so I can not demonstrate my point of views.
Quote from: Luke on March 19, 2024, 10:46:19 PM1) The OP's recent insistence that film composers are classical composers with their own styles had the opposite effect on me than intended, perhaps. Previously not hugely averse to thinking of e.g. John Williams as a composer of classical music, the OP has made me consider this matter of personal style more closely, and I think I may now be inclined to disagree more forcefully. In his concert works, sure, Williams allows his own voice through. No problem in accepting them as classical. But in his (massively skilful and hugely enjoyable) film scores that personal style is adulterated by other mannerisms and appropriations - other styles, in fact. He is not being fully himself (And nor should he be - that's part of his job). Same goes for other film composers. Just pointing it out.
Which of the two is the real Schoenberg?
My reply to this question is: both! The difference is that the first work is composed with a more accessible style.
In regards to John Williams, his film music is written in a more accessible style in respect to his concert works, but this doesn't mean that the one you hear in film music is not the real John Williams.
That said, I don't understand why you see "classical music" as the equivalent of "stylistic originality" or of "being innovative".
Of the three most important composers of classical music, only one was original and innovative: Beethoven.
Bach was still composing in early baroque style while other composers were moving towards galant style.
Most Mozat's music is written in the perfect fashion of the classical period.
If Mozart and Bach not only are regarded as classical composers, but even as a pinnacle of classical music, despite the fact that their music was not innovative, I don't see why the composers of soundtracks can't be the pinnacle to contemporary classical music only because they don't write avantgarde music. Do we want to apply double standards?
The point is that being an avantgarde composer and being a classical composer is not the same thing: a classical composer can be conservative. Why do you want to use the two words as if they are synonims?
Quote from: steve ridgway on March 20, 2024, 10:06:02 AMWas it perhaps "professional" music that was taught academically, as opposed to "amateur" folk music?
It's anachronistic. Today what we call "popular music" is also taught academically. Do you realize that the day where everyone in the conservatoire will take lessons about hip-hop music, according to this definition you'll have to consider hip-hop music as classical music?
At that point which word will you use to differentiate the kind of music of Beethoven from the kind of music of Eminem?
Quote from: Karl Henning on March 20, 2024, 10:19:48 AMYour classic move of claiming that an assertion is de facto truth. You've just said "It's the only consistent definition, unless there are other consistent definitions. There have been other participants on GMG who would repeat their pet assertions ad nauseam out of apparent love for the sound of their own voice, but you really take the cake.
Instead of telling me that I'm wrong, you could write the correct, consistent definition of "classical music". The fact that you didn't makes me think that you are not able to put alternative definitions on the table.
Let's be honest: the word "classical music" is nothing else than an attempt to group together determined works composed in a similar form-style, which of course, like any other form-style, evolves with the time for the simple fact that some influential composers of each era insert innovations that set new standards.
However, if someone wants to support the idea that the "classical style" doesn't exist because classical music consists of many different styles, then at that point I'll support that classical music is THE NOTHING and that it would be better to simply speak about baroque style music, classical style music, romantic style music, impressionist music, and so on...
At that point I won't no more say that determine soundtracks are classical, since the word will be used to speak only about the music of the classical period.
I'll say that many soundtracks are romantic-style music.
I don't see what's the difference. You think that by playing with words you change the substance, but in reality the substance is always the same: many soundtracks are written in a form-style which belongs to the domain of classical music.
If you want to tell me that form-style is irrelevant, I respond that I absolutely don't agree and that the classification of music should be primarily based on form-style. This is infact how the classification works in the real world. This is why in the real world many soundtracks are classified as "classical music".
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 21, 2024, 04:41:08 AMthe word "classical music" is nothing else than an attempt to group together determined works composed in a similar form-style
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 21, 2024, 04:41:08 AMthe classification of music should be primarily based on form-style.
What similarity of form and style is there between
Josquin and
Chopin,
Bach and
Offenbach,
Boccherini and
Puccini?
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 20, 2024, 01:10:37 PMThe suggestion that not calling soundtracks classical is *censorship* really takes the cake as well.
The sentence must be changed with "The suggestion that omitting
classical soundtracks in a database of classical music is censorship...".
First of all, I've added the word "classical" before "soundtracks" because I'm not speaking about soundtracks in general, but only about a subcategory of soundtracks that can be called "classical soundtracks".
I've never written that soundtracks are automatically classical music.
Furthermore, what I wrote is that if I search all the pieces of classical music composed in the last 50 years in a big database of classical music and I don't find the soundtracks of John Williams in the list, for me it's censorship. It's a disservice!
The concept is a bit different in respect to say that if a man in the bar of the corner of the street doesn't agree about the fact that William's music is classical, then it's censorship.
QuoteAs someone said upthread the number of orchestral soundtracks that any people might want to hear in a concert hall would be 0.001 percent, if even that.
We're speaking about classical soundtracks, not about generic soundtracks.
If we speak about classical soundtracks, I wonder where exactly did you take that "0.001 percent".
Open these statistics of the website "Bachtrack": https://cdn.bachtrack.com/files/350970-Annual%20classical%20music%20statistics%202023.pdf
The most performed composer of 2023
1. Mozart, W.A.
2. Beethoven, Ludwig van
3. Bach, Johann Sebastian
4. Brahms, Johannes
5. Schubert, Franz
6. Rachmaninov, Sergei
7. Tchaikovsky, Pyotr Ilyich
8. Strauss, Richard
9. Schumann, Robert
10. Ravel, Maurice
The most performed LIVING composer
1. Williams, John2. Pärt, Arvo
3. Widmann, Jörg
4. Adès, Thomas
5. Glass, Philip
6. Adams, John
7. Gubaidulina, Sofia
=8 Shaw, Caroline
=8 Chin, Unsuk
10. Clyne, Anna
So, John Williams doesn't belong to the category of the most performed composers of classical, but no living composer belong to that list.
However, among the LIVING composers he was the winner.
I'm afraid that when you give your numbers you are projecting your PERSONAL interests on the entire population. Do you realize that your PERSONAL interests are statistically irrelevant?
QuoteWhy are orchestral soundtracks no considered classical?
We're speaking about classical soundtracks, not about orchestral soundtracks, since orchestral doesn't automatically mean classical.
The concept that classical soundtracks are not considered classical is laughable, and infact it's not true that no soundtrack is considered classical.
A list of websites which list "soundtrack" among the subcategories of classical music, and not because all soundtracks are classical, but because the intersection between the categories "classical music" and "soundtracks" exist and so it's correctly listed.
https://rateyourmusic.com/genre/cinematic-classical/
https://www.allmusic.com/genre/classical-ma0000002521
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_classical_music_genres
https://www.prestomusic.com/classical/genres
https://halloffame.classicfm.com/2023/
QuoteWhy are soundtracks different to opera and ballet as orchestral music in support of a visual medium? Because Home Alone would still be Home Alone if you replaced John Williams with Danny Elfman - and there's only those small number of cherry-picked films where that might not be true. Change the composer on any opera or ballet and you've got an entirely different work, or rather you're starting over from the beginning.
It's interesting to note that as an alternative for John Williams you give an other skilled composer: Danny Elfman.
Of course a skilled composer can replace an other skilled composer, but can a not skilled composer replace John Williams?
If the films also work with not excellent music, it's simply because cinema is an artform that combine many different elements, and if you don't care too much about one aspect you can compensate with the many other artistic elements.
This doesn't mean that the music doesn't partecipate in the determination of the overall quality, together with all other elements.
In this video you can see a scene of the Lion King with the wrong music.
The same scene with the original/correct music.
In this other video a scene of Star Wars without the music.
The same scene with the music.
Without music at all films don't work.
With the wrong music also don't work.
However, you might support the idea the scene of the Lion King would work even if the music was written by a mediocre composer.
It would probably work, but the quality of the scene would be lower. So no, a skilled composer can not be replaced with a mediocre composer if you want the highest possible quality of the overall artistic product.
That said, the score of "Home Alone" was nominated for the Oscar "Best Original Score", and for good reasons.
With a mediocre composer a similar result would have been improbable.
Quote from: Florestan on March 21, 2024, 05:17:56 AMWhat similarity of form and style is there between Josquin and Chopin, Bach and Offenbach, Boccherini and Puccini?
Exactly. We recognize all of these composers, as well as those such as John Cage, Pierre Boulez, Karlheinz Stockhausen, and Missy Mazzoli, as writing music in the classical music tradition. Yes, some people may balk at John Cage (some don't even consider him a composer, but more of a philosopher) - but his music is taught in classical music curricula and his music is recorded/performed by classical music ensembles and programmed at classical music venues.
In large part we have inherited the classical music canon and classification of composers and have had no say in who has been included or excluded. Which is why this kind of thread, and debate, appears to me as futile and leading nowhere.
Quote from: Florestan on March 21, 2024, 05:17:56 AMWhat similarity of form and style is there between Josquin and Chopin, Bach and Offenbach, Boccherini and Puccini?
I have dealt with this issue in previous posts.
QuoteLet's be honest: the word "classical music" is nothing else than an attempt to group together determined works composed in a similar form-style, which of course, like any other form-style, evolves with the time for the simple fact that some influential composers of each era insert innovations that set new standards.
Now, if you want you can create a separate genre for each style, but if you do so the category "classical music" will disappear and we will speak about baroque-style music, classical-style music, romantic-style music and so on... as separate things.
I'd have nothing against this, but in that case I'd simply say that many soundtracks are romantic-style music and the concept wouldn't change.
However, the reason for which we don't create a new genre of music each time there is a stylistic evolution is that we want to trace the historical connection between the different styles.
Classical music is the result of the evolution of baroque music, romantic music is the result of the evolution of Classical music, and so on...
They are not separate things: there is a continuum!
Note that you have the same exact issue with rap music.
If this song is classified as "rap".
How can this song of 2002 also be classified as rap?
Simply because rap, like classical music, evolves with the time.
The point is that if I give you the coordinates "genre + year" you will be able to tell me the style. The purpose of the genre is to keep together styles that are historically connected.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 21, 2024, 08:08:48 AMThe point is that if I give you the coordinates "genre + year" you will be able to tell me the style.
let's go the other way around: I give you the coordinates, you tell me the style, ok?
1. Symphony, 1350
2. String quartet, 1500
3. Madrigal, 1850
4. Lute music, 1930
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 21, 2024, 04:14:08 AMWhich of the two is the real Schoenberg?
My reply to this question is: both! The difference is that the first work is composed with a more accessible style.
Both are 100% Schoenberg. The accessibility of style is irrelevant. Schoenberg may be influenced by other composers, but the influence is properly digested - as it is in Williams' concert works, I think. In neither piece is the Schoenberg written through a kind of pre-compositional filter of another piece in the way that (to state an obvious case) William's writes through the filter of Holst's Mars or Stravinsky's Rite in his Star Wars music. He's using their music so blatantly that it's a kind of dressing up, a make-believe, whereas the influence of Wagner et al on Schoenberg is thoroughly digested and doesn't sound like anyone else.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 21, 2024, 04:14:08 AMIn regards to John Williams, his film music is written in a more accessible style in respect to his concert works, but this doesn't mean that the one you hear in film music is not the real John Williams.
Well, as I suggest, it's a matter of degree. How can the Tatooine music be the real John Williams when it is so much modelled on the Rite that it can be overlayed on it - it's an obvious example, but also still true, as this video shows from 1.22
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 21, 2024, 04:14:08 AMThat said, I don't understand why you see "classical music" as the equivalent of "stylistic originality" or of "being innovative".
I didn't say anything like that.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 21, 2024, 04:14:08 AMOf the three most important composers of classical music, only one was original and innovative: Beethoven.
Massively debatable.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 21, 2024, 04:14:08 AMBach was still composing in early baroque style while other composers were moving towards galant style.
Bach did not compose in the style of the early Baroque, FWIW.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 21, 2024, 04:14:08 AMIf Mozart and Bach not only are regarded as classical composers, but even as a pinnacle of classical music, despite the fact that their music was not innovative, I don't see why the composers of soundtracks can't be the pinnacle to contemporary classical music only because they don't write avantgarde music. Do we want to apply double standards?
The point is that being an avantgarde composer and being a classical composer is not the same thing: a classical composer can be conservative. Why do you want to use the two words as if they are synonims?
[/quote]
The real point is this - innovation is your word. I haven't used it. It's a strawman really; you are putting up Innovative vs Conservative as if they are being suggested as measures of a composer's worth. But IMO in finding ways to successfully be themselves, musically, to speak their own way and not through the mouth of someone else composers from Saint-Saens to Stockhausen are pushing at the boundaries of their own particular envelope.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 21, 2024, 04:41:08 AMIf you want to tell me that form-style is irrelevant, I respond that I absolutely don't agree and that the classification of music should be primarily based on form-style. This is infact how the classification works in the real world. This is why in the real world many soundtracks are classified as "classical music".
Please apply this to my previous (ignored) point re Telemusik vs Canaxis (examples could be added).
QuoteOf the three most important composers of classical music, only one was original and innovative: Beethoven.
Noch einmalQuote from: Karl Henning on March 20, 2024, 10:19:48 AMYour classic move of claiming that an assertion is de facto truth. [snip] There have been other participants on GMG who would repeat their pet assertions ad nauseam out of apparent love for the sound of their own voice, but you really take the cake.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 21, 2024, 04:14:08 AMthe three most important composers of classical music,
A concept which is in itself highly debatable and ultimately meaningless.
Quote from: Luke on March 21, 2024, 08:25:05 AMBach did not compose in the style of the early Baroque, FWIW.
I think it's by now obvious that the history of music is not WAM's forte. ;D
Quote from: Florestan on March 21, 2024, 08:53:37 AMI think it's by now obvious that the history of music is not WAM's forte. ;D
Starting out with the assumption that you already know it all is quite the handicap.
Quote from: Luke on March 21, 2024, 08:33:09 AMPlease apply this to my previous (ignored) point re Telemusik vs Canaxis (examples could be added).
I'll add two: jazz is clearly distinct from "classical" music, yet the differences in form and style between, say, Chopin and Oscar Peterson or Liszt and Bill Evans are much smaller than between Chopin and Josquin, or between Liszt and Vivaldi.
Quote from: Florestan on March 21, 2024, 08:53:37 AMI think it's by now obvious that the history of music is not WAM's forte. ;D
He also apparently doesn't find Mozart innovative despite being a fan of Mozart.
Quote from: DavidW on March 21, 2024, 09:07:15 AMHe also apparently doesn't find Mozart innovative despite being a fan of Mozart.
With friends/fans like that ....
Quote from: DavidW on March 21, 2024, 09:07:15 AMHe also apparently doesn't find Mozart innovative despite being a fan of Mozart.
Well I think his point is that innovation isn't important. It is style that is important.
My take on it is that a) being a worthwhile and interesting composer automatically entails innovation in that, in order to be worthwhile and interesting, you have to do at least some things differently to others - this is why, in his own way, someone like e.g. Saint-Säens is an innovator, b) that style does not tell the whole story (e.g. my Telemusik/Canaxis example - two pieces comparable in almost every easily definable way (medium/source/style/material/sound/date/background) but belonging to two stylistic camps because of the aesthetic
behind them)
Quote from: Luke on March 21, 2024, 10:27:59 AMWell I think his point is that innovation isn't important. It is style that is important.
My take on it is that a) being a worthwhile and interesting composer automatically entails innovation in that, in order to be worthwhile and interesting, you have to do at least some things differently to others - this is why, in his own way, someone like e.g. Saint-Säens is an innovator, b) that style does not tell the whole story (e.g. my Telemusik/Canaxis example - two pieces comparable in almost every easily definable way (medium/source/style/material/sound/date/background) but belonging to two stylistic camps because of the aesthetic behind them)
Very good. Going back to
John Williams, I don't seem to find any marked difference in "accessibility goals" between his film scores and concert works. My sampling size may be too small (three pieces, in effect: the concertante cello piece he wrote for Yo-Yo Ma (
Heartwood) a celebratory fanfare (
For Seiji!) and a brass ensemble piece. Of these, I think best of the brass piece.
Here are more examples of music which is stylistically similar but aesthetically very different. Pieces that prove (to my mind) that style is not everything:
(most of the stylistic variance there is attributable to the fact that I couldn't resist putting the Doucet in)
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 21, 2024, 05:25:52 AMThe most performed LIVING composer
1. Williams, John
2. Pärt, Arvo
3. Widmann, Jörg
4. Adès, Thomas
5. Glass, Philip
6. Adams, John
7. Gubaidulina, Sofia
=8 Shaw, Caroline
=8 Chin, Unsuk
10. Clyne, Anna
Given how much you like name number 1 on that list and of its methodology and its reflection of his quality, have you considered a deep dive into the other 9 names there?
Or are you going to also sweepingly dismiss them as "avant-guarde" because they employ a range of techniques from Hildegard to today as they see fit and need? And remain stubbornly unaware of their unique beauty. Because one thing you'd know if you had any familiar with contemporary classical is that none of it is avant-guarde - if for no other reason than there is no longer any "guarde" left to be "avant". You'd know that if you really made an effort to try.
And I see you side-stepped an important point in my previous post - the need for cherry-picking to make the case for classical-style soundtracks as classical: take out John Williams and just a couple of other names and take out Star Wars and just a dozen or so other soundtracks and your case for these being The New Classical goes from being merely unconvincing to being ridiculous.
Interesting that Caroline Shaw made that list.
From the start of an Alex Ross article Composing For Hollywood:
"Afew years ago, I heard a film composer tell of a director's reaction to his labors: "O.K., now make it twenty per cent more Cuban." Such is the humble lot of composers in Hollywood: they enter the creative process late, they write on dire deadlines, and they grapple with all manner of vague or arbitrary demands. The scourge of their existence is the "temp track"—the temporary soundtrack of preëxisting musical selections that is used to assemble a rough cut, and that the composer is then encouraged to mimic. Temp tracks help to explain why Hollywood scores are too often a lazy Susan of fixed formulas: in fantasy movies, metallic percussion clanging over horns and male choruses in the minor mode; in romantic comedies, a one-handed piano noodling behind a scrim of strings; in period pictures, neo-Baroque arpeggiation in the manner of Philip Glass. Granted, the limited palette of film scores sometimes results from the limited abilities of the practitioners, but almost any Hollywood tunesmith could achieve more distinctive results if the iron fist of cliché were to relax just a little. "
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 21, 2024, 06:15:34 PMFrom the start of an Alex Ross article Composing For Hollywood:
"Afew years ago, I heard a film composer tell of a director's reaction to his labors: "O.K., now make it twenty per cent more Cuban." Such is the humble lot of composers in Hollywood: they enter the creative process late, they write on dire deadlines, and they grapple with all manner of vague or arbitrary demands. The scourge of their existence is the "temp track"—the temporary soundtrack of preëxisting musical selections that is used to assemble a rough cut, and that the composer is then encouraged to mimic. Temp tracks help to explain why Hollywood scores are too often a lazy Susan of fixed formulas: in fantasy movies, metallic percussion clanging over horns and male choruses in the minor mode; in romantic comedies, a one-handed piano noodling behind a scrim of strings; in period pictures, neo-Baroque arpeggiation in the manner of Philip Glass. Granted, the limited palette of film scores sometimes results from the limited abilities of the practitioners, but almost any Hollywood tunesmith could achieve more distinctive results if the iron fist of cliché were to relax just a little. "
Entirely to the point.
Fram a talk between Philip Glass and John Corigliano in Gramophone: Debate: When is film music 'classical'? (https://www.gramophone.co.uk/features/article/debate-when-is-film-music-classical)
"JC I think also you can see the difference between concert music, theatre and film if you work in all three genres. You relate to the projects differently; it's like a balancing act. When I write a symphonic piece, the orchestra, the conductor, and the soloist, no matter how famous or important they are, all try to express my artistic vision. When you write an opera, it's in the middle. They sort of want to honour your vision, but the diva wants this, the director has his or her ideas, the stage designer wants such and such. When you get to film...
PG (laughs) You've lost it completely and utterly!
JC It's the director who's in charge and you're supposed to write music that makes that director happy and the studio happy."
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 21, 2024, 06:15:34 PMFrom the start of an Alex Ross article Composing For Hollywood:
"Afew years ago, I heard a film composer tell of a director's reaction to his labors: "O.K., now make it twenty per cent more Cuban." Such is the humble lot of composers in Hollywood: they enter the creative process late, they write on dire deadlines, and they grapple with all manner of vague or arbitrary demands. The scourge of their existence is the "temp track"—the temporary soundtrack of preëxisting musical selections that is used to assemble a rough cut, and that the composer is then encouraged to mimic. Temp tracks help to explain why Hollywood scores are too often a lazy Susan of fixed formulas: in fantasy movies, metallic percussion clanging over horns and male choruses in the minor mode; in romantic comedies, a one-handed piano noodling behind a scrim of strings; in period pictures, neo-Baroque arpeggiation in the manner of Philip Glass. Granted, the limited palette of film scores sometimes results from the limited abilities of the practitioners, but almost any Hollywood tunesmith could achieve more distinctive results if the iron fist of cliché were to relax just a little. "
As a comment on the above..... do try to hear the score written for Poor Things by Jerskin Fendrix. Apparently its his first film score and genuinely its quite unlike ANY score I have ever heard. Precisely because it does avoid all of the "conventions" Ross references above. To say it is quirky is an understatement yet because the film itself is equally quirky in terms of script/design and performances for me it worked
really well. Whether or not it would make for such a satisfying listening experience shorn of the visual associations I don't know but I was knocked out by it!
Quote from: Florestan on March 21, 2024, 08:23:38 AMlet's go the other way around: I give you the coordinates, you tell me the style, ok?
1. Symphony, 1350
2. String quartet, 1500
3. Madrigal, 1850
4. Lute music, 1930
Why do you want to speak about forms that didn't exist? We should analyze the stylistic evolution of vocal classical music from 1300 to baroque music and the evolution of instrumental and vocal music from the baroque period to today.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 22, 2024, 02:48:59 AMWhy do you want to speak about forms that didn't exist?
It's YOU who insist on defining "classical" music as an evolutionary dualism of form-
cum-style. I did nothing else than point out the inconsistency of such a definition.
QuoteWe should analyze the stylistic evolution of vocal classical music from 1300 to baroque music and the evolution of instrumental and vocal music from the baroque period to today.
You have the causality reversed: it's not the stylistic evolution which was determinant for going from Middle Age to Renaissance to Baroque to Classical to Romanticism to Modernism to Contemporary, but the corresponding aesthetic shifts, which in turn caused stylistic (and formal) differences, some continuous, some discontinuous. The more distant in time two periods of "classical" music, the greater the difference in their aesthetics, hence the greater the formal and stylistic difference between them --- not the other way around as you suggest.
I'll write one unique post to reply to the various considerations of the last pages.
1) Humans use the musical categories to group together pieces/artists which compose similar things in term of form-sound. This is the simple fact.
Why? Simply because the form-sound of the music is the ESSENCE of music, so a sensible categorization of music is based on its sound, not on other elements about which no one cares.
Classical music makes no exception: the essence of classical music is the form-sound. Some people try to find other definitions that elevate classical music above all other musical genres, such as "classical music = music that is real art", but they are not able to show the consistency of similar definitions and and they end up looking like snobs who think that only classical music is art and the rest is poop.
The case of John Williams proves that classical music can be a commercial product, and this is why the snobs try to expel his music from the category of classical music.
It's the fallacy of the no true scotsman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman)
Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Person B: "But my uncle Angus is a Scotsman and he puts sugar on his porridge."
Person A: "But no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Person A: "Classical music is not commercial, unlike other musical genres"
Person B: "The classical music of John Williams is commercial"
Person A: "The music of John Williams is not real classical music"
The "no true scotman" fallacy consists in expelling from a determined category all the examples that disprove your thesis.
Do you know that when I was younger I wrote rap songs for myself, not for commercial purposes?
What about this?
Person A: "Classical music is the music created for pure artistic purposes and not for commercial purposes"
Person B: "The rap songs of W.A. Mozart were created for pure artistic purposes, so they are classical music and should be played together with Mozart's symphonies"
Person A: "The songs of W.A. Mozart are not real classical music"
My songs were even quite original, so if originality makes classical music, this is a further consideration that reinforces the idea that my songs are classical music, once you embrace ridiculous and snobbish definitions that reject the notion that the category "classical music" is nothing else than an attempt to group together works/artists that created similar music in terms of form-sound and that some of them wrote/write music for themselves (in the same way in which I created rap songs for myself), while other write/wrote music for commercial pursposes (a lot of classical composers, including Mozart, Beethoven... and YES, John Williams).
2) Do you realize that if you succeed at demonstrating that there is no such thing as a classical form-style, the logical conclusion is that classical music doesn't exist?
For me there is no problem. To have separate categories for different styles would be certainly less confusionary.
If we used the word "classical music" only to describe the style of music of Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven, we'd know exactly what we're speaking about when we use the word "classical music" and we would avoid all this steryle debate.
The debate we're doing here, however, it would still exist.
I would tell you that this soundtracks is classical music (it sounds like a slow movement of a classical piano concerto).
I would tell you that this piece composed for Indina Jones is romantic music.
I would also tell you that the the composer of soundtracks have even composed some of the best romantic music and that I don't care if it's commercial music, because for me the only relevant thing is the quality of the final product, and I think that in some soundtracks is very high.
Although I can understand that writing music for yourself is better then writing music for money because you have more freedom, I think that when it comes to speak about the quality of the end product this consideration is totally irrelevant.
To say: "The piece A is better than the piece B" only because the piece A has been composed for pure artistic purposes is a ridiculous concept, so if what you're trying to tell me is that the composers of soundtracks don't create great music because it's commercial, you are losing your time.
@Florestan @Luke @SimonNZ @Karl Henning @DavidW @San Antone
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 22, 2024, 04:14:28 AMto group together pieces/artists which compose similar things in term of form-sound.
Precisely my point: you cannot group together Josquin and Chopin because they did not compose even remotely similar things in terms of form-sound. (I notice
en passant that you've shifted from form-style to form-sound. Why?) There is nothing, formal, stylistic or aesthetic, that unites them. They inhabit different planets and lumping them together under the umbrella of "classical music" is meaningless.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 22, 2024, 04:14:28 AMDo you realize that if you succeed at demonstrating that there is no such thing as a classical form-style, the logical conclusion is that classical music doesn't exist?
Yes, and this is why I always write
"classical" music instead of
classical music.
Classical music exists meaningfully only in the restricted sense of music written between 1770 and 1830 (or whatever chronological limits one wants to assign to it).
Classical music as a musical continuum starting from the earliest Middle Ages and proceeding through evolution until present days, any two composers within this continuum presenting similarity of form-style (or form-sound), does indeed not exist.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 22, 2024, 04:14:28 AMI'll write one unique post to reply to the various considerations of the last pages.
1) Humans use the musical categories to group together pieces/artists which compose similar things in term of form-sound. This is the simple fact.
Why? Simply because the form-sound of the music is the ESSENCE of music, so a sensible categorization of music is based on its sound, not on other elements about which no one cares.
So address the examples I have recently given, please.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 22, 2024, 04:14:28 AMClassical music makes no exception: the essence of classical music is the form-sound. Some people try to find other definitions that elevate classical music above all other musical genres, such as "classical music = music that is real art", but they are not able to show the consistency of similar definitions and and they end up looking like snobs who think that only classical music is art and the rest is poop.
I don't know anyone who has made that statement, or one anything like it. Certainly not on this thread. That's the most dust-dry strawman I've ever heard. The post continues like a whole parade of strawmen, so I'm not going to address it.
but actually I have never once stated my opinion on this thread about the question of soundtracks and whether or not they are/can be classical music. All I've said recently is that the style of a piece of music is not the only thing which can lead us to put it in certain categories. Whether we wish it weren't so or not, as thinking human beings we are usually conscious of the aesthetic behind a piece of music. We are aware that John Cage and Debussy are coming from different places and can (should?) be listened to in different ways even when their music sounds similar (as in my previous post). That's all I've said.
Quote from: Luke on March 22, 2024, 05:04:57 AMAll I've said recently is that the style of a piece of music is not the only thing which can lead us to put it in certain categories. Whether we wish it weren't so or not, as thinking human beings we are usually conscious of the aesthetic behind a piece of music. We are aware that John Cage and Debussy are coming from different places and can (should?) be listened to in different ways even when their music sounds similar
Exactly.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 22, 2024, 04:14:28 AMI would tell you that this soundtracks is classical music (it sounds like a slow movement of a classical piano concerto).
Well, it makes sense to illustrate musically
Sense and Sensibility, whose action takes place cca 1800, with music composed in the style of that time (although it would have been even better to use music composed precisely at that time, but this is another story).
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 22, 2024, 04:14:28 AM1) Humans use the musical categories to group together pieces/artists which compose similar things in term of form-sound. This is the simple fact.
I've repeatedly noted your habit of stating an assertion as if it were a fact. A less elegant but apt description, especially as you persist in the practice is
bullshitting.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 22, 2024, 04:14:28 AMI would tell you that this soundtracks is classical music (it sounds like a slow movement of a classical piano concerto.)
If it deliberately imitates classical music, it
is classical music. And a pirate knockoff of a Gucci bag
is a Gucci bag.
Actually, a lot of the classical style pastiches in eg these Jane Austen period dramas are good examples of the way film composers reimagine the music of past styles to try to recreate the sensation they imagine it may have produced at the time. Something that was thrillingly new and exciting in 1800 may not sound so to many audiences now and so to recreate that feeling the music is filled with features it may not have had at the time.
In a similar vein it always makes me smile to think that the train being depicted in the terrifying headlong rush of Alkan's Le chemin de fer (1844) was probably going about 50 mph.
Quote from: Luke on March 22, 2024, 05:51:33 AMActually, a lot of the classical style pastiches in eg these Jane Austen period dramas are good examaples of the way film composers reimagine the music of past styles to try to recreate the sensation they imagine it may have produced at the time. Something that was thrillingly new and exciting in 1800 may not sound so to many audiences now and so to recreate that feeling the music is filled with features it may not have had at the time.
Indeed, not an
equivalence but something other
and a bit more than the OP is perceiving/allowing for, in his tedious insistence that the category
film music is a subset of
classical music, where the sober consideration is more of a Venn diagram.
Are ya winning, son?
Quote from: DavidW on March 21, 2024, 09:07:15 AMHe also apparently doesn't find Mozart innovative despite being a fan of Mozart.
Because my main admiration for a composer is based on craftmanship and on the ability to write inspired themes.
Now, if you take for example the fourth movement of Jupiter, is it innovative in terms of style? It sounds like typical Classical music, to my ears. There are other pieces of Mozart that sound more romantic, for example his Violin Sonata No. 27.
The point is that in the fourth movement of Jupiter there is an incredible craftmanship combined with nice melodies.
What I'm saying is that originality/innovation is overrated. I'm not saying that it shouldn't be considered at all, but together with many other parameters.
If people are totally obsessed with originality/innovation, as if it was the exclusive value, I'll say that it's overrated.
In the works of the most known composers of classical soundtracks there is craftmanship and nice melodies, so they deserve my attention.
I don't care if ther isn't a so great stylistic reinvention/originality in their music. After all, romantic-style music is beautiful, so it's still a valid style to choose.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 22, 2024, 09:14:07 AMNow, if you take for example the fourth movement of Jupiter, is it innovative in terms of style?
Yes due to the riveting five theme fugue themed sections which is highly atypical of high Viennese style. You should spend more time listening carefully to music and less time worrying about labels.
Quote from: DavidW on March 22, 2024, 09:25:40 AMYes due to the riveting five theme fugue themed sections which is highly atypical of high Viennese style.
Indeed. There is nothing like the finale of "Jupiter", neither before it nor after it. It's in a league of its own and I'm flabbergasted that a self-proclaimed Mozart afficionado can fail to see its original and innovative features.
QuoteYou should spend more time listening carefully to music and less time worrying about labels.
Amen!
Quote from: Florestan on March 22, 2024, 04:33:39 AMPrecisely my point: you cannot group together Josquin and Chopin because they did not compose even remotely similar things in terms of form-sound. (I notice en passant that you've shifted from form-style to form-sound. Why?) There is nothing, formal, stylistic or aesthetic, that unites them. They inhabit different planets and lumping them together under the umbrella of "classical music" is meaningless.
What do they have in common the two persons in this picture? Their physical appareance is very different.
(https://cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/culturacolectiva/6EJGUWQWLVF2VKDUKMIRJHUYDI.jpg)
Well, the first person is the result of the evolution of the second. It's the
same person in different times.
I think that the musicologists put different styles of music in a unique category, called "classical music", because they think that it's the same person but in different times.
Basically, what you are saying is that the music of Tchaikovsky and Bach are two different persons because they are different, but according to this logic the little boy and the man in the picture here above are not the same person because they look different.
There is no need to explain that the classical music of the 1890 doesn't sound like the one of the 1700: it's an obvious fact.
What I'm saying is that there is a continuum between the music of Bach and the one of Tchaikovsky, in the same way as you will find a continuum in the physical appareance of the man and the little boy if you took a picture of him every day from the age of 9 to the age of 30-40.
If you take only two pictures in distant times, it looks like a different person, but if you have all pictures in a row you will realize that it's the same person.
Basically, classical music is the same style in different times. You will note it if you had many pictures of classical music in a row, ordered chronologically.
So, it's not true that the category "classical music" has nothing to do with style/aesthetic/form. The purpose of the category is precisely to be able to trace the different stages of life of a determined style, from childhood to adulthood.
QuoteYes, and this is why I always write "classical" music instead of classical music. Classical music exists meaningfully only in the restricted sense of music written between 1770 and 1830 (or whatever chronological limits one wants to assign to it). Classical music as a musical continuum starting from the earliest Middle Ages and proceeding through evolution until present days, any two composers within this continuum presenting similarity of form-style (or form-sound), does indeed not exist.
If you want you can pretend that the music of Tchaikovsky has nothing to do with the music of Bach (or that the man in the left picture has nothing to do with the little boy in the right picture), but if we decided to forget the historical continuum between baroque music and romantic music and pretend that they are completely separated styles, the fact that many soundtracks are romantic-style music would remain.
So, I don't know where you want to go with your argumentation. If soundtracks can be not classical music because classical music doesn't exist, it's also true that even the music of Bach, Mozart, Brahms, Prokofiev can not be classical.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 22, 2024, 09:53:22 AMWhat do they have in common the two persons in this picture? Their physical appareance is very different.
(https://cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/culturacolectiva/6EJGUWQWLVF2VKDUKMIRJHUYDI.jpg)
Well, the first person is the result of the evolution of the second. It's the same person in different times.
I think that the musicologists put different styles of music in a unique category, called "classical music", because they think that it's the same person but in different times.
Basically, what you are saying is that the music of Tchaikovsky and Bach are two different persons because they are different, but according to this logic the little boy and the man in the picture here above are not the same person because they look different.
Your analogy is deeply flawed.
QuoteBasically, classical music is the same style in different times.
This could very well take the prize for the silliest, most historically unaware and uninformed claim ever made on GMG.
Quoteif we decided to forget the historical continuum between baroque music and romantic music
Just as I said. You seem to be completely unaware that "classical" music did not start with the Baroque, nor did it end with Romanticism.
Quotethe music of Bach, Mozart, Brahms, Prokofiev can not be classical.
The first two were absolutely unaware of, and uninterested in, any such classifications. The labels currently attached to their music are not of their own making, not even of their own contemporaries making, and it is highly debatable whether they would have accepted them as meaningful and valid. (FYI, the first label ever attached to Mozart's music --- and Haydn's, for that matter --- was romantic, not classical, cf. E.T.A. Hoffmann)
Quote from: Maestro267 on March 22, 2024, 08:12:08 AMAre ya winning, son?
Do you know what is suddenly amusing me? Suddenly, as I've only just noticed, since sometimes the optical brain filters out unnecessary visual noise: all the exclamation points in " People obsessed by categories: Soundtracks are not classical music!!!"
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 22, 2024, 09:53:22 AMBasically,
Whenever someone online starts with "basically" it is usually followed by a strawman argument! :laugh:
Quote from: DavidW on March 22, 2024, 09:25:40 AMYou should spend more time listening carefully to music and less time worrying about labels.
He might also study Music History before opining on it.
Quote from: Florestan on March 22, 2024, 09:51:28 AMIndeed. There is nothing like the finale of "Jupiter", neither before it nor after it. It's in a league of its own and I'm flabbergasted that a self-proclaimed Mozart afficionado can fail to see its original and innovative features.
And of course,
Mozart's innovations in opera are numerous and pivotal. And we should mention, per
Jas Russell Lowell's dictum,
Creativity is not the finding of a thing, but the making something out of it after it is found,
Mozart's signal contributions to the piano concerto.
Quote from: Luke on March 21, 2024, 11:36:21 AMHere are more examples of music which is stylistically similar but aesthetically very different. Pieces that prove (to my mind) that style is not everything:
(most of the stylistic variance there is attributable to the fact that I couldn't resist putting the Doucet in)
Just as there's a difference between knowing that the sun is shining, and actually standing out in sunlight, I knew these examples would be worth sitting down and listening to, and so, I've just done. That
Isoldina is a hoot!
Quote from: Karl Henning on March 22, 2024, 10:47:15 AMHe might also study Music History before opining on it.
One thing I noticed, in several forums, and not only with respect to music: the lesser people know about history, the more peremptory they talk about it.
QuoteAnd of course, Mozart's innovations in opera are numerous and pivotal. And we should mention, per Jas Russell Lowell's dictum, Creativity is not the finding of a thing, but the making something out of it after it is found, Mozart's signal contributions to the piano concerto.
He invented the piano quartet and the quintet for piano and winds too.
Quote from: Florestan on March 22, 2024, 11:05:39 AMOne thing I noticed, in several forums, and not only with respect to music: the lesser people know about history, the more peremptory they talk about it.
He invented the piano quartet and the quintet for piano and winds too.
I was thinking earlier that (barring some outlier from Mannheim) he had likely invented the clarinet quintet.
Quote from: Karl Henning on March 22, 2024, 11:12:56 AMI was thinking earlier that (barring some outlier from Mannheim) he had likely invented the clarinet quintet.
That too, but as you correctly implied before, his creativity manifested itself not that much in inventing new forms, although he did that, as in taking the existing ones to unprecedented levels of sophistication and expressiveness. In this respect he is a cut above all his contemporaries, save Haydn.
Quote from: Karl Henning on March 22, 2024, 10:58:00 AMJust as there's a difference between knowing that the sun is shining, and actually standing out in sunlight, I knew these examples would be worth sitting down and listening to, and so, I've just done. That Isoldina is a hoot!
Great, isn't it? The Fauré/Messager reminded me of it. It always raises smile after smile.
I suspect that but for his extraordinary fame as a film composer, the concert works written by John Williams would go unnoticed.
Probably the reason why he gets commissioned for concert works. Having his name on a programme would put bums on seats. Come see the new work by Star Wars composer...and all.
Quote from: Florestan on March 22, 2024, 11:05:39 AMOne thing I noticed, in several forums, and not only with respect to music: the lesser people know about history, the more peremptory they talk about it.
It's our old friend The Dunning-Kruger Effect.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 22, 2024, 04:14:28 AMI'll write one unique post to reply to the various considerations of the last pages.
Chicken. For the second time you didn't address what I see as the need for cherry-picking from a very small number to try and convince us of a supposedly wider truth. Ironically, you're reusing the same small handful of still unconvincing examples.
You didn't address the Alex Ross quote about film composers commonly being required to imitate pre-made guide-tracks. Nor did you address the Corigliano quote about film composers working entirely to the whims of the director without being able to realize any vision of their own.
Nobody said working for money was the problem. That's a strawman of your own invention.
Quotelike snobs who think that only classical music is art and the rest is poop.
Absolutely
nobody thinks this. This is some worrying drama that you have playing out in your head: that you're being "laughed at", that you're being "bashed" for liking the music you like, and you need your tastes to be approved and admired by the rest of us. But nobody cares what you like - just go ahead and like it.
250 pages on this forum after 250 pages on the other forum is still not going to satisfy that need.
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 22, 2024, 12:54:04 PMnobody cares what you like - just go ahead and like it.
That is not enough. Apparently, as long as there is even one single person in the world who doesn't like what he likes, he'll cry "Snob! Persecution!"
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 22, 2024, 12:54:04 PMBut nobody cares what you like - just go ahead and like it.
That is part of being an adult after all.
Quote from: San Antone on March 22, 2024, 11:38:58 AMI suspect that but for his extraordinary fame as a film composer, the concert works written by John Williams would go unnoticed.
That is surely my impression from the concert works of his that I've heard. The corollary is, he would never have been commissioned to write concert works, had he not been a celebrity and unusually well-connected.
Quote from: Maestro267 on March 22, 2024, 12:27:32 PMProbably the reason why he gets commissioned for concert works. Having his name on a programme would put bums on seats. Come see the new work by Star Wars composer...and all.
You beat me to it.
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 22, 2024, 12:35:05 PMIt's our old friend The Dunning-Kruger Effect.
Ah, wearing one's ignorance like a badge of honor.
Quote from: Florestan on March 22, 2024, 01:27:03 PMThat is not enough. Apparently, as long as there is even one single person in the world who doesn't like what he likes, he'll cry "Snob! Persecution!"
The very
raison d'être of this thread.
Quote from: Karl Henning on March 22, 2024, 05:16:18 PMThe very raison d'être of this thread.
This thread reminds me of two things.
1. A Romanian joke from the 1980s.
The background: in 1924 the Communist Party (nominally "a section of the Third International", a de facto Soviet propaganda and espionage tool) was outlawed and consequently in the following two decades some members were imprisoned. Ceausescu claimed to have been among those but there is no evidence for that, and anyway at the time he was a teenager and a humble, barely literate shoemaker apprentice, not quite the menace for the "bourgeois regime".
The joke:
Q. Is it true that comrade Ceausescu was in the hiding in his youth?
A. Yes, it's true, but in semi-hiding.
Q. How so?
A. Well, he was indeed hiding, but nobody was searching for him.
2. Solzhenitsyn's comment on Tchekhov's
Three Sisters (quoted from memory).
'To Moscow! To Moscow! There we shall work! We shall work!' Well, just go working right here and now, damn you, who's stopping you?
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 21, 2024, 04:02:45 PMAnd I see you side-stepped an important point in my previous post - the need for cherry-picking to make the case for classical-style soundtracks as classical: take out John Williams and just a couple of other names and take out Star Wars and just a dozen or so other soundtracks and your case for these being The New Classical goes from being merely unconvincing to being ridiculous.
First of all, I've never written that the category "soundtrack" is a subcategory of "classical music".
I've written that "soundtrack" is not a genre of music (style) because the soundtracks use many different styles, including classical music.
So, when it comes to classificate soundtracks, we should simply use the same categories that we already use to classificate pieces not composed for soundtracks.
For example...
Hispanic music
Jazz
Classical music
This doesn't mean that you shouldn't also specifiy the category "soundtrack", but it's an additional information, not a category that replaces the other categories.
Since I've never said that all soundtracks are classical, or that most soundtracks are classical, your argument is a strawman.
What I'm saying is that when a soundtrack is classical music, it's indeed classical music. It's absurd to say that something is not classical music only because it's a soundtrack. It's a huge logical fallacy!
What would you say to someone who told you that the soundtrack of Top Gun is not rock because it has been composed for a soundtrack?
And what would you say to someone who said that Lose Yourself is not rap because it has been created for the soundtrack of 8mile?
This is a question for all.
@San Antone @Karl Henning @Luke @Florestan @Maestro267 The reality is that you are supporting an absurd thesis and even in an arrogant way (your posts full of personal attacks, things that you don't find in my posts). If someone become aggresive in a discussion it's because he has to compensate the lack of logic in his arguments with personal attacks. Killing the messenger instead of killing the message.
That said, even if the argument "how many soundtracks are classical?" has nothing to do with this debate, because what I'm saying is simply that
some soundtracks are classical, I think that you are understimating the size of the phenomenon, because most of the higly praised composers of soundtracks (the ones who have received a lot of Oscar nominations and prizes) have composed many classical soundtracks as well as classical concert works.
Here below a list.
John Williams (examples of classical soundtracks: Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Harry Potter, Schindler's List | examples of classical concert works: Cello Concerto, Violin Concerto No. 1+2)
James Horner (examples of classical soundtracks: Braveheart, Apollo 13, Titanic | examples of classical concert works: Concerto for 4 horns, Spectral Shimmers)
Jerry Goldsmith (examples of classical soundtracks: Mulan | examples of classical concert works: Music for Orchestra)
Danny Elfman (examples of classical soundtracks: Men in Black, Batman | examples of classical concert works: Violin Concerto "Eleven Eleven", Piano Quartet)
Elliot Goldenthal (examples of classical soundtracks: Interview with the Vampire | examples of classical concert works: Symphony in G minor)
Nino Rota (examples of classical soundtracks: The Godfather | examples of concert works: Symphony No. 2 "Anni di Pellegrinaggio")
John Barry (examples of classical soundtracks: Dances with Wolfes | examples of classical concert works: I don't remember the titles, but he has composed concert works too)
John Corigliano (examples of classical soundtracks: The Red Violin | examples of concert works: Piano Concerto)
Philip Glass (examples of classical soundtracks: Walk to School | examples of classical concert works: Symphony No. 4)
Leonard Bernstein (examples of classical soundtracks: On the Waterfront | examples of classical concert works: Symphony No. 3 "Kaddish")
Hans Zimmer (examples of classical soundtracks: The Lion King and Gladiator)
Patrick Doyle (examples of classical soundtracks: Sense and Sensibility and Hamlet)
Elmer Bernstein (examples of classical soundtracks: The Comancheros, The Age of Innocence, Far from Heaven)
Alan Menken (examples of classical soundtracks: The Hunthback of Notre-Dame, Beauty and the Beast, Pocahontas)
When I don't specify classical concert works is not necessarily because they don't exist, but because I'm not aware of them.
The point is that the classical soundtracks are mostly used in films with high budgets, which might be a minority of films, but they are also the kind of films whose soundtracks are higly praised.
If you restrict the category of "soundtrack" to "highly praised soundtrack", I'd say that classical music is a standard. If you restrict the category of "composer of soundtrack" to the category of "highly praised composer of soundtrack", being a composer of classical music is a standard.
Quote from: DavidW on March 22, 2024, 09:25:40 AMYes due to the riveting five theme fugue themed sections which is highly atypical of high Viennese style. You should spend more time listening carefully to music and less time worrying about labels.
You are confusing style (which describes the aesthetic) with texture (which is a technical element, not an element related to aesthetic).
Now, the style/aesthetic of the fourth movement of Jupiter is the typical one of the classical period.
The fugato (technical element) might be atypical in Classical music, but it was not a new technique: it's a typical baroque technique. So, Mozart brought an old technique into modern music (modern for his time), which is similar to what the composers of classical soundtracks do today.
P.S. How many new classical pieces do you listen to each week?
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 23, 2024, 04:03:01 AMThe reality is that you are supporting an absurd thesis
Risum teneatis, amici?Quoteand even in an arrogant way (your posts full of personal attacks, things that you don't find in my posts). If someone become aggresive in a discussion it's because he has to compensate the lack of logic in his arguments with personal attacks. Killing the messenger instead of killing the message.
Nobody attacked you, unless you equate exposing flaws in your argumentation and gaps in your knowledge with personally attacking you.
Have you ever entertained the slightest idea that you might be wrong? Or are you convinced that it's you and you only who is absolutely right and everybody else who disagrees with you is absolutely wrong?
Quote from: Florestan on March 22, 2024, 10:17:14 AMYour analogy is deeply flawed.
This could very well take the prize for the silliest, most historically unaware and uninformed claim ever made on GMG.
Just as I said. You seem to be completely unaware that "classical" music did not start with the Baroque, nor did it end with Romanticism.
The first two were absolutely unaware of, and uninterested in, any such classifications. The labels currently attached to their music are not of their own making, not even of their own contemporaries making, and it is highly debatable whether they would have accepted them as meaningful and valid. (FYI, the first label ever attached to Mozart's music --- and Haydn's, for that matter --- was romantic, not classical, cf. E.T.A. Hoffmann)
Basically, what you are saying is that classical music doesn't exist, but if I say that the music of Brahms is classical you have nothing to say, but if I say that the music of John Williams is classical, you polemize.
Can you explain the reason of your double standards? Why do you accept the label "classical music" applied to determined concert works, but not if applied to determined soundtracks?
If classical music is nothing, as you put it, nothing can be classical music.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 23, 2024, 04:42:27 AMBasically, what you are saying is that classical music doesn't exist, but if I say that the music of Brahms is classical you have nothing to say, but if I say that the music of John Williams is classical, you polemize.
No, I don't. I have never expressed my opinion about John Williams' music, or about film music in general. My disagreement concerns you flawed and fluctuating definitions of "classical" music.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 22, 2024, 09:53:22 AMWhat do they have in common the two persons in this picture? Their physical appareance is very different.
(https://cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/culturacolectiva/6EJGUWQWLVF2VKDUKMIRJHUYDI.jpg)
Well, the first person is the result of the evolution of the second. It's the same person in different times.
It strikes me that these two people also have quite a lot (physically) in common with your avatar, which raises the question of whether it is you.
Quote from: premont on March 23, 2024, 05:15:22 AMIt strikes me that these two people also have quite a lot (physically) in common with your avatar, which raises the question of whether it is you.
Having recently watched a documentary on scammers I did a reverse image search and can inform you that the poster is not W.A. Mozart but is in fact Macaulay Culkin who is improbably trying to pass himself off as a 268 year old ::) .
Oh yes, the avatar displays Macaulay Culkin of course. The two other pictures WAM posted displays an actor Jake Lloyd. Lloyd was young Anakin Skywalker in the derided prequel, but his mother says she shielded him from online hate. He was diagnosed with schizophrenia in 2008 and is recovering after a full mental break last year.
Quote from: Maestro267 on March 22, 2024, 12:27:32 PMProbably the reason why he gets commissioned for concert works. Having his name on a programme would put bums on seats. Come see the new work by Star Wars composer...and all.
Relatedly, it was an excellent marketing move to appoint Williams to the
Boston Pops. It was indeed a good fusion of PR savvy and musical ability, for Williams is by all reports an affable gent, and his conducting ability was a good fit for the
Pops.
Quote from: premont on March 23, 2024, 05:15:22 AMIt strikes me that these two people also have quite a lot (physically) in common with your avatar, which raises the question of whether it is you.
Quote from: premont on March 23, 2024, 06:42:23 AMOh yes, the avatar displays Macaulay Culkin of course. The two other pictures WAM posted displays an actor Jake Lloyd. Lloyd was young Anakin Skywalker in the derided prequel, but his mother says she shielded him from online hate. He was diagnosed with schizophrenia in 2008 and is recovering after a full mental break last year.
I don't understand your observations.
Jake Lloyd doesn't look like Macaulay Culkin, unless you don't want to reduce the physical appareance to the color of the hair.
If you already knew who are the two boys, why did you ask if my avatar is a picture of myself?
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 23, 2024, 07:47:17 AMI don't understand your observations.
Jake Lloyd doesn't look like Macaulay Culkin, unless you don't want to reduce the physical appareance to the colors of the hair.
If you already knew who are the two boys, why did you ask if my avatar is a picture of myself?
Get yourself a sense of humor and irony, man!
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 23, 2024, 07:47:17 AMJake Lloyd doesn't look like Macaulay Culkin, unless you don't want to reduce the physical appareance to the color of the hair.
There is a certain similarity. Look at the right ear, the nose and the area just above the upper lip.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 23, 2024, 07:47:17 AMIf you already knew who are the two boys, why did you ask if my avatar is a picture of myself?
I didn't realise this until later.
Quote from: Karl Henning on March 22, 2024, 04:39:28 PMAh, wearing one's ignorance like a badge of honor.
A booktuber that I liked it called it the Twitter/social media effect. People these days think that if you just shout the same lie over and over it becomes true by repetition. And since people on social media end up in an echo chamber they become convinced that truth is whatever they want it to be. ???
Quote from: premont on March 23, 2024, 05:15:22 AMIt strikes me that these two people also have quite a lot (physically) in common with your avatar, which raises the question of whether it is you.
WAM is the chosen one... he will bring balance. WEEE!!! :laugh:
Quote from: DavidW on March 23, 2024, 08:16:41 AMA booktuber that I liked it called it the Twitter/social media effect. People these days think that if you just shout the same lie over and over it becomes true by repetition. And since people on social media end up in an echo chamber they become convinced that truth is whatever they want it to be. ???
Is this what some call "the Donald effect"?
Quote from: Florestan on March 23, 2024, 05:01:05 AMNo, I don't. I have never expressed my opinion about John Williams' music, or about film music in general. My disagreement concerns you flawed and fluctuating definitions of "classical" music.
Basically, you are trying to show that classical music is nothing so that it's not possible to say that soundtracks are classical music.
By logic, if classical music is nothing, as you put it, even the statement "the music of Brahms is classical" is invalid.
I might tell you that even if the word "classical music" didn't exist in the past, the musical tradition that the modern word tries to describe existed.
Mendelssohn, a composer of romantic music, was infact inspired by Bach, and I read that the popularity of the music of Bach was infact relaunched by Mendelssohn.
I might tell you that Tchaikovsky praised Mozart and even wrote a piece inspired to Mozart's music, which shows the historical continuum between Classical music and late romantic music.
These are good examples to show the historical continuum between the different periods/styles of what we call "classical music".
Finally, I'm not sure about this, but I read that some late romantic composers started to use a lot of dissonances and that someone told himself "Why do I have to resolve the dissonances?". In practice, the atonal music of the 20th century would be the the further evolution of the tonal but higly dissonant romantic music, from what I read.
And of course, the avantgarde music of today is the evolution of the atonal music of the beginning of the 20th century.
I'm not a musicologist, but your idea that the various styles of classical music have nothing do with each others, that every style is born from scratch and has stylistically nothing to do with the previous styles, is not convincing, because even if I'm not an expert, I know at least two or three things of music history.
So, I also know, for example, that Schönberg at the beginning of his career as composer was writing romantic-style tonal music. This an other element which shows the historical continuum between the different styles.
That said, I don't care about this, because to show what I'm trying to show I don't need to defend the category "classical music".
Once the category "classical music" has been broken in many different parts, I can say that John Williams can be placed in the same musical category of Mendelssohn, Brahms, Dvorak, Tchaikovsky, Atterberg, Joly Braga Santos, the late Arond Copland: the romantic/neoromantic tradition.
I don't see how exactly this detail changes what I'm saying.
If the category "classical music" is a valid category and the romantic tradition is a part of it, the music of John Williams is classical for the simple fact that the romantic tradition is a part of classical music.
If the category "classical music" is not a valid category, the music of John Williams can not be classical, obviously.
The same is true for the music of Mendelssohn, Brahms, Dvorak, Tchaikovsky, Atterberg, Joly Braga Santos, Copland.
Their music, however, can be categorized as ROMANTICISM.
In order to destroy my thesis, you have to show that the music of John Williams has nothing to do with ROMANTICISM. So, I'll wait for your arguments against the notion that the soundtracks of John Williams and many other composers of Hollywood can not been seen as a NEOROMANTIC WAVE.
@San Antone @DavidW @SimonNZ @Maestro267 @Karl Henning @steve ridgway
Quote from: DavidW on March 23, 2024, 08:16:41 AMA booktuber that I liked it called it the Twitter/social media effect. People these days think that if you just shout the same lie over and over it becomes true by repetition. And since people on social media end up in an echo chamber they become convinced that truth is whatever they want it to be. ???
To think freely is a great thing. To think correctly is a greater thing.
Internet and social media have done more service to free speech than any other media combined. The drawback is that any idiot with an internet connection thinks himself a smart person, if not a genius.
I haste to add that this is a general observation which does not concern anyone in this thread.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 23, 2024, 08:35:58 AMBasically
Ain't it? ;D
Quoteyou are trying to show that classical music is nothing so that it's not possible to say that soundtracks are classical music.
Calomniez, calomniez, il en restera toujours quelque chose!.
You're pretending to read my mind.
Quote from: Florestan on March 23, 2024, 08:38:57 AMTo think freely is a great thing. To think correctly is a greater thing.
Internet and social media have done more service to free speech than any other media combined. The drawback is that any idiot with an internet connection thinks himself a smart person, if not a genius.
I haste to add that this is a general observation which does not concern anyone in this thread.
Intelligence is the ability to understand and apply logic. Logic is my profession (I'm a computer programmer), but for this debate we only need the logic of the primary school.
In the picture here below you can see a Venn Diagram. The set A is a subset of the set B.
(https://notesformsc.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Venn-Diagram-Subsets.drawio.png)
We can add a further subset of the set B: we can call it "C".
Now, the widely recognized classification tells us that there is a set called "classical music" (the equivalent of the set B in the image here above) and that this category has various subcategories, as for example Classical music (Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven) which is the equivalent of the set A in the image here above, and romantic music (Mendelssohn, Brahms, Dvorak, Tchaikovsky), which is the equivalent of the set C (the one we've just added to the diagram).
A bit of elementary logic.
If the music of John Williams is inside the set C ("romantic music"), then by simple logic it's also a part of the set B ("classical music").
Once you show that the set B ("classical music") doesn't exist, the set B dissolves, but the set A ("Classical music" ---> the style of the classical period) and the set C ("romantic music") still exist as indipendent sets.
In this case, the music of John Williams belongs to the set C ("romantic music"), but not to the set B ("classical music"), but the same thing is true for all artists/pieces placed inside the set C ("romantic music").
So, unless someone doesn't want to tell me that I'm wrong about the fact that many soundtracks of John Williams are romantic music, the basic logic of primary school tells us everything we have to know.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 23, 2024, 09:08:07 AMIntelligence is the ability to understand and apply logic. Logic is my profession (I'm a computer programmer), but for this debate we only need the logic of the primary school.
In the picture here below you can a Venn Diagram. The set A is a subset of the set B.
(https://notesformsc.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Venn-Diagram-Subsets.drawio.png)
We can add a further subset of the set B: we can call it "C".
Now, the widely recognized classification tells us that there is a set called "classical music" (the equivalent of the set B in the image here above) and that this category has various subcategories, as for example Classical music (Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven) which is the equivalent of the set A in the image here above, and romantic music (Mendelssohn, Brahms, Dvorak, Tchaikovsky), which is the equivalent of the set C (the one we've just added to the diagram).
A bit of elementary logic.
If the music of John Williams is inside the set C ("romantic music"), then by simple logic it's also a part of the set B ("classical music").
Once you show that the set B ("classical music") doesn't exist, the set B dissolves, but the set A ("Classical music" ---> the style of the classical period) and the set C ("romantic music") still exist as indipendent sets.
In this case, the music of John Williams belongs to the set C ("romantic music"), but not to the set B ("classical music"), but the same thing is true for all artists/pieces placed inside the set C ("romantic music").
So, unless someone doesn't want to tell me that I'm wrong about the fact that many soundtracks of John Williams are romantic music, the basic logic of primary school tells us everything we have to know.
Talk about being obsessed with categories...
Sure, you can have "classical soundtrack music" as a sub genre of "classical music"; "classical style soundtrack music" would be too unwieldy as a label. That ought to lead some movie goers to investigate "classical music" while keeping it distinct for those who are looking for other sub genres such as "20th century classical music", "avant garde classical music" etc.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 23, 2024, 09:08:07 AMIntelligence is the ability to understand and apply logic.
12+2 equals what?
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 23, 2024, 09:08:07 AMA bit of elementary logic.
If the music of John Williams is inside the set C ("romantic music"),
"If"... last I checked John Williams was not a 19th century composer following the ideals of romanticism which you learned about in high school English if you were paying attention. :laugh: Were you paying attention back then? CS types usually don't see the value in English class. Not all, just some. And judging by your poor argumentation and lack of persuasiveness I would say you were probably in that camp.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 23, 2024, 09:08:07 AMIn this case, the music of John Williams belongs to the set C ("romantic music")
You never tire of making assertions and imputing to them the color of a fact, do you?
That, to be clear, is a rhetorical question.
Quote from: Maestro267 on March 22, 2024, 08:12:08 AMAre ya winning, son?
You never count your money
When you're sittin' at the table
There'll be time enough for countin'
When the dealin's done ;D
I have no argument to make. I'm just morbidly fascinated by the progression of this thread, watching from the sidelines.
Quote from: Maestro267 on March 23, 2024, 10:21:46 AMI have no argument to make. I'm just morbidly fascinated by the progression of this thread, watching from the sidelines.
I know --- and understand --- very well. :D
Oh, and "morbid fascination" is extremely well put. ;)
Quote from: ultralinear on March 23, 2024, 11:39:09 AMPoints:
- These places are where people who like classical music go to hear it.
- This is not the first or only time I have seen programs like this offered. Two together may be slightly unusual, but singly - not at all.
- Both of these events are tagged on their respective venue websites as "Classical" - meaning that if you do a search by "genre" for "classical music", they will both show up.
- I have also seen - and attended - concert programs which included soundtrack items alongside non-film music. Scott of the Antarctic is an obvious one, but others as well.
So what is the problem here?
I already told him many pages ago that my local orchestra regularly performs film music, show tunes etc. And we even have a dedicated film music thread.
Quote from: DavidW on March 23, 2024, 12:32:03 PMwe even have a dedicated film music thread.
Absurdity and snobism! It's all classical, stupid! ;D
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 23, 2024, 08:35:58 AMIn order to destroy my thesis, you have to show that the music of John Williams has nothing to do with ROMANTICISM. So, I'll wait for your arguments against the notion that the soundtracks of John Williams and many other composers of Hollywood can not been seen as a NEOROMANTIC WAVE. @San Antone @DavidW @SimonNZ @Maestro267 @Karl Henning @steve ridgway
Is that what's happening here? We're not just having a discussion where if someone makes a valid point you say "yeah, that's a valid point, I hadn't considered that factor" (which should have happened already).
So you see this as a Debating Team debate where each side has to take an extreme stance that nobody fully believes in and tries to win just for winnings sake? Well, in one of those debates you'd lose points for sidestepping any arguments you found inconvenient. And you'd lose points for making the same argument twice (or twenty times).
And nobody has said that the music of John Williams has nothing to do with Romanticism. The problem is that its a facile imitation.
Now please address the Alex Ross and Corigliano quotes upthread. If we're meant to be "destroying" your "thesis".
In fact, go ahead and address my idea that all this might just be a deep insecurity about your tastes not being validated.
Quote from: ultralinear on March 23, 2024, 11:39:09 AMPoints:
These places are where people who like classical music go to hear it.
This is not the first or only time I have seen programs like this offered. Two together may be slightly unusual, but singly - not at all.
Both of these events are tagged on their respective venue websites as "Classical" - meaning that if you do a search by "genre" for "classical music", they will both show up.
I have also seen - and attended - concert programs which included soundtrack items alongside non-film music. Scott of the Antarctic is an obvious one, but others as well.
So what is the problem here?
Quote from: DavidW on March 23, 2024, 12:32:03 PMI already told him many pages ago that my local orchestra regularly performs film music, show tunes etc. And we even have a dedicated film music thread.
And, while this division of emphasis will doubtless get on the OP's nerves, the
Boston Pops has programmed film music for a long time.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 23, 2024, 08:35:58 AMIn order to destroy my thesis, you have to show that the music of John Williams has nothing to do with ROMANTICISM.
False. Complete, self-absorbed rubbish.
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 23, 2024, 12:53:53 PMAnd nobody has said that the music of John Williams has nothing to do with Romanticism. The problem is that its a facile imitation.
For students of music history, one telltale datum is: John Williams was born in the United States in 1932.
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 23, 2024, 12:53:53 PMNow please address the Alex Ross and Corigliano quotes upthread. If we're meant to be "destroying" your "thesis".
Does he even read?
Quote from: Karl Henning on March 23, 2024, 01:10:10 PMDoes he even read?
I believe this answers your question...
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 23, 2024, 08:35:58 AMFinally, I'm not sure about this, but I read that some late romantic composers started to use a lot of dissonances and that someone told himself "Why do I have to resolve the dissonances?". In practice, the atonal music of the 20th century would be the the further evolution of the tonal but higly dissonant romantic music, from what I read.
And of course, the avantgarde music of today is the evolution of the atonal music of the beginning of the 20th century.
...with a "no".
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 23, 2024, 01:20:08 PMI believe this answers your question...
...with a "no".
Otto: Apes don't read philosophy.
Wanda: Yes they do, Otto. They just don't understand it.
The late Chas Wuorinen: How can there be an "avant-garde," when the revolution before last said "Anything Goes?"
Quote from: Karl Henning on March 23, 2024, 01:24:54 PMApes don't read philosophy.
Ask Engels and his working ape... ;D
I will not be going back to see what I missed here...
...but...
...let me pose this question to our 21st-century W. A. Mozart:
If a piece of classical music - Finlandia by Sibelius, which music was incredibly used in Die Hard II - or Wagner's operatic music, bits of which were used in Looney Tunes cartoons - or Schubert's Symphony #8, which was used in early horror movies from Universal Studios - has it become film music? ;)
If a rock-'n'-roll song is played by a symphony orchestra, e.g. These Dreams by Heart, does it become Romantic music?
The music remains what it is. Music, and I will return to what I quoted near the beginning, a jazz musician's famous observation that there are two kinds of music: Good and "the other kind." 8)
I also recall Stravinsky saying that music was about itself.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/stravinsky-in-context/music-is-by-its-very-nature-essentially-powerless-to-express-anything-at-all/88A9D7A570047E2EE32DF642D54BEE15 (https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/stravinsky-in-context/music-is-by-its-very-nature-essentially-powerless-to-express-anything-at-all/88A9D7A570047E2EE32DF642D54BEE15)
BTW if you think this thread is ridiculous, I want to remind you all to check the olive oil (https://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,10960.0.html) >:D >:D >:D
Quote from: ultralinear on March 23, 2024, 11:39:09 AMEdit: Both of the above shows are pretty well booked out - the Batman one almost completely so dammit - I was going to go to that. >:(
As the OP will inevitably treat this as proving that classical venues should stop programming what he sweepingly calls avant-garde in favor of more film music I'm compelled to add that the fastest sold out classical concert I've been to was for the Kronos Quartet. And the most consistently sold out genre is opera.
Quote from: DavidW on March 23, 2024, 02:52:56 PMBTW if you think this thread is ridiculous, I want to remind you all to check the olive oil (https://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,10960.0.html) >:D >:D >:D
88 pages!!
I encourage you to unlock that thread, invite Robert Newman back, and have our OP direct his energies into a one-on-one. "The unstoppable force meets the immovable object".
A quote from page 10 there:
QuoteI think it is pointless to really argue with Newman. He is using a typical propagandist technique. Pretend to have an open discussion but in reality ignore all dissenting opinions and keep repeating the same exact points over and over until they become branded into the minds of others. It's the famous "big lie" concept. Essentially, it's like talking to a bot. I think it won't be long until the mods are fed up with him.
Quote from: Florestan on March 22, 2024, 05:22:35 AMWell, it makes sense to illustrate musically Sense and Sensibility, whose action takes place cca 1800, with music composed in the style of that time
For sure better than what they did in the film "the piano", a film set in the 19th century where the main carachter (a pianist) plays the contemporary music of Michael Nyman, who composed the music for the film without readjusting his style.
Quote(although it would have been even better to use music composed precisely at that time, but this is another story).
If the producers of film would simply recycle already existing music for the soundtracks, they wouldn't create new music, so the artistic value of films would be lower.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 24, 2024, 01:55:03 AMFor sure better than what they did in the film "the piano", a film set in the 19th century where the main carachter (a pianist) plays the contemporary music of Michael Nyman, who composed the music for the film without readjusting his style.
Tellingly, Nyman's score for The Piano, which you seem to dislike/disapprove of, is a great example of the wonderful things that can happen when a composer's personal style is allowed to emerge in a score. The Piano is set in the 19th century, for sure, but it is the story of European settlers in New Zealand, trying to establish an enclave of European-style life in an environment which has never seen such a thing. The Piano itself, washed up on that southern beach, is an image of that. Nyman's music, which is based on Scottish folk songs and is founded on 19th century style figurations, grows appropriately rich and strange from the confrontation of these European materials with the composer's 'alien' techniques, minimalist and other. A whole new unique language builds up instead. It is the perfect music for the action and the themes of the film, and the fact that you dont get that but instead yearn for a simple pastiche is revealing.
Quote from: Karl Henning on March 22, 2024, 05:31:05 AMIf it deliberately imitates classical music, it is classical music. And a pirate knockoff of a Gucci bag is a Gucci bag.
It's an extremely bad comparison, because while in the case of a Gucci Bag it's possible to define what is a real Guccy bag (the ones produced by Gucci), in the field of the subject of this discussion is not possible.
The comparison would make sense only if Classical music (the music written in the style of the classical period) was a registered trademark owned by Mozart: in that case only the music of Mozart would be Classical and everyone who copies his music would produce a pirate knockoff of the product Classical music.
Now, tell me who is the owner of the trademark "Classical music". Mozart? Mozart and Haydn? Mozart, Haydn and C.P.E. Bach? Mozart, Haydn, C.P.E. Bach and Boccherini?
Well, you should know that in the real world "Classical music" is not a registered trademark: it's an "open source project".
There is nothing which prevents Patrick Doyle (the composer of soundtrack of Sense and Sensibility) from being a composer of Classical music....
... unless you don't define "Classical music" as the music composed in a determined period (1750-1820), but is this the real spirit of the categories?
I'd say that the spirit is to define the different styles of classical music and that the time periods given by musicological texts are only vague indications of the time in which the style was common.
I seriously doubt that any serious musicologist would tell you that Classical music completely died after the 1820: for sure, he will be aware that even today there are still people who compose in that style.
However, do you know what's the difference between Classical music and romantic music? While the former has been mostly replaced by romantic music, the latter has never died.
In the case of romantic music there isn't a corpse not even from a statistical point of view. Infact, the composers of soundtracks have kept it alive.
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 22, 2024, 12:54:04 PMYou didn't address the Alex Ross quote about film composers commonly being required to imitate pre-made guide-tracks. Nor did you address the Corigliano quote about film composers working entirely to the whims of the director without being able to realize any vision of their own.
Nobody said working for money was the problem. That's a strawman of your own invention.
It's not that I didn't address your quotes. It's that you are using a strawman, because I've never written that the composers of soundtracks are free to compose whatever they want.
Instead of using strawmen, you should declare that, according to your definition, classical music means "art music", i.e. music composed for pure artistic purposes and in full control of the composer.
This is what you want to say?
If this is your definition, we can check its consistency.
I already wrote that when I was younger I used to create rap songs for myself, so it was music created for pure artistic purposes and not for commercial purposes. I had the full control of the end product.
Would you categorize my music as "classical/art music"?
Yesterday I listened to this Piano Concerto of Ferdinand Ries.
In the comments below the video, I read:
"The cliched passagework was designed to sell copies of the sheet music. Interestingly, the 1806 version doesn't have so much of this, demonstrating how commercial pressures changed Ries's approach to composition. (This recording is of the 1823/4 version.)"Now, if you tell me that my rap songs are classical/art music (according to your definition), while the PC of Ferdinand Ries is popular music (is this the term you want to use to describe music that is not art music?), I'll respect your position, because I've always said that that definitions/categories are subjective but that every serious definition is logically consistent.
What I absolutely cannot accept, for the sake of logic, is being told that it makes any sense to say that classical music is equivalent to art music in the real world, considering the way the category "classical music" is used by people.
It's not art music, until you won't expel from the category all classical-style commercial music and you will accept purely artistic pieces which don't follow determined forms-styles.
The people who pretend that classical music is art music simply want to elevate a form-style above the others.
Yes, because in the real world the category "classical music" is used to group together determined form-styles in historical continuum between each others, and this is why no one cares about the fact that the String Quartet No. 13 of Beethoven and the Piano Concerto of Ries are pieces of commercial music where the publisher put his nose in the artistic work.
Because it doesn't matter.
If Beethoven would have composed a Trumpet Concerto with a gun to his head, we'd consider the piece as "classical music".
However, if a composer of soundtracks who writes classical-style music has not the complete control of the end product, many people will suddenly remember that classical music is purely artistic music, for then forgetting it as soon as we speak about the String Quartet No. 13 of Beethoven.
These are nothing else than double standards of people who want to elevate classical concert music above classical soundtracks. It's musical racism.
QuoteAbsolutely nobody thinks this. This is some worrying drama that you have playing out in your head: that you're being "laughed at", that you're being "bashed" for liking the music you like, and you need your tastes to be approved and admired by the rest of us. But nobody cares what you like - just go ahead and like it.
250 pages on this forum after 250 pages on the other forum is still not going to satisfy that need.
It's an other strawman.
At the beginning of the discussion I was responding to this article: https://www.theguardian.com/music/musicblog/2008/apr/07/canfilmmusiceverbeclassical (https://www.theguardian.com/music/musicblog/2008/apr/07/canfilmmusiceverbeclassical)
Now I'm responding to the article and to the users who support its views.
I'm responding to people who say that classical soundtracks don't exist, not to people who say that John Williams is a bad composer.
Quote from: Florestan on March 22, 2024, 01:27:03 PMThat is not enough. Apparently, as long as there is even one single person in the world who doesn't like what he likes, he'll cry "Snob! Persecution!"
It's not one single person.
The idea that classical concert music is superior in respect to classical soundtracks is a very popular joke in the world of classical music.
It's important to distinguish the people who say that they prefer X more than Y from people who say that X is superior in respect to Y and that if you like Y it means that you have bad taste.
I'm fighting the second group, not the first.
When a toxic and dumb culture becomes popular, someone must take the time to fight it.
Here below you see a picture of me.
(https://comicvine.gamespot.com/a/uploads/scale_super/0/7015/1667772-superman.jpg)
Quote from: Karl Henning on March 22, 2024, 04:38:00 PMThat is surely my impression from the concert works of his that I've heard. The corollary is, he would never have been commissioned to write concert works, had he not been a celebrity and unusually well-connected.
John Williams doesn't have to show his value as a composer with concert music, since he has already showed his value as a composer of soundtracks.
Composing solid soundtracks is not easier than composing concert music, but harder, because while composing soundtracks requires the same craftmanship required to compose concert music (orchestration, melody, harmony, and so on...), soundtracks require additional craftmanship that is not required in concert music: the ability to write music that fits a scene perfectly.
While in concert music there is not wrong music (but only music that doesn't satisfy your expectations), it's possible to support that in the field of soundtracks the concept of correct/wrong music makes sense.
This video has the wrong music, and so it communicates wrong messages (in respect to what the real scene actually communicates).
The original music, on the other hand, fits perfectly the scene: it provides the right message.
In concert music none of them would be wrong: it's only a matter of taste.
If John Williams wanted to compose concert music that everyone likes he could simply compose an orchestral suite of romantic and epic music with nice tunes and orchestrations. Nothing else than what he has done for his entire life.
The point is that in concert music John Williams uses a less accessible style, and this is the only reason for which many people don't find his concert pieces satisfactory.
I have to say that I don't care about this, because if I want to listen to the beautiful music of John Williams I know where to find it and if for his concert pieces he wants to compose more experimental, but also less accessible, music, let him do his experiments.
In TC there is a composer who praise his concert works, especially the Cello Concerto, so I guess that there is a public for it.
Quote from: Karl Henning on March 22, 2024, 10:58:00 AMJust as there's a difference between knowing that the sun is shining, and actually standing out in sunlight, I knew these examples would be worth sitting down and listening to, and so, I've just done.
That Isoldina is a hoot!
Quote from: Luke on March 21, 2024, 11:36:21 AMHere are more examples of music which is stylistically similar but aesthetically very different. Pieces that prove (to my mind) that style is not everything:
Thanks
@Luke ! Discovery of the year so far!
Well, I'm convinced. I take it all back. Not calling sound tracks classical is "musical racism". And I was wrong to think your rap songs were "pure art".
And I think I speak for everybody. We owe you a heartfelt apology.
Your work here done. Congratulations. Might as well close the thread now, before some other racists show up.
Quote from: Florestan on March 23, 2024, 04:40:25 AMNobody attacked you, unless you equate exposing flaws in your argumentation and gaps in your knowledge with personally attacking you.
Yes, if you ignore the posts which compare me with apes and posts in which I'm described as a dumb student (the second one written by a moderator).
Perhaps you think that this is polite argumentation. I see only personal attacks and no (logical) arguments.
Quote from: Karl Henning on March 23, 2024, 01:24:54 PMOtto: Apes don't read philosophy.
Wanda: Yes they do, Otto. They just don't understand it.
Quote from: DavidW on March 23, 2024, 09:39:20 AM"If"... last I checked John Williams was not a 19th century composer following the ideals of romanticism which you learned about in high school English if you were paying attention. :laugh: Were you paying attention back then? CS types usually don't see the value in English class. Not all, just some. And judging by your poor argumentation and lack of persuasiveness I would say you were probably in that camp.
And so what?
We're speaking of romanticism as a style, not as a period.
To all the users who are trying to play with the notion that baroque/classical/romantic music is the music written in a determined period, and not music written in a determined style, can you tell me how do you define a contemporary violin concerto written in romantic style?
For example this one?
Do you want to call it "porridge"? Then let's call the music of John Williams "porridge".
However, if this violin concerto is romantic music, or neoromantic music, the music of John Williams can also be called romantic music or neoromantic music.
By logic, if the category "(neo)romantic music" is a subset of the category "classical music", the music of John Williams is classical music.
This is primary school logic: it's accessible even for us apes.
No, really, your work here is done: Florestan, Karl, David and I all met earlier today and played Danny Elfman's Men In Black soundtrack, and with one voice we said "well if this isn't classical I don't know what is!"
So congratulations.
Where will you go next?
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 24, 2024, 02:36:58 AMI seriously doubt that any serious musicologist would tell you that Classical music completely died after the 1820: for sure, he will be aware that even today there are still people who compose in that style.
I don't really have a dog in this fight; I suspect I probably would but tbh I'm not really sure what you are trying to argue and don't have time for all the screeds of conspiracy. I'm afraid that stuff makes me tend to tune out.
But odd things like the above catch my eye.
Even if there was a composer composing note for note like e.g. Haydn these days (there isn't) the simple fact of him/her doing so when so much time/music/history has passed under the bridge since then/the fact that Haydn was composing in a contemporary style whereas this theoretical composer would be composing in a knowingly archaic way - all this would mean that they were composing from a different aesthetic position. Like the examples I posted earlier (ignored by you).
But the fact is Patrick Doyle's S+S soundtracks are not written in a purely Classical style, for the very understandable reason I also posted earlier (also ignored by you)
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 24, 2024, 04:03:56 AMWhen a toxic and dumb culture becomes popular, someone must take the time to fight it.
Here below you see a picture of me.
(https://comicvine.gamespot.com/a/uploads/scale_super/0/7015/1667772-superman.jpg)
(https://media2.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExb2U2YjMzeGMweDIzaWt5N29xNDNqem11ZGtwOGFoemtyeXNwd2gzbCZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfYnlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/3ohhwxmNcPvwyRqYKI/giphy.gif)
Quote from: Cato on March 24, 2024, 04:23:16 AMThanks @Luke ! Discovery of the year so far!
Glad you like it! It's a wonderful piece of satire (affectionate, I assume)
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 24, 2024, 04:57:36 AMNo, really, your work here is done: Florestan, Karl, David and I all met earlier today and played Danny Elfman's Men In Black soundtrack, and with one voice we said "well if this isn't classical I don't know what is!"
So congratulations.
Where will you go next?
This is the suite published in my channel.
I'd say that except for the Opening Titles (that are clearily not classical music), the rest is modern-style classical music (the one closer to romantic music, not the atonal modern music).
The video, which contains a selection of the best parts of the suite, is structured as follows:
00:00 The Suit [main theme]
01:28 Opening Titles
04:26 Take Off - Crash
11:47 Finale [final reprise of the main theme with climax]
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 24, 2024, 04:03:56 AMWhen a toxic and dumb culture becomes popular, someone must take the time to fight it.
I may not be the man's greatest fan, but that's a heckuva harsh thing to say about Jn Williams!
Quote from: ultralinear on March 23, 2024, 11:39:09 AMI continue to be baffled as to what the point of this thread is supposed to be.
The point is that there are people who rant for the fact that many soundtracks are generally considered classical music and that, therefore, are also promoted and played in contexts of classical music, as you correctly explained in your post.
I don't know if your question was for me or for the other users who deny the existence of classical soundtracks, but since I agree with you, you will have to wait for the responses of
@Karl Henning,
@SimonNZ,
@San Antone and
@DavidW who will probably tell you that we are all mad because classical soundtracks don't exist.
Quote from: Cato on March 23, 2024, 02:22:37 PMI will not be going back to see what I missed here...
...but...
...let me pose this question to our 21st-century W. A. Mozart:
If a piece of classical music - Finlandia by Sibelius, which music was incredibly used in Die Hard II - or Wagner's operatic music, bits of which were used in Looney Tunes cartoons - or Schubert's Symphony #8, which was used in early horror movies from Universal Studios - has it become film music? ;)
Film music = music originally composed for a film
Since the music of Schubert has not been originally composed for a film, but it has only been USED in a film, it will never become film music. It's elementary logic.
The point is that your comparison doesn't work, because the word "classical music" doesn't describe the context of a composition, unlike "film music".
It's a category created to trace the evolution of a determined musical style-form, by collecting all the works created inside it.
@Florestan doesn't agree about this, but I'm still waiting that he explains how do I determine if something is classical music or not.
If it was true that the various styles of classical music (baroque, Classical, romantique, and so on...) were all born from scratch and there was no link between each others (and this sounds completely wrong to my ears), then the category "classical music" would be THE NOTHING.
If classical music is nothing, nothing can be classical music, including soundtracks of course.
However, the separate/independent styles-form born from scratch (baroque, classica, romantic,...) would continue to exist and I'd support that a lot of soundtracks fit one of them, more often the romantic and modern style (in rare cases, the baroque and the classical style).
In conclusion, I don't see what is the problem.
Film music = music originally composed for a film
Classical music = a collection of styles-forms
Film music composed in a style-form of classical music = classical film music
QuoteIf a rock-'n'-roll song is played by a symphony orchestra, e.g. These Dreams by Heart, does it become Romantic music?
The original piece remains rock and roll, the orchestral version can be considered classical music only if it's actually classical music. Orchestral music doesn't necessarily mean "classical".
For example this orchestral piece is not classical music.
Now, this one is a videogame soundtrack arranged for orchestra... and even the orchestral version is not classical.
On the other hand, I think that we can all agree about the fact that the "Fantasia on Greensleeves" of Vaughan Williams is a good example of a classical arrangement (not only orchestral, but classical) of a folk song.
The original piece remains a folk song, but this version is classical.
If Vaughan Williams made a similar thing with a tune of a rock and roll song, I suppose that we might consider his version as classical music, although the original piece of course would remain rock and roll.
So, your question is too vague to give you a reply. Once you have an example of a rock and roll song arranged for orchestra, we can determine if it is classical music or not, but we can not say that the orchestral arrangement will necessarily be classical only because it's orchestral.
Finally, I'd like to remind to everyone here that the classical film music is not necessarily orchestral... this is a good example.
Quote from: Luke on March 24, 2024, 05:33:12 AMEven if there was a composer composing note for note like e.g. Haydn these days (there isn't) the simple fact of him/her doing so when so much time/music/history has passed under the bridge since then/the fact that Haydn was composing in a contemporary style whereas this theoretical composer would be composing in a knowingly archaic way - all this would mean that they were composing from a different aesthetic position. Like the examples I posted earlier (ignored by you).
I am not aware of any calls for novelists to write in the style of Trollope or Austin; or that painters devote themselves to reproducing works in the style of Caravaggio or Raphael.
But I have seen more than once someone on GMG call for composers to do exactly this instead of composing in a contemporary style.
The vast amount of recorded classical music offers ample opportunities to hear music from the 18th, or 19th, centuries. Why on earth would a living composer wish to sacrifice his own innate expression undeniably informed by the modern world and instead attempt to re-enact the sound world that existed 200 or 300 years ago? Film composers do this, but for the express purpose of creating a sound world that matches the tone and drama of a narrative film. Which alone would seem to explain why these composers are not writing classical music.
Otherwise, this suggestion is tantamount to rendering living composers musical eunuchs.
Quote from: San Antone on March 24, 2024, 09:49:58 AMI am not aware of any calls for novelists to write in the style of Trollope or Austin; or that painters devote themselves to reproducing works in the style of Caravaggio or Raphael.
I've found that even historical fiction is written in a more modern style. Gone are the long, overly verbose sentences of the Victorian era even when the period novel is set for that time.
Quote from: Cato on March 23, 2024, 02:22:37 PMI will not be going back to see what I missed here...
...but...
...let me pose this question to our 21st-century W. A. Mozart:
If a piece of classical music - Finlandia by Sibelius, which music was incredibly used in Die Hard II - or Wagner's operatic music, bits of which were used in Looney Tunes cartoons - or Schubert's Symphony #8, which was used in early horror movies from Universal Studios - has it become film music? ;)
If a rock-'n'-roll song is played by a symphony orchestra, e.g. These Dreams by Heart, does it become Romantic music?
Apparently my puckish ;) ;) ;) above was not noticed. ;D
Last night I was at a classical concert for symphonic wind band, and besides works by
Gustav Holst and
Paul Hindemith stood a piece by a composer named
Mamoru Fujisawa a.k. a.
Joe Hisaishi a.k.a. "the
John Williams of Japan," as he has provided music for 100+ movies.
Hmmm! 8)
Quote from: DavidW on March 24, 2024, 09:57:36 AMI've found that even historical fiction is written in a more modern style. Gone are the long, overly verbose sentences of the Victorian era even when the period novel is set for that time.
I am currently creating a novel written as the translation of a Roman writer c. 480 A.D.
It is an interesting exercise e.g. in the dialogue, one must be aware of avoiding certain phrases or words, which will sound natural in English, but are impossible for a Roman at the beginning of the Middle Ages.
However, extended periods are necessary to an extent, as the Romans, like their Italian descendants, were probably fast-talking jabberers at times! :D
Quote from: Cato on March 24, 2024, 11:45:32 AMI am currently creating a novel written as the translation of a Roman writer c. 480 A.D.
It is an interesting exercise e.g. in the dialogue, one must be aware of avoiding certain phrases or words, which will sound natural in English, but are impossible for a Roman at the beginning of the Middle Ages.
However, extended periods are necessary to an extent, as the Romans, like their Italian descendants, were probably fast-talking jabberers at times! :D
While at UVa, one of my recreational reading books was titled something like
The Emperor Speaks, and the conceit was that it was a new-found autobiography of Cæsar Augustus. Through whatever combination of my simply enjoying the read, and my "critical antennæ" being exercised more rigorously by the Music Department (and perhaps a little old-fashioned gullibility), some little period of time passed before it firmly occurred to me that this had to be a fiction.
Quote from: Karl Henning on March 24, 2024, 12:07:00 PMWhile at UVa, one of my recreational reading books was titled something like The Emperor Speaks, and the conceit was that it was a new-found autobiography of Cæsar Augustus. Through whatever combination of my simply enjoying the read, and my "critical antennæ" being exercised more rigorously by the Music Department (and perhaps a little old-fashioned gullibility), some little period of time passed before it firmly occurred to me that this had to be a fiction.
I had the same thing happen with the Carlos Castaneda books. While his publisher spoke of them as non-fiction, I believe most, if not all, literary critics consider them entirely fictional.
Quote from: San Antone on March 24, 2024, 12:14:56 PMI had the same thing happen with the Carlos Castaneda books. While his publisher spoke of them as non-fiction, I believe most, if not all, literary critics consider them entirely fictional.
And ... the reason
@Cato 's post prompted my recollection is, one of the shafts of light which shone upon me was thinking,
this idea is impossible for anyone in Augustus' era.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 24, 2024, 09:21:06 AMFilm music composed in a style-form of classical music = classical film music
I'm fine with that definition. It makes tons of sense. ;)
Quote from: San Antone on March 24, 2024, 12:14:56 PMI had the same thing happen with the Carlos Castaneda books. While his publisher spoke of them as non-fiction, I believe most, if not all, literary critics consider them entirely fictional.
Ah right, I read those books in my early 20s and hadn't thought about them much since, and it's only today with your post I find out they weren't (predominantly) autobiographical, as I'd thought. I assume the fictional Yaqui shaman's teachings were based on some kind of reality though (?) .. seems a spot of googling is called for ..
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 24, 2024, 04:21:42 AMJohn Williams doesn't have to show his value as a composer with concert music, since he has already showed his value as a composer of soundtracks.
John Williams could have retired from composing 40 years ago and still have showed his value as a movie music composer. I don't think composing concert music has been about proving his worth, but rather been something he has wanted to do.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 24, 2024, 04:21:42 AMComposing solid soundtracks is not easier than composing concert music, but harder, because while composing soundtracks requires the same craftmanship required to compose concert music (orchestration, melody, harmony, and so on...), soundtracks require additional craftmanship that is not required in concert music: the ability to write music that fits a scene perfectly.
Movie music also has to live with the other sounds in a movie. There can be a need to carve out a sonic hole for the sound effects in the movie. Such challenges are not present in concert music.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 24, 2024, 04:21:42 AMWhile in concert music there is not wrong music (but only music that doesn't satisfy your expectations), it's possible to support that in the field of soundtracks the concept of correct/wrong music makes sense.
Yes, because we have a pretty concrete context of what is correct or wrong.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 24, 2024, 04:21:42 AMIf John Williams wanted to compose concert music that everyone likes he could simply compose an orchestral suite of romantic and epic music with nice tunes and orchestrations. Nothing else than what he has done for his entire life.
Yes, but the concert music is about doing what he can't do with the movie soundtracks. He doesn't
need people to like his concert music, because people love his movie music earning him something like 300 million net worth according to the internet. John Williams could donate away 99 % of his wealth and still die richer than most composers of any music.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 24, 2024, 04:21:42 AMThe point is that in concert music John Williams uses a less accessible style, and this is the only reason for which many people don't find his concert pieces satisfactory.
In my opinion John Williams' genius is in writing music for movies. That's his superpower. He is insanely good at that. As a concert music composer he is "just" competent/good and has to compete against all other competent/good and even great composers such as Arvo Pärt who can blow John Williams out of the water with his avant-garde/tintinnabuli concert works, but Arvo Pärt's scores for Star Wars, E.T. or Jurassic Park could have been quite a disasters! :D
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 24, 2024, 04:21:42 AMI have to say that I don't care about this, because if I want to listen to the beautiful music of John Williams I know where to find it and if for his concert pieces he wants to compose more experimental, but also less accessible, music, let him do his experiments.
In TC there is a composer who praise his concert works, especially the Cello Concerto, so I guess that there is a public for it.
John Williams' concert music is solid and competently written. It is just that there is a lot of competition in this genre and Williams works without his superpowers.
Quote from: Iota on March 25, 2024, 03:15:45 AMspot of googling is called for ..
Just type in the words castaneda hoax...
Castaneda was never an especially powerful writer or thinker. His dialogue is repetitive, his landscapes are filled with generic, indistinguishable entities, and his insights are vague to the point of a blur. His genius consisted in a talent for seduction, which became a mania for manipulation and finally exploitation. His first books were brilliant because of the tension of his set-up as a tightrope between ordinary and non-ordinary reality. His permanent exile to the world of the non-ordinary meant the loss of suspension and the surrender to madness, however.The last phase of his life saw Castaneda living in Los Angeles surrounded by Armani-clad "witches" who called Castaneda "the nagual". He had literally bewitched himself. Marketing extortionate workshops for a shamanic cult called Tensegrity, which simultaneously operated as a personal sex ring, he had become a cliché of the guru-as-tyrant — alternately fucking and abusing his acolytes for their own spiritual progress. "We think don Juan is lost in Infinity, in the second Attention," he sometimes said. Following his 1998 death, four of his inner circle disappeared with him: believed to have killed themselves, their bodies have never been found.Today Castaneda is dismissed as a hoaxer, a fraud, a sexual predator, a cult leader and maybe a psychopath. His books continue to sell, but his academic credibility is zero, and his style of mysticism has gone out of fashion. The questions he faced haven't vanished, however, and the answers which he gave supply a warning.Source : https://thecritic.co.uk/castaneda-the-sorcerer/and many more.
Quote from: 71 dB on March 25, 2024, 03:25:49 AM...Arvo Pärt's scores for Star Wars, E.T. or Jurassic Park could have been quite a disasters! :D
Wow, that's quite the thought experiment!
E.T., the Estonian Tintinabulist....
ArvoD2....
Jurrasic Pärt....
Quote from: Luke on March 25, 2024, 04:19:11 AMWow, that's quite the thought experiment!
E.T., the Estonian Tintinabulist....
ArvoD2....
Jurassic Pärt....
Hah! Nice ones! :D
I don't think anyone is arguing that John Williams is not a good composer. His film scores are masterpieces of the genre. And that genre is film music. The value of his music is not derived from the genre within in which his music is classified; and conversely the value of his music is not enhanced by attempting to re-classify his music as "classical".
In fact, to the extent someone makes a strenuous argument that film music should be considered classical music, there is a whiff of insecurity about the intrinsic worth of film music and this person appears to need to enhance the value of film music by association with classical music.
I will go further. To think that any music that "sounds like" a certain kind of classical music is also classical music, is evidence that the person making that claim does not really understand what a classical composer does.
"Twinkle Twinkle Little Star" is a popular children's song the melody of which was derived from a Mozart piano sonata. However, what makes Mozart's sonata "classical music" is not the tune and harmony, i.e. the sound of the music, it is what he does with those simple materials in order to create a complex long form structure and the development the melody and harmonies undergo in Mozart's hands.
Classical composition is primarily the craft of manipulating motivic cells, harmonic movement, and other musical materials, and the development of long form structures.
The materials themselves, which can also be used to create a pop song, are not what makes classical music classical. A classical music composer expands the possibilities of these materials beyond the surface qualities of the melody and harmonies - and in the process creates larger structures beyond what is found in film scores, pop songs, or any other kind of music which may sound something like classical music.
Quote from: pjme on March 25, 2024, 03:36:55 AMJust type in the words castaneda hoax...
Castaneda was never an especially powerful writer or thinker. His dialogue is repetitive, his landscapes are filled with generic, indistinguishable entities, and his insights are vague to the point of a blur. His genius consisted in a talent for seduction, which became a mania for manipulation and finally exploitation. His first books were brilliant because of the tension of his set-up as a tightrope between ordinary and non-ordinary reality. His permanent exile to the world of the non-ordinary meant the loss of suspension and the surrender to madness, however.
The last phase of his life saw Castaneda living in Los Angeles surrounded by Armani-clad "witches" who called Castaneda "the nagual". He had literally bewitched himself. Marketing extortionate workshops for a shamanic cult called Tensegrity, which simultaneously operated as a personal sex ring, he had become a cliché of the guru-as-tyrant — alternately fucking and abusing his acolytes for their own spiritual progress. "We think don Juan is lost in Infinity, in the second Attention," he sometimes said. Following his 1998 death, four of his inner circle disappeared with him: believed to have killed themselves, their bodies have never been found.
Today Castaneda is dismissed as a hoaxer, a fraud, a sexual predator, a cult leader and maybe a psychopath. His books continue to sell, but his academic credibility is zero, and his style of mysticism has gone out of fashion. The questions he faced haven't vanished, however, and the answers which he gave supply a warning.
Source : https://thecritic.co.uk/castaneda-the-sorcerer/
and many more.
Oh dear, well that makes three literary hoaxes I've been caught up in at the latest count, Castaneda, Laurens van der Post (darling of Prince Charles as he was, and Margaret Thatcher) and Greg Mortenson (Three Cups of Tea, etc). All very skilled at drawing one in to what seemed fascinating/inspiring stories, only to disappoint when revelations emerged.
Quote from: San Antone on March 25, 2024, 04:46:13 AM"Twinkle Twinkle Little Star" is a popular children's song the melody of which was derived from a Mozart piano sonata.
Actually, it's the other way around: Mozart used the (French) popular tune as a theme for his piano variations KV 265.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ah!_vous_dirai-je,_maman
Quote from: Florestan on March 25, 2024, 04:57:46 AMActually, it's the other way around: Mozart used the (French) popular tune as a theme for his piano variations KV 265.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ah!_vous_dirai-je,_maman
Thanks for correcting me - but the point remains. :)
Quote from: San Antone on March 25, 2024, 05:33:47 AMThanks for correcting me - but the point remains. :)
Sure, and I agree, although the whole discussion is a huge waste of time. ;D
Quote from: Florestan on March 25, 2024, 05:40:07 AMSure, and I agree, although the whole discussion is a huge waste of time
So let's
stop to contribute.... >:D
Quote from: pjme on March 25, 2024, 05:51:17 AMSo let's stop to contribute.... >:D
(https://media4.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExY2tjNXI5djQ5ZDBnbjd6YjFscHdmbnRwbXpsZGR3d2szZmdweHU4dCZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfYnlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/DgvvgMXmv88XLFfvT8/giphy.gif)
Quote from: San Antone on March 25, 2024, 04:46:13 AMThe materials themselves, which can also be used to create a pop song, are not what makes classical music classical.
In fact Michael Jackson quoted Beethoven's 9th in one of his songs. And none of his music is remotely classical.
So let's stop to contribute.... (https://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/fugue/evil.png)
Quote from: Luke on March 25, 2024, 04:19:11 AMWow, that's quite the thought experiment!
E.T., the Estonian Tintinabulist....
ArvoD2....
Jurrasic Pärt....
ROTFLMAO
Quote from: pjme on March 25, 2024, 03:36:55 AMJust type in the words castaneda hoax...
Castaneda was never an especially powerful writer or thinker. His dialogue is repetitive, his landscapes are filled with generic, indistinguishable entities, and his insights are vague to the point of a blur. His genius consisted in a talent for seduction, which became a mania for manipulation and finally exploitation. His first books were brilliant because of the tension of his set-up as a tightrope between ordinary and non-ordinary reality. His permanent exile to the world of the non-ordinary meant the loss of suspension and the surrender to madness, however.
The last phase of his life saw Castaneda living in Los Angeles surrounded by Armani-clad "witches" who called Castaneda "the nagual". He had literally bewitched himself. Marketing extortionate workshops for a shamanic cult called Tensegrity, which simultaneously operated as a personal sex ring, he had become a cliché of the guru-as-tyrant — alternately fucking and abusing his acolytes for their own spiritual progress. "We think don Juan is lost in Infinity, in the second Attention," he sometimes said. Following his 1998 death, four of his inner circle disappeared with him: believed to have killed themselves, their bodies have never been found.
Today Castaneda is dismissed as a hoaxer, a fraud, a sexual predator, a cult leader and maybe a psychopath. His books continue to sell, but his academic credibility is zero, and his style of mysticism has gone out of fashion. The questions he faced haven't vanished, however, and the answers which he gave supply a warning.
Source : https://thecritic.co.uk/castaneda-the-sorcerer/
and many more.
Thanks for this, although there's an element of
one cannot unsee what one has seen here
Quote from: Karl Henning on March 25, 2024, 07:31:15 AMROTFLMAO
Pärt would have done a great job on Indiana Drones, too...
Quote from: Iota on March 25, 2024, 03:15:45 AMAh right, I read those books in my early 20s and hadn't thought about them much since, and it's only today with your post I find out they weren't (predominantly) autobiographical, as I'd thought. I assume the fictional Yaqui shaman's teachings were based on some kind of reality though (?) .. seems a spot of googling is called for ..
I read those [Castaneda] books in college circa 1976, aged just under 20, and they were obviously embellished to a very high degree if not fictional.
Joyce Carol Oates commendably outed Castaneda as a fraud way back in '74.
https://www.thesunmagazine.org/issues/264/correspondence
Joyce Carol Oates had Castaneda pegged as a fraud twenty-three years ago, in the September 1974 issue of Psychology Today. An experienced novelist herself, she recognized at once the fictional quality of Castaneda's work, and was amazed that anybody took him seriously as an anthropologist. Alas, she overestimated the sophistication of the American reading public, not to mention Castaneda's dissertation committee at UCLA.
Quote from: Luke on March 24, 2024, 02:36:28 AMTellingly, Nyman's score for The Piano, which you seem to dislike/disapprove
I didn't write that I dislike/disapprove the music that Nyman wrote for the film.
Furthermore I was not speaking about the score, but about the diegetic music, i.e. the music played by the pianist inside the film.
When it comes to the score, you can use contemporary classical music even if it's a film set in the 18th Century (I'd avoid to use/write rap music, however).
On the other hand, when it comes to the diegetic music, you should use music that actually existed at the time, or at least compose music written in the same style of the music of that time.
The piece I posted above might still pass as music of the 19th Century, but this other piece absolutely not. It's completely out of place.
"My Father's Favourite" of Sense and Sensibility infact is diegetic music: there is a character who plays the piece in the film. When the main characters leave the room where the music is played, it continues as a score.
While the diegetic music is for the piano solo, the score is for orchestra + piano, reminescent of a piano concerto.
In few words, when it comes to the appreciation of the music in itself, you can appreciate the music of Nyman as well as the one of Patrick Doyle.
However, Doyle did a better job in respect to the setting (it's realistic fiction). The operation of Nyman is antistorical, because the contemporary-style classical music didn't exist in the 19th Century.
Various users here are saying that it's a bad thing to compose Classical music today, but:
1) For me is not a bad thing: it's a valid style, and art is not prescriptive. If today you write a good piece in Classical style, I'll consider you a good composer.
2) In the specific case of Patrick Doyle, there is also the fact that his operation was historically correct. I value accuracy in films and his piece is nice to listen to even outside of the film.
Quote from: San Antone on March 25, 2024, 04:29:06 AMI don't think anyone is arguing that John Williams is not a good composer. His film scores are masterpieces of the genre. And that genre is film music.
The genre "film music" doesn't exist.
This piece originally composed for a film is hispanic music.
This other piece originally composed for a film is jazz.
This other piece originally composed for a film is classical music.
If "film music" was a genre (i.e. a musical form-style) all soundtracks would be written in the same style-form, and more precisely in a style-form that exists only inside soundtracks.
Since this is not true, film music can not be considered a genre. Perhaps the generic film music can be classified as "cinematic music", but it's important to note that not all soundtracks belongs to the genre of "cinematic music" and that therefore, although we can consider cinematic music as a genre, we can not consider film music as a genre.
The word "film music" only tells you that the music has been originally composed for a film, but it says nothing about style-form.
If I search pieces in a database of hispanic music, I want to find the piece of Havana.
If I search pieces in a database of jazz music, I want to find the piece of The Faboulous Baker Boys.
If I search pieces in a database of classical, I want to find the piece of Sense and Sensibility.
If the pieces are omitted from their respective databases for ideological reasons, it's censorship!
QuoteIn fact, to the extent someone makes a strenuous argument that film music should be considered classical music, there is a whiff of insecurity about the intrinsic worth of film music and this person appears to need to enhance the value of film music by association with classical music.
No, actually the purpose of my posts is simply to criticize the nonsense, not to elevate film music. Infact, If I thought sincerely that film music is never classical, I'd simply say that film music is as good as classical music.
I say that some film music is classical because I really think that it's classical.
Quote from: San Antone on March 25, 2024, 04:46:13 AMClassical composition is primarily the craft of manipulating motivic cells, harmonic movement, and other musical materials, and the development of long form structures.
It's strange that
@Florestan didn't remind you that not all classical music is written in the sonata-form.
Is the Wedding March of Mendelssohn written in the sonata-form?
Is "Dies Irae" of MOzart written in the sonata-form?
Is the March of the Toy Soldiers of Tchaikovsky written in the sonata-form?
Is a minuet written in the sonata-form? It's 2 minutes and 18 seconds a long form?
Are the waltzers of Strauss written in the sonata-form?
Quoteand in the process creates larger structures beyond what is found in film scores, pop songs, or any other kind of music which may sound something like classical music.
This is also false, because inside classical film music you can find pieces written in a simple form (like the Mozart's minuet here above) as well as pieces written in a complex form.
That said, this an other good argument in favour of many soundtracks being classified as classical music.
Soundtracks usually don't use the song-structure like pop music, but more complex forms.
The problem is that often the soundtracks are offered to the public in simplified forms to make them more accessible.
Here below a good example.
In Youtube you find "The Victory Theme" of The Gladiator...
... but in the original soundtrack the piece "Victory Theme" doesn't exist.
The theme is the final climax of a long and complex piece titled "Barbarian Horde" in the original soundtrack.
The so called "Victory Theme" is at 09:17.
Someone cut the theme from "Barbarian Horde" and repurposed it in a simplified form for the middling listeners of Youtube.
The serious fans of soundtracks not only will listen to the original piece, but they will also listen to a suite and not to a single piece extracted from the context.
My Youtube channel targets the serious listeners.
The video, which contains a selection of the best parts of the suite, is structured as follows:
00:00 The Kiss [main theme]
02:09 The Greatness of Rome
04:30 Patricide
08:33 Am I Not Merciful?
15:14 Barbarian Horde [final reprise of the main theme and final climax]
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 25, 2024, 09:33:29 AM[Re The Piano] I was not speaking about the score, but about the diegetic music, i.e. the music played by the pianist inside the film.
When it comes to the score, you can use contemporary classical music even if it's a film set in the 18th Century (I'd avoid to use/write rap music, however).
On the other hand, when it comes to the diegetic music, you should use music that actually existed at the time, or at least compose music written in the same style of the music of that time.
The piece I posted above might still pass as music of the 19th Century, but this other piece absolutely not. It's completely out of place.
I thoroughly disagree with this, in the case of The Piano, for the reasons I outlined above - that the piano of the film, and its owner/player, find themselves in an alien environment, in extraordinary circumstances, and that the collision of cultures and the emotional turmoil the film depicts is mirrored in the piano's music, where Scottish folk music and other familiar things collide with The Other. It is a fanciful but plausible vision of the music someone sensitive and talented, uprooted from their Scottish homeland and flung halfway around the world, surrounded by strange and unsettling things, might have improvised. Nyman's score also tells us what the main characters, especially the elective mute Ada, are feeling and thinking - it speaks for Ada, in fact.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 25, 2024, 09:33:29 AM"My Father's Favourite" of Sense and Sensibility infact is diegetic music: there is a character who plays the piece in the film. When the main characters leave the room where the music is played, it continues as a score.
While the diegetic music is for the piano solo, the score is for orchestra + piano, reminescent of a piano concerto.
In few words, when it comes to the appreciation of the music in itself, you can appreciate the music of Nyman as well as the one of Patrick Doyle.
However, Doyle did a better job in respect to the setting (it's realistic fiction). The operation of Nyman is antistorical, because the contemporary-style classical music didn't exist in the 19th Century.
Various users here are saying that it's a bad thing to compose Classical music today, but:
1) For me is not a bad thing: it's a valid style, and art is not prescriptive. If today you write a good piece in Classical style, I'll consider you a good composer.
2) In the specific case of Patrick Doyle, there is also the fact that his operation was historically correct. I value accuracy in films and his piece is nice to listen to even outside of the film.
I would point out that Doyle's music is far from 'historically correct,' deviating in many ways from the practices of the period. It is instead a clever pastiche of the music of the period, tinged with ways of writing which make that historically distant style more 'present' in the effect they have on most listeners - their idea of what music of that period sounded like, rather than what it actually sounded like. My wife hates me (I suspect) when I nerdishly point out the stylistic impossibilities in the music for these films (which she loves) - and she's right to do so! But it is true, nevertheless. In the 'diagetic' piece you point out, 'My Father's Favourite' there are plenty of little things that tell us that this is not music of the period, particularly as it develops and becomes quite formless (deliberately, I suspect, so that we focus on the dialogue)
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 25, 2024, 10:50:04 AMIt's strange that @Florestan didn't remind you that not all classical music is written in the sonata-form.
I don't think San Antone said anything about sonata form.
I very rarely post here, especially in a thread that's significantly contentious, but I think I'm running a fever which might be affecting my brain. On top of it, this post is going to be pretty much off-topic because, frankly, I don't think anyone really knows what the topic is anymore.
To stay somewhat on point, I'm happy with the term "Orchestral Film Music", which often incorporates different aspects of classical styles.
When I was in high school, I had a keen interest in music but very limited historical knowledge of it. I went to see a 1973 horror-mystery film titled "Don't Look Now" starring Donald Sutherland and was blown away by the soundtrack, especially the music during the "Through the Streets of Venice" scene, which I think was truncated for the youtube clip. There are certainly Baroque elements to it, followed by some uncharacteristic harmonies. But, it got me to investigate genuine composers of the Baroque, which is my favorite musical era to this day. The soundtrack was composed by classically-trained violinist Pino Donaggio, who also scored one of my favorite movies, "Body Double".
Going back further in time, I remember watching "To Kill a Mockingbird" on television with my father and being greatly affected by the scoring (which was rife with impressionistic elements) even at the young age of probably ten years old. Elmer Bernstein later became one of my favorite film composers, and Debussy and Ravel among my favorite classical composers. There are also some distinctly "Coplandish" elements there, too.
So, what's the point of all that? I'm not sure. But how would you classify the "Downton Abbey" clip? My wife used to watch the show, which I likened to watching paint dry, but I did appreciate the music. The soundtrack was written by Scottish composer John Lunn, who, in addition to scoring numerous television shows, has also composed several operas and a violin concerto. The youtube clip is a suite he arranged from the Downton soundtrack material, so does this have more consideration as "classical" because it was intended as a stand-alone work?
At any rate, "Orchestral Film Music" does it for me.
Quote from: Szykneij on March 25, 2024, 03:17:02 PM
I very rarely post here, especially in a thread that's significantly contentious, but I think I'm running a fever which might be affecting my brain. On top of it, this post is going to be pretty much off-topic because, frankly, I don't think anyone really knows what the topic is anymore.
To stay somewhat on point, I'm happy with the term "Orchestral Film Music", which often incorporates different aspects of classical styles.
When I was in high school, I had a keen interest in music but very limited historical knowledge of it. I went to see a 1973 horror-mystery film titled "Don't Look Now" starring Donald Sutherland and was blown away by the soundtrack, especially the music during the "Through the Streets of Venice" scene, which I think was truncated for the youtube clip. There are certainly Baroque elements to it, followed by some uncharacteristic harmonies. But, it got me to investigate genuine composers of the Baroque, which is my favorite musical era to this day. The soundtrack was composed by classically-trained violinist Pino Donaggio, who also scored one of my favorite movies, "Body Double".
Going back further in time, I remember watching "To Kill a Mockingbird" on television with my father and being greatly affected by the scoring (which was rife with impressionistic elements) even at the young age of probably ten years old. Elmer Bernstein later became one of my favorite film composers, and Debussy and Ravel among my favorite classical composers. There are also some distinctly "Coplandish" elements there, too.
So, what's the point of all that? I'm not sure. But how would you classify the "Downton Abbey" clip? My wife used to watch the show, which I likened to watching paint dry, but I did appreciate the music. The soundtrack was written by Scottish composer John Lunn, who, in addition to scoring numerous television shows, has also composed several operas and a violin concerto. The youtube clip is a suite he arranged from the Downton soundtrack material, so does this have more consideration as "classical" because it was intended as a stand-alone work?
At any rate, "Orchestral Film Music" does it for me.
Orchestral film music is eminent good sense.
Quote from: Szykneij on March 25, 2024, 03:17:02 PMWhen I was in high school, I had a keen interest in music but very limited historical knowledge of it. I went to see a 1973 horror-mystery film titled "Don't Look Now" starring Donald Sutherland and was blown away by the soundtrack, especially the music during the "Through the Streets of Venice" scene,
I love that movie and the music!
Quote from: Luke on March 25, 2024, 10:55:03 AMI don't think San Antone said anything about sonata form.
@San Antone was generically speaking about forms based on the generic form "theme + development". There are three forms based on this generic form: the sonata-form, the rondo and theme + variations.
However, since he was speaking about highly complex forms, I deduced that he was mainly speaking about the sonata-form, as the rondo is often quite simple (the first things which come to my mind are the "Rondo alla Turca" of Mozart and Für Elise of Beethoven).
However, the details are not so important. What I was trying to say is that complexity connotates classical music, but it doesn't define it, othewise the classical pieces written in simple forms wouldn't be considered classical.
Even if the composers of classical film music wrote only light classical music like Strauss II, their music would be still classical.
However, it's not true that they only compose light classical music. Many pieces of many classical soundtrack are written in complex forms.
Examples of serious (i.e. "not light") classical soundtracks are the followings. If someone says that all classical soundtracks are light music, it means that he doesn't really know so much about soundtracks.
James Horner - Titanic: An Ocean of Memories
James Horner - Titanic: The Death of Titanic
John Williams - The Patriot: Preparing For Battle
Alan Menken - THe Huntchback of Notre-Dame: And He Shall Smite the Wicked
James Horner - Braveheart: End Credits
On the other hand, "The John Dunbar Theme" of Dances With Wolves is an example of light music, but not all soundtracks are written like this.
All that said, the point is very simple: the genre of the music doesn't change only because it's composed for a soundtrack, so the light music remains light music even if it's written for a film, and the serious classical music remains classical music even if it's composed for a film.
If it's light music, it's light music. If it's classical, it's classical music. If it's jazz, it's jazz. If it's pop, it's pop. If it's rock, it's rock.
Why is this elementary concept so difficult for many people?
It seems that the compositional logic of film scores is very much determined by external rather than internal factors. The beats that are hit in scoring e.g.: an action sequence are only justified by reference to that action sequence, not to any musical necessity or impetus.
The above is not a value judgement, only to say that if we're interested in categorisation of music then I suggest that a given piece's structure, material treatment, the underlying choices determining these etc. are far more relevant than superficial qualities.
Quote from: hopefullytrusting on March 27, 2024, 01:45:05 AMSymphonic Black Metal is a sub-subgenre.
Therefore, etc (Duns Scotus).
Yes, yes it is. Filled with tastes of black metal goodness.
If you want obsession over categories, metalheads have an entire industry dedicated to fighting over this...
Quote from: hopefullytrusting on March 27, 2024, 02:48:36 AMBut one of the greatest documentaries emerged out of that maelstrom: Metal: A Headbanger's Journey, and that provided an anthropological taxonomy! >:D
And, also, to such quandaries as to why schroom is heavier than doom.
Indeed. A fine documentary.
😁
My wife and I spend far longer than is healthy, discussing where our favoured bands should
really sit in the grand schema.
Atmospheric black? Cascadian black? Heritage? Naturegaze? Post-black? Blackgaze?
And so on, ad infinitum.
Quote from: Luke on March 25, 2024, 10:53:09 AM'My Father's Favourite' there are plenty of little things that tell us that this is not music of the period
Patrick Doyle had to deceive the general public, not experts of music theory, and I think that his composition works well for this purpose.
Of course if you are an expert of music theory you might notice little details that tells you that it's contemporary neoclassical music instead of pure Classical music, and I'm ok with this classification.
As you are more expert than me about music theory, I trust what you say, but I'm curious to know what did you notice exactly.
Quoteparticularly as it develops and becomes quite formless (deliberately, I suspect, so that we focus on the dialogue)
The book "Sense and Sensibility" was written between 1795 and 1810. However, the woman in the film says that the piece was her dead father's favourite, so it means that it must be an old piece, probably composed in the era of galant music.
If we agree about the fact that the intention of Doyle was to write galant music, I can proceed with the following observation.
It doesn't sound like a formless piece to my ears. It's reminescent of the tripartite form (pseudosonata-form) used in the slow movements of galant music, with a lyrical melody repeated twice in the same way at beginning, developed and dramatized in the middle section and recapitulated at the end.
Lyrical melody - Repetion - Development - Recapitulation
I'll take the the slow movement of the String Quartet No. 10 of Mozart as an example.
00:00 - 01:27 Lyrical melody
01:28 - 02:55 Repetition
02:56 - 03:54 Development
03:55 Recapitulation
The piece of Patrick Doyle.
00:00 - 00:55 Lyrical melody (orchestra)
00:56 - 01:44 Repetition (piano)
01:45 - 04:41 Development
04:42 - 05:27 Recapitulation
I'd say that the difference between the two is that in the piece of Mozart the exposition is more elaborated but the development shorter, while the exposition in the piece of Doyle is more simple but the development is longer.
Mozart wrote self-contained expositions and short developments, but I don't know if it was the practice of galant music or if it's a Mozart's hallmark.
However, I think that you are wrong about the formless nature of Doyle's piece. Even in respect to the form it reminds galant music, so I think that it could deceive not only the general public, but also the general public of classical music.
Perhaps it can not deceive an expert of music theory.
I'll respond to the various posts of the last page with one unique post, because it would be redundant to respond to each one, as I'd write similar things.
1)
The genres of music are categorized according to form-style. Not by me, but by the human society.
Someone called this "superficial elements", but the sound of the music is not a superficial element, but the essence of the music.
I call "superficial elements" your observations about the difference between film music and concert music, because these differences might be relevant for the composers but not for the public of the music.
I've already showed that determined soundtracks are classified as classical music. Not by me, but by the human society.
A list of websites that list "classical soundtracks" among the subcategories of classical music.
https://rateyourmusic.com/genre/cinematic-classical/
https://www.allmusic.com/genre/classical-ma0000002521
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_classical_music_genres
https://www.prestomusic.com/classical/genres
https://halloffame.classicfm.com/2023/
You look very much like someone who doesn't like the deifnition of the word "chair" and try to redefine the word in a restrictive way.
"A chair is a chair only if it has at least four legs"
"Classical music is classical music only if it's not composed for a film"
Best wishes with your totally arbitrary redefinition of the words, considering that there is absolutely no element in the definitions of classical that you find here and there that says that classical music can not be composed for a film score.
2) "Orchestral soundtrack" can not be used as a synonims of "classical film music" for two simple reasons: not all orchestral soundtracks are classical music and not all classical soundtracks are orchestral.
Here below an example of an orchestral soundtrack which is not classical music.
Here below three examples of classical soundtracks that are not orchestral.
John Williams - A piece for harp composed for the film "Angela's Ashes" (I don't know the title).
Gabriel Yared - The English Patient: Convento di Sant'anna (piece for piano)
Randy Newman - James And The Giant Peach: Main Title (short piece for violin solo)
The problem is that you probably think that my intention is to use "classical film music" as a synonim of orchestral film music... but no, this is not my intention.
What I'm saying is that there are soundtracks (often orchestral, sometimes not orchestral) which are categorized as classical music because they are indeed classical music.
@Szykneij @Karl Henning @DavidW @hopefullytrusting @Crudblud
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 27, 2024, 10:36:34 AMWhat I'm saying is that there are soundtracks (often orchestral, sometimes not orchestral) which are categorized as classical music because they are indeed classical music.
This is the essence of the argument, tautology.
Why does anyone want to further feed this thread?
I have come to the realisation that this thread is the embodiment of a certain famous definition of insanity. Well, that's what I get for attempting to engage in good faith.
Quote from: Crudblud on March 27, 2024, 03:09:10 PMI have come to the realisation that this thread is the embodiment of a certain famous definition of insanity.
At this point (page 24) this is a bit insane indeed...
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 27, 2024, 09:20:03 AMPatrick Doyle had to deceive the general public, not experts of music theory, and I think that his composition works well for this purpose.
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.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 27, 2024, 09:20:03 AMOf course if you are an expert of music theory you might notice little details that tells you that it's contemporary neoclassical music instead of pure Classical music, and I'm ok with this classification.
As you are more expert than me about music theory, I trust what you say, but I'm curious to know what did you notice exactly.
The book "Sense and Sensibility" was written between 1795 and 1810. However, the woman in the film says that the piece was her dead father's favourite, so it means that it must be an old piece, probably composed in the era of galant music.
If we agree about the fact that the intention of Doyle was to write galant music, I can proceed with the following observation.
It doesn't sound like a formless piece to my ears. It's reminescent of the tripartite form (pseudosonata-form) used in the slow movements of galant music, with a lyrical melody repeated twice in the same way at beginning, developed and dramatized in the middle section and recapitulated at the end.
Lyrical melody - Repetion - Development - Recapitulation
I'll take the the slow movement of the String Quartet No. 10 of Mozart as an example.
00:00 - 01:27 Lyrical melody
01:28 - 02:55 Repetition
02:56 - 03:54 Development
03:55 Recapitulation
The piece of Patrick Doyle.
00:00 - 00:55 Lyrical melody (orchestra)
00:56 - 01:44 Repetition (piano)
01:45 - 04:41 Development
04:42 - 05:27 Recapitulation
I'd say that the difference between the two is that in the piece of Mozart the exposition is more elaborated but the development shorter, while the exposition in the piece of Doyle is more simple but the development is longer.
Mozart wrote self-contained expositions and short developments, but I don't know if it was the practice of galant music or if it's a Mozart's hallmark.
However, I think that you are wrong about the formless nature of Doyle's piece. Even in respect to the form it reminds galant music, so I think that it could deceive not only the general public, but also the general public of classical music.
Perhaps it can not deceive an expert of music theory.
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
Quote from: Spotted Horses on March 27, 2024, 11:05:32 AMWhy does anyone want to further feed this thread?
The word 'obsession' comes from the Latin 'obsidere' which means 'to besiege'.
Can we just get the people who clearly want to engage this individual in his trolling to argue till the cows come home via DM instead? Someone break forum rules so we can kill this thread for goddamn once!
Quote from: 71 dB on March 28, 2024, 02:37:01 AMAt this point (page 24) this is a bit insane indeed...
We should try for 60 more pages of nonsense! >:D :laugh:
Quote from: DavidW on March 28, 2024, 07:06:33 AMWe should try for 60 more pages of nonsense! >:D :laugh:
Why not 76? An even 100 pages has a nice ring to it.
Quote from: Maestro267 on March 28, 2024, 06:50:38 AMCan we just get the people who clearly want to engage this individual in his trolling to argue till the cows come home via DM instead? Someone break forum rules so we can kill this thread for goddamn once!
Why the hate? Just ignore it. Personally a) I don't agree with killing threads just because we don't like them, and b) I don't think this is an offensive thread at all.
To be honest I'm not even quite sure what WAM is on about, because I can only skim those long long posts, and only react to little snippets that catch my eye. But from what I can work out it's about micro-classification, and that's not an issue that I'm very interested in, either. I think some film scores are incredible, and their relationship with classical music can be very interesting (look at the Tristan subtext in Vertigo's score, for example - it enriches the film massively). How we classify them seems less important - it is clearly a mixed genre, which can combine elements of [any musical style you can think of] with the exigencies of its role in support the film's action. I'm happy to leave it at that.
Quote from: Luke on March 28, 2024, 07:59:24 AMBut from what I can work out it's about micro-classification, and that's not an issue that I'm very interested in, either.
No, the obsession is all on his end.
Quote from: Maestro267 on March 28, 2024, 06:50:38 AMSomeone break forum rules so we can kill this thread for goddamn once!
All we have to do is turn this into politics and religion...
Quote from: Crudblud on March 27, 2024, 01:10:46 AMIt seems that the compositional logic of film scores is very much determined by external rather than internal factors. The beats that are hit in scoring e.g.: an action sequence are only justified by reference to that action sequence, not to any musical necessity or impetus.
(https://i.ibb.co/gSC3dZy/TC1.png)
Your post might be meaningful in a discussion which asks the difference between composing music for a soundtrack and composing music for the concert hall.
In the specific case of classical music, you might explain how a composer of classical music has to change his approach to composition when he has to write music for a soundtrack and not for the concert hall.
What you clearily don't realise, however, is that your post is relevant when it comes to explain the difference between classical music for the concert hall and classical music for a soundtrack (the category "classical soundtrack"), but not for demonstrating that the category "classical soundtrack" doesn't exist.
You only explained the difference between two subcategories of classical music, and not the one between classical music and other genres of music.
Note that your observations can be applied to jazz composers too: isn't a jazz composition for a film score subservient to external factors?
For example, Dave Grusin is a jazz composer who has worked on the score of many films. I want that you all tell me that his music composed for the film "The Faboulous Baker Boys" is not jazz.
If you think (like me) that this piece can be classified as jazz, then you have to explain me why the differences between composing soundtracks and composing music for the concert hall is relevant only when it comes to classical music but it's not relevant in all other musical forms (like for example jazz).
Many people in the world of classical music seem to think that classical music is a special thing in respect to all other musical forms and that therefore we must apply a special and twisted logic for it.
In the context of similar discussions I've read the encyclopedic definitions of "classical music" many times.
The definition given are really vague, but no one of them specify that a classical-style composition can not be considered classical music if it's composed for a film score.
If you go to a store of chairs and you tell the customer service that chairs with less than four legs, according to your completely arbitrary definition, are not real chairs and that therefore the models they sell are frauds, they might think that you need the help of a doctor.
Saying that Classic FM is a fraud because it promotes determined soundtracks as classical music (it's basically what the article of the blog of theguardian says) because according to his COMPLETELY ARBITRARY definition of classical music, a classical composition can not be subservient to external elements, it's a similar thing.
And this is what I mean when I speak about "obsessions for categories": the practice of inventing 100'000 restrictive parameters for a determined category instead of accepting the generic nature of human categories.
@San Antone @Karl Henning @DavidW @Szykneij @hopefullytrusting @Spotted Horses @pjme @Maestro267
Don't you dare ping me, sunshine.
He stopped pinging me, so I think I''m no longer deemed relevant or worthy. Should I be upset?
Quote from: Luke on March 28, 2024, 12:01:25 PMHe stopped pinging me, so I think I'm no longer deemed relevant or worthy. Should I be upset?
I'd exult in it!
Quote from: Luke on March 28, 2024, 07:59:24 AMWhy the hate? Just ignore it. Personally a) I don't agree with killing threads just because we don't like them, and b) I don't think this is an offensive thread at all.
Yeah only us mods have to pay attention honestly! $:)
QuoteTo be honest I'm not even quite sure what WAM is on about, because I can only skim those long long posts,
Wait... I thought you were the one reading them. If you're not, who is? Is anyone reading those posts? If I had that kind of stamina, I would have finished Mann's Magic Mountain by now!
Quote from: DavidW on March 28, 2024, 12:44:15 PMYeah only us mods have to pay attention honestly! $:)
Wait... I thought you were the one reading them. If you're not, who is? Is anyone reading those posts? If I had that kind of stamina, I would have finished Mann's Magic Mountain by now!
Not I, surely. Especially knowing how negligible is the chance that he'd address any contrary thesis.
Quote from: Karl Henning on March 28, 2024, 01:01:07 PMNot I, surely. Especially knowing how negligible is the chance that he'd address any contrary thesis.
Well, precisely.
Well I can't leave it like this, it could explode overnight. I'll temporarily lock the thread and kill the post above me. Let's not get into politics in a music thread, thank you. $:)
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. :laugh:
Thank you for your patience. 8)
Thanks, David. Don't like to see these things getting locked. :)
Ok, I'd like to restart the discussion with this image.
(https://i.ibb.co/gSC3dZy/TC1.png)
If someone thinks that what the image illustrates is wrong he can explain why.
I think that we all know that there are differences between the category "classical soundtrack" (the interesection between "soundtrack" and "classical music") and the part of the classical music which doesn't belong to the intersection, but they are differences between subcategories of classical music.
Note that what
@Crudblud wrote might be also said in regards to ballet music and incidental music for theatre: there are external factors which dictate the direction of the composition, but the last time I checked classsical ballet music and classical incidental music were considered subcategories of classical music, so I don't see what's the problem with the subcategory "classical soundtrack".
There is a score-only option on Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny, but even though I enjoy the movie, and think that Jn Williams' score is very nicely done, I do not at present see myself engaging with that special feature.
Quote from: Karl Henning on March 30, 2024, 08:55:39 AMThere is a score-only option on Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny, but even though I enjoy the movie, and think that Jn Williams' score is very nicely done, I do not at present see myself engaging with that special feature.
I think there is a sing a long version of Frozen.
Would you like to build a snowman... ;D
Quote from: DavidW on March 30, 2024, 08:59:56 AMI think there is a sing a long version of Frozen. Would you like to build a snowman... ;D
I'll confirm that with my PT!
Quote from: Karl Henning on March 30, 2024, 08:55:39 AMThere is a score-only option on Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny, but even though I enjoy the movie, and think that Jn Williams' score is very nicely done, I do not at present see myself engaging with that special feature.
As I'm not a native English speaker, I understand English texts only if they are straightforward. I don't understand the meaning of this post... can someone explain?
Quote from: Karl Henning on March 28, 2024, 01:01:07 PMNot I, surely. Especially knowing how negligible is the chance that he'd address any contrary thesis.
Actually I respond too all posts. Perhaps you mean that I have to agree with them instead of reponding "I don't agree, because...".
Quote from: Karl Henning on March 30, 2024, 08:55:39 AMThere is a score-only option on Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny, but even though I enjoy the movie, and think that Jn Williams' score is very nicely done, I do not at present see myself engaging with that special feature.
Possibly related: Last night I very much enjoyed revisiting
The Last Temptation of Christ. Peter Gabriel's soundtrack is highly successful. I know he released Passion as an album, but really I've never been interested to hear the music apart from the film.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 30, 2024, 09:09:06 AMAs I'm not a native English speaker, I understand English texts only if they are straightforward. I don't understand the meaning of this post... can someone explain?
I
assume it means that on the DVD there is an option to listen ONLY to the music soundtrack - so no pictures. But Karl is saying he does not think he will use that option even though he likes the score and the film.
I have a DVD of "Glory" (GREAT film) which has a
superb soundtrack by James Horner and it has the same option - which I have also never used.
Quote from: Spotted Horses on March 27, 2024, 11:05:32 AMThis is the essence of the argument, tautology.
No. It would be a tautology if I wrote that a soundtrack is classical music only because the label on the box says that it is.
What I'm saying is that some soundtracks have clear elements of classical music and that therefore are correctly classified as "classical music". If someone doesn't agree he can explain why, but if you read the discussion you will notice that even the users who refuse the classification admit that many soundtracks are classical-style music.
The point is that for the society classical-style music = classical music, because the genres are classified according to the style.
Quote from: Roasted Swan on March 30, 2024, 09:16:05 AMI assume it means that on the DVD there is an option to listen ONLY to the music soundtrack - so no pictures. But Karl is saying he does not think he will use that option even though he likes the score and the film.
I have a DVD of "Glory" (GREAT film) which has a superb soundtrack by James Horner and it has the same option - which I have also never used.
Thanks.
When I watched the film "Glory" I told myself "It sounds like James Horner". I checked in wikipedia and it was actually James Horner.
Some people say that the composers of soundtracks have not distinctive voices, but this proves the opposite.
Quote from: DavidW on March 30, 2024, 08:26:57 AMif 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. ;D
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:
(https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png)
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. ;D
Hush, I'm way more humble than you.
Quote from: Florestan on March 30, 2024, 09:24:46 AMThe 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.
Quote from: Luke on March 30, 2024, 09:30:13 AMHush, I'm way more humble than you.
(* chortle *)
Quote from: Luke on March 28, 2024, 04:01:43 AMIt'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.
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
Quote from: Luke on March 30, 2024, 10:31:14 AMin 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.
Quote from: Luke on March 30, 2024, 10:31:14 AMMaybe 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.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 30, 2024, 10:01:34 AMFirst 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........
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 30, 2024, 10:01:34 AMWhat 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.
Quote from: DavidW on March 30, 2024, 08:26:57 AMI 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. :laugh:
Thank you for your patience. 8)
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.
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.
Quote from: Luke on March 30, 2024, 02:52:53 PMPersonally 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!
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 30, 2024, 02:38:04 PMI'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:
QuoteDon'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.
Quote from: Luke on March 30, 2024, 10:31:14 AMMaybe 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.
Quote from: Luke on March 30, 2024, 11:19:27 AMYes, 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?
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 31, 2024, 01:35:18 AMInfact 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).
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 31, 2024, 01:35:18 AMI 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!
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 31, 2024, 01:35:18 AMA 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.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on March 31, 2024, 02:04:17 AMCan 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.
.
Quote from: Luke on March 31, 2024, 02:33:09 AMHappily. 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?
Quoteit'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?
e.g 1.29-1.36
Firstly, I am talking of the classical period
Second, I am not saying the music is formulaic, I am saying that certain of what Charles Rosen calls formulas are used at certain points. These are passages where the music unspins in conventional ways, in order
a) to fill up space, to provide the correct proportions, to settle into the key in using conventional figurations - the most obvious example because the most extreme are those enormously long sequences of final tonic chords in a large Beethoven symphony movement, which need to be so long because so much has happened in the movement, but which re not exactly interesting in themselves.
b) to allow an audience to relax into something familiar so that there is a feeling of safe arrival. In this sense they are like the stock 'comforting' phrases we might start or finish a story with - like 'Once upon a time' or 'Happily ever after.' Listen to the last two bars of that movement. They are hardly a work of genius, melodically, are they? But nor should they be. They are providing us something very familiar and easy to round off the piece.
By the way, I was providing examples of formulas in the above, not of contrasting sections. You asked for both, but they're not exactly the the same thing. But the one I give a time code for above is both formula and contrasting, being a figuration that is not used or referred to elsewhere in the movement.
Quote from: Luke on March 31, 2024, 07:13:55 AMe.g 1.29-1.36
Firstly, I am talking of the classical period
Second, I am not saying the music is formulaic, I am saying that certain of what Charles Rosen calls formulas are used at certain points. These are passages where the music unspins in conventional ways, in order
a) to fill up space, to provide the correct proportions, to settle into the key in using conventional figurations - the most obvious example because the most extreme are those enormously long sequences of final tonic chords in a large Beethoven symphony movement, which need to be so long because so much has happened in the movement, but which re not exactly interesting in themselves.
b) to allow an audience to relax into something familiar so that there is a feeling of safe arrival. In this sense they are like the stock 'comforting' phrases we might start or finish a story with - like 'Once upon a time' or 'Happily ever after.' Listen to the last two bars of that movement. They are hardly a work of genius, melodically, are they? But nor should they be. They are providing us something very familiar and easy to round off the piece.
By the way, I was providing examples of formulas in the above, not of contrasting sections. You asked for both, but they're not exactly the the same thing. But the one I give a time code for above is both formula and contrasting, being a figuration that is not used or referred to elsewhere in the movement.
Ok. However the passage you indicated is also melodically beautiful: I've never perceived it as something to fill the space.
Sometimes I have the sensation that the modern music theory doesn't fully understand the mindset of the Classical composers.
For example, they tell us that the exposition is structured as follows: theme 1 - transition - theme 2 - closing material.
Now, this theoretical model makes you think that what is called theme 1 and theme 2 are the main dishes and that the purpose of the rest is only to fill the space.
The reason for which I'm skeptical is that not rarely the transition and the closing material are the most exciting parts of the exposition.
Some examples here below.
Mozart - K. 448 - Sonata for Two Pianos in D Major (1781)
The closing material after 01:20 for me is really the best part of the entire sonata. The theme 2 is bland compared to it.
Mozart - Symphony No. 40 - Movement 1
The theme 1 is really iconic here, but I find the theme 2 quite weak. On the other hand, the transition is really nice, especially in the recapitulation: I consider the part between 05:14 and 05:51 as the climax.
Mozart - Symphony 14
I don't find the theme 2 (01:00 - 01:18) particularily interesting. On the other hand, the theme 1, the transition and the closing material are really nice.
What reinforces my idea is that the development sometimes uses the transition or the closing material of the exposition.
So, when I explain the music theory to people who know nothing about it, I prefer to tell them that the exposition is usually something like this: theme 1 - theme 2 - theme 3 - theme 4.
... and that the theme 2 is used to change the key, since the theme 3 is, by convention, in a different key in respect to the theme 1.
All that said, what I want to say is that the music of the Classical period might appear a bit squared from the point of view of a modern composer/musician, but I doubt that Mozart et al. were intentionally squared. Their mindset was to create beautiful music with a sense of development, and the forms they used simply served the purpose very well.
What was the purpose of the transition of the key in the exposition, if not to create a harmonic development, that gives you a sense of travel?
And why did they resolve the conflict in the recapitulation? Perhaps because they wanted that the recapitulation sounded different in respect to the exposition.
Now, when a man of today writes music in the classical style, he will probably try to convey similar emotions through a similar aesthetic and a similar touch, but does it make sense to be so pedantic in respect to the form?
I mean, perhaps we are focusing too much in details and we are missing the big picture, because at the end what Mozart et al. wanted to do was simply to transmit a certain kind of "galant beauty", a determined aesthetic, and they had standard forms which help them to construct a piece in a rapid way without thinking too much about the problem of the hot water.
So, Patrick Doyle did a good job, in my opinion. His piece transmit to the public what is really relevant of the classical period: the "galant beauty", the aesthetic, the emotions. He didn't focus too much in imitating the form because no one thinks that it's what really matters.
In a lesson of music theory it's fine to explain the differences, but if you tell general public that the piece of Doyle is not so good, that it's a bad imitation, because it doesn't imitate the forms of the classical period in a pedantic way, of course you will be taken as a musical nerd and some people will probably tell you: "Relax man! Focus on the galant beauty of this piece".
So, in conclusion, if we want to be really pedantic we can analyze film scores and determine how much Classical, romantic, or whatever... they are.
Probably in many cases you will find out that they are neoclassical, neoromantic, or neowhatever,... i.e. a modern reintepretation of old styles, instead of pure revival of old styles (with high care for technical details).
The point, however, is that neobaroque, neoclassical and neoromantic music can be classified as classical music. Why? Because the definition of the neworldencyclopedia says that the classical music is the music produced it, or
ROOTED IN, in the tradition of classical music.
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Classical_music (https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Classical_music)
... and to be honest, what the encyclopedia says it's simply the fucking common sense.
Neobaroque, neoclassical, and neoromantic music are clearily
ROOTED IN the tradition of classical music.
@San Antone wrote that what makes music classical is the intent of writing music in the classical tradition... and this is exactly what many film composers have done.
If you write neobaroque/neoclassical/neoromantic music it means that you are writing music ROOTED IN classical music, and so you are writing music in the classical tradition.
I don't understand this obsession for categories... why is it so difficult to admit that determined music can be classified as "soundtrack" as well as "classical music" and that the humans use words and categories to understand more or less about what they're speaking about and not to obsess over little details.
(https://i.ibb.co/gSC3dZy/TC1.png)
Finally, I try to repeat the point of this discussion: some people say that Classic FM is a fraud because it promotes determined soundtracks as classical music.
This article is an example.
https://www.theguardian.com/music/musicblog/2008/apr/07/canfilmmusiceverbeclassical (https://www.theguardian.com/music/musicblog/2008/apr/07/canfilmmusiceverbeclassical)
After I created a discussion about this article in TC, it emerged that many people in the world of classical music think the same things, and therefore it's a big cultural phenomenon inside the world of classical music.
So, I also created this new discussion here.
The purpose of these discussions is to respond "No, Classic FM is not a fraud and they simply apply the fucking common sense". If there is someone here who think that Classic FM is a fraud he can argument his position and we can discuss about it.
@Florestan @Roasted Swan @Karl Henning @SimonNZ @71 dB @Maestro267 @Szykneij @Crudblud @hopefullytrusting @Spotted Horses
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on April 02, 2024, 02:46:42 AMwhen I explain the music theory to people who know nothing about it
When you do what???? For God's sake, what credentials do you have that enable you to explain music theory to anybody? Graduation from Google University?
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on April 02, 2024, 02:46:42 AMwhat Mozart et al. wanted to do was simply to transmit a certain kind of "galant beauty"
And you know this, how? Did Mozart et al. tell you what they simply wanted to do?
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on April 02, 2024, 02:46:42 AMif you go the general public and you say that the piece of Doyle is not so good, that it's a bad imitation, because it doesn't imitate the forms of the classical period in a pedantic way, of course you will taken as a musical nerd and some people tell probably will tell you: "Relax man and focus on the galant beauty of this piece".
Putting aside the fact that Doyle's music is stylistically much closer to the early Romanticism of Field and Hummel than to the genuine galant style of Galuppi and Johann Christian Bach, the purpose of any film music, not only Doyle's, is to help people focus on the movie itself --- and
@Luke brilliantly demonstrated to you that his deviating from the form is dictated precisely by the action in the movie. But as usual, you ignore whatever doesn't fit your simplistic scheme and keep repeating the same mantra again and again and again, over and over and over, always and always and always, forever and forever and forever, amen and amen and amen.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on April 02, 2024, 02:46:42 AMOk. However the passage you indicated is also melodically beautiful: I've never perceived it as something to fill the space.
Yes, exactly, this is the point. It is both things. This is one of the reasons why Mozart is such a genius, that he can take a part of music that is "required" and make it sound beautiful. That way you never think it is "just to fill space."
This can be true in all the crafts of course. A statue needs a base, but it can still be an interesting base. A house needs doorways and plumbing and walls, but those can still be done with great craft.
The fact that part of a Mozart piece is "required" by classical structure does not make him less brilliant, it makes him more so for doing that part so well.
Yes exactly. Great analogy Brian.
Quote from: Florestan on April 02, 2024, 03:13:25 AMWhen you do what???? For God's sake, what credentials do you have that enable you to explain music theory to anybody? Graduation from Google University?
Just let it die. Starved of oxygen, the fire will go out.
Quote from: Florestan on April 02, 2024, 03:13:25 AMWhen you do what???? For God's sake, what credentials do you have that enable you to explain music theory to anybody? Graduation from Google University?
So, are you saying that if someone is not a doctor, he can't explain that the smoke causes cancer?
QuotePutting aside the fact that Doyle's music is stylistically much closer to the early Romanticism of Field and Hummel than to the genuine galant style of Galuppi and Johann Christian Bach
For me, the style is the one of the period 1750-1820.
I was specifically speaking about the galant style because the woman says that the piece was her dead father's favourite, which means that the piece must be quite old. Not written in the late classical period (where the film is set), but more in the first part of the classical period.
Furthermore, my reference point is not J.C. Bach, but Mozart, because I haven't listened to many pieces of the first one.
The style for me is simply similar to the one of the slow movements of the piano concertos of Mozart... from PC1 to PC27.
In regards to Hummel, first of all you have to define the end of the classical period.
Different sources indicate different dates, but I'm subscribed to the version: 1750-1820. Why? Because I think that at the beginning of the 19th Century, most pieces still sound classical.
Only later, after 1820, it becomes clear that a new style has emerged.
If someone asked my how it sounds romantic music, I wouldn't give him a piece of the 1805. I'd select a piece written after 1820-1830.
Given this premise, I consder the first pieces of Hummel as "Classical music", not as "romantic music".
Quotethe purpose of any film music, not only Doyle's, is to help people focus on the movie itself --- and @Luke brilliantly demonstrated to you that his deviating from the form is dictated precisely by the action in the movie.
If the film composers simply have to compose muzak, how do you explain the intricate texture of some pieces of John Williams, as for example these ones?
Although it's true that during the film not even a refined analyst of music would be able to catch all details in the music, it doesn't look like the directors ask the great film composers to write muzak.
The mindset looks more like "Great films need great music", and not "Great films need muzak".
There are many people (including me) that watch films to hear the soundtracks in their context, after they have listened to them outside of the film.
I'm sure that Lucas, Spielberg et al. (the great directors) know that great music can attract people towards film, and this is the reason for which they don't want someone who compose muzak, but someone with the necessary skills to write music that it's good in itself.
Quote from: Brian on April 02, 2024, 04:36:02 AMYes, exactly, this is the point. It is both things. This is one of the reasons why Mozart is such a genius, that he can take a part of music that is "required" and make it sound beautiful. That way you never think it is "just to fill space."
This can be true in all the crafts of course. A statue needs a base, but it can still be an interesting base. A house needs doorways and plumbing and walls, but those can still be done with great craft.
The fact that part of a Mozart piece is "required" by classical structure does not make him less brilliant, it makes him more so for doing that part so well.
The piano concertos 1-4 of Mozart are arrangements of pieces of other composers, not original compisitions of Mozart.
However, the authorship of the second movement of the PC1 is not known. Someone has suggested that it might been haven written by Mozart, but considering that the other movements have been written by other composers I suspect that even the second movement is not an original composition of Mozart.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on April 02, 2024, 08:18:09 AMif someone is not a doctor, he can't explain that the smoke causes cancer?
QED.
A doctor would firstly state that smoking
might cause cancer and secondly would explain what chemical, physical, biological and genetic mechanisms and processes are involved.
What you explain to other people is not music theory but your own theory about music theory.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on April 02, 2024, 08:18:09 AMFor me, the style is the one of the period 1750-1820.
I was specifically speaking about the galant style because the woman says that the piece was her dead father's favourite, which means that the piece must be quite old. Not written in the late classical period (where the film is set), but more in the first part of the classical period.
Furthermore, my reference point is not J.C. Bach, but Mozart, because I haven't listened to many pieces of the first one.
The style for me is simply similar to the one of the slow movements of the piano concertos of Mozart... from PC1 to PC27.
In regards to Hummel, first of all you have to define the end of the classical period.
Different sources indicate different dates, but I'm subscribed to the version: 1750-1820. Why? Because I think that at the beginning of the 19th Century, most pieces still sound classical.
Only later, after 1820, it becomes clear that a new style has emerged.
If someone asked my how it sounds romantic music, I wouldn't give him a piece of the 1805. I'd select a piece written after 1820-1830.
Given this premise, I consder the first pieces of Hummel as "Classical music", not as "romantic music".
Further incontrovertible evidence, if any at all was still necessary, that you badly need a Music History 101.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on April 02, 2024, 08:18:09 AMIf the film composers simply have to compose muzak, how do you explain
Putting words in the mouth of your opponents is among your favorite argumentation tools but far from advancing your cause, it only makes it worse.
Quote from: DavidW on April 02, 2024, 08:11:31 AMJust let it die. Starved of oxygen, the fire will go out.
Wisdom. I'm out of here.
Quote from: Florestan on April 02, 2024, 09:01:56 AMA doctor would firstly state that smoking might cause cancer and secondly would explain what chemical, physical, biological and genetic mechanisms and processes are involved.
Yes, and if I've studied the subject I can explain it even if I'm not a doctor.
QuoteWhat you explain to other people is not music theory but your own theory about music theory.
Aren't you the one who wrote that the term "sonata-form" didn't exist at the times where it was the normal practice?
How do you know that Mozart would agree about the modern music theory and that he wouldn't agree with me about the fact that the transition and the closing material can be considered themes, since they can have a strong melodic function and they are sometimes the best parts of the melody?
Not only the modern experts put words in the mouth of Mozart et al. in regards to music theory, but there are also other things that might be interesting for this discussion.
In the discussion in TC, someone wrote that the music of John Wlliams is popular music, not classical, because he writes music to please the current audience, while the music of Mozart is classical because he was writing music for the long term and not only to please the audience of his time.
Hammeredklavier responded with a citation inside a book which basically said that there is abosolutely no proof about the fact that Mozart was aware that his music would have been listened by people 200 years later and his efforts were clearily focused on being applauded by the people of his time.
So, the music of Mozart has survived to this day simply because it was very good, not because Mozart was thinking about the audiance of our time, and the same thing might happen with the music of John Williams, if the people think that his music is really good.
Not to mention that Mozart was also not aware that he was composing classical music.
@San Antone wrote that something is classical music if the intent of the composer is to write classical music, and by this definition the music of Mozart is not classical.
Would Mozart agree about our idea that John Cage belongs to his same musical tradition? How do we know that Mozart wouldn't recognize John Williams as his legacy but not John Cage?
Do you see how many things the modern people (including musician, the one you call "experts") put in the mouth of this poor man, who has lost his freedom of expression more than 200 years ago and so he can not reply to the mountains of poop that the modern people produce?
QuoteFurther incontrovertible evidence, if any at all was still necessary, that you badly need a Music History 101.
This is the first source I find when I search "periods of classical music" with BING: https://www.musicnotes.com/blog/musical-periods-the-history-of-classical-music/ (https://www.musicnotes.com/blog/musical-periods-the-history-of-classical-music/)
The periods, according to this website:
- Medieval (1150 – 1400)
- Renaissance (1400 – 1600)
- Baroque (1600 – 1750)
- Classical (1750 – 1820)- Romantic (1820 – 1900)
- Impressionist: 1890 – 1925
- Expressionist: 1908 – 1950
- Modern: 1890 – 1975
- Postmodern: 1930 – present
- Contemporary: 1945 – present
Can someone explain the difference between "modern" and "expressionist"?
QuotePutting words in the mouth of your opponents is among your favorite argumentation tools but far from advancing your cause, it only makes it worse.
The differences in regards to the compositional process/perspective between soundtracks and concert music are relevant only if:
- They produce different styles of music, i.e. the soundtracks can not be classical because the process of creation of soundtracks doesn't allow to write (pure) classical music or because the directors dictate the style and (pure) classical music is not accepted by them
OR
- They produce music of a different quality, i.e. the quality of the music of soundtracks is lower in the concert hall. In this case the music of some soundtracks might be considered classical, but it would be an inferior form of classical music.
In regards to the first point: can a film dictate the style of the music? Definitely yes!
It's not suprising, for example, that a large part of the score of the film "Havana" is hispanic music: one thing that both you and
@Luke forget is that the score is not necessarily written to follow an action, but it's very often used to set the location.
The score of the film Havana is a good example, and an other good example is the Imperial March of Star Wars: it doesn't follow any particular action, it only sets the location.
In these cases (which are really frequent), the music is not required to be written in forms subservient to the actions on the screen. The only things that are relevant are the style (which must be hispanic in Havana) and the mood (which must be dark for Darth Vader and the Empire).
That said, can a scene require classical music? Yes, and and the film Havana is a good example.
Since hispanic music is not good for dramatic purposes, Dave Grusin had to change the style of the music for the scene "Cuba Libre". Since romantic/neoromantic music works very well for dramatic purposes, it was the right choice for this scene.
So, in conclusion, yes: the film can dicatate the style, and often classical music can be the right choice, and this is why the films are full of it.
In regards to the second point, I don't know if it makes any sense to start a debate about a subjective thing like "quality", but I'll write my opinion about the subject.
Now, if the soundtracks would be repurposed in the albums and in the concert hall in the original form (the one you hear in the films) there would be probably a good point in favour of the inferior quality of soundtracks as concert music, but what many people don't realize is that in the album you already get concert versions of the soundtracks and that, therefore, when we listen to soundtracks outside of films we are already listening to a product which is thought to be LISTENED.
Can you see the difference between the Imperial March in the album and the one you hear in the scene above?
It's easy: the lenght of this one is 3 minutes, while the length of the scene above is 1 minute and 36 seconds, which means that it can not contain the version released with the album.
The reworking of soundtracks for the album release (which is also evident in the case of "My Father's Favourite" of Patrick Doyle, see the added orchestrations in the album version) is one of the main reasons for which the argument "soundtracks are inferior because they are not thought to be listened in the concert hall" is not valid.
To this very important note, I'll add that not all pieces need to be reworked for the album.
All that said, my personal opinion is that the AVERAGE quality of the music of soundtracks (I'm speaking about the reworked versions of the album) is lower in respect to the one of concert music, but AVERAGE doesn't mean ALWAYS.
There are soundtracks whose quality is extremely high, and deserve to be played in the concert hall together with the classics of concert music.
For The Love Of A Princess of James Horner is a good example: it's very powerful in the concert hall!
Furthermore, I'm comparing soundtracks with the concert music of the past, but when it comes to the comparision between soundtracks and concert music of today I think that the average quality of soundtracks is higher.
Now, it might be that the intention of Luke and you was not to say that the differences in the compositional process/perspective between soundtracks and concert music are really relevant when it comes to discuss the two essential points of this discussion (style and quality) and that, if you are wise men as I think, you are even aware about the fact that the interference of external factors in the compositional process is an element that must be considered even in the case of opera, ballets and incidental music.
For example, the highly dramatic music at the end of the "Don Giovanni" is functional to the story. It's not that Mozart was simply in the mood of writing dramatic music. We can say this for his PC 20: it was a free choice to write dramatic music in that case, but in his operas the music had to be adequate for the libretto.
A good composers of soundtracks writes music that is adequate for the film and a good composer of operas writes music that it's adequate for the libretto.
Since opera is not generally considered inferior in respect to symphonies, I also refuse the idea that soundtracks are (automatically) inferior.
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 30, 2024, 02:38:04 PMI'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.
Not only you define as trolls people who don't agree with your arguments, but you even want to silence them.
Is anyone here able to explain why should I write "this is a good point" if I think that the counterarguments provided are not good?
In reality, what happened both here and in TC is that my opponents even helped me, since they openly admitted that many soundtracks are written in classical style.
If the game is to say that people who write things with wich you don't agree are trolls, then I'll say that if someone tells me that determined music is classical-style music but it's not classical music he's trolling, since there is no difference between classical-style music and classical music (classical-style music IS classical music).
Moderators, please, cancel these posts: they are clearily trolls!
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on April 04, 2024, 02:59:23 AMAren't you the one who wrote that the term "sonata-form" didn't exist at the times where it was the normal practice?
It didn't. Nor did terms like Baroque or Classical.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on April 04, 2024, 02:59:23 AM- Baroque (1600 – 1750)
- Classical (1750 – 1820)
- Romantic (1820 – 1900)
Yeah, right. Music stopped being Baroque on December 31, 1749 and began being Classical on January 1, 1750 --- and kept on being Classical until December 31, 1819. From January 1, 1820 it became Romantic.
Nonsense on stilts.
I'm tired.
Quote from: Luke on April 04, 2024, 05:25:03 AMI'm tired.
I'm sorry, couldn't resist. The points being made were too silly. ;D
But yeah, it's getting extremely tiresome. My word of honor, this is going to be my very last post in this thread, so help me God!
Quote from: Florestan on April 04, 2024, 05:34:57 AMI'm sorry, couldn't resist. The points being made were too silly. ;D
Oh I agree. I was tempted to respond. But...nah. What's the point when what I write will be ignored or misrepresented. E.g
Quoteone thing that both you and @Luke forget is that the score is not necessarily written to follow an action, but it's very often used to set the location.
Did I/we forget that? Really? No, it just wasn't relevant to the discussion of that piece
WAM points out that soundtrack music is often changed for the concert hall. This is true. It is true of 'My father's favourite' too, which in its concert version has the noodly note-spinning oversized 'development' section as used in the film shortened, changed and more relevant. Thereby completely supporting my point: that in the film it doesn't fully function as well-balanced music in
its own right, for the understandable reasons I gave, and that to be suitable for the concert hall it needed the rewriting which Doyle - a fine composer- gave it.
Quote from: Luke on April 04, 2024, 05:45:43 AMWAM points out that soundtrack music is often changed for the concert hall.
Yet, with no awareness of the distinction (difference of category) which that implies ....
Exactly. And that's the point.
Quote from: Luke on April 04, 2024, 06:18:53 AMExactly. And that's the point.
Verily. And the inverse: how a discrete piece of the literature is modified when it is commandeered for soundtrack duty.
I repeat my last post - this is also spot on.
Quote from: Luke on April 04, 2024, 05:45:43 AMOh I agree. I was tempted to respond. But...nah. What's the point when what I write will be ignored or misrepresented. E.g
On the plus side, even if the op doesn't respond to your points, there are others like myself who appreciate and learn from what you and others have posted.
That's kind of you. The irony of this thread is that I am a huge admirer of certain soundtracks, as I know many here are, but also aware of the complexity of their relationship with 'concert hall' classical music - as Karl has just laid bare pithily and effectively.
The title of the thread is "People Obsessed with Categories" and the op appears to be a prime example based on his vigorous support of his position. Most who have posted in this thread have stated their appreciation and enjoyment of recorded soundtracks although they don't believe or don't care if they are classified as classical music. There are others who believe if it isn't classical, it isn't good, or at least have their own hierarchy of musical quality. To each his own. To me, it's all good.
Quote from: Szykneij on April 04, 2024, 06:30:22 AMOn the plus side, even if the op doesn't respond to your points, there are others like myself who appreciate and learn from what you and others have posted.
Yes I've read all of Luke's posts but WAM's are just too long for me to bother. He is like a student trying to hit a word count on their essay! :laugh:
Quote from: DavidW on April 04, 2024, 06:56:47 AMYes I've read all of Luke's posts but WAM's are just too long for me to bother. He is like a student trying to hit a word count on their essay! :laugh:
To borrow a phrase from PG Wodehouse: fewer and finer words.
I think we have missed the central point of this discussion in the last pages. It's better to rewind the tape.
Here below you find a video which contains a small part of the documentary about the prooduction of "Star Wars I: The Phantom Menace", focused on the production of the score.
At the minute 01:42 George Lucas says: "In original films I was looking for someone who really understood the CLASSICAL movie scoring and I was talking to Steven Spielberg about it and he told me that John Williams was the man I was looking for".
This proves that George Lucas and Spielberg know exactly what they want, and of course John Williams give them exactly what they want, otherwise they wouldn't be happy about his work.
No, they don't want simply orchestral film scores... they want specifically CLASSICAL movie scores.
I don't know what else should I do at this point to demonstrate that the intent is to create classical music.
Now, I don't know exactly how the last pages of discussion with
@Florestan and
@Luke are useful to discuss about this.
Perhaps you might explain if your observations have anything to do with the central point of this discussion, and how exactly should I interpret them in relation to the main subject.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on April 04, 2024, 10:12:45 AMI think we have missed the central point of this discussion in the last pages. It's better to rewind the tape.
Uh oh. I think
a) you have missed what the discussion has been about, and the ways in which it relates to your 'central point.' They might be worth considering because they are about an important layer of subtlety that you are ignoring; and
b) you might like to consider making your posts shorter if you are genuinely concerned that we are missing your point. The length of them puts a lot of people off reading them all the way through.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on April 04, 2024, 10:12:45 AMHere below you find a video which contains a small part of the documentary about the prooduction of "Star Wars I: The Phantom Menace", focused about the production of the score.
At the minute 01:42 George Lucas says: "In original films I was looking for someone who really understood the CLASSICAL movie scoring and I was talking to Steven Spielberg about it and he told me that John Williams was the man I was searching for".
This proves that George Lucas and Spielberg know exactly what they want, and of course John Williams give them exactly what they want, otherwise they wouldn't be happy about his work.
No, they don't want simply orchestral film scores... they want specifically CLASSICAL movie scores.
It is you who is drawing a distinction here. I think most of us would say that orchestral scores are either classical scores or scores which want to borrow some of the trappings of classical scores for whatever reason.
Mozart spoke the language of classicism - that's all he ever did, and he, and others, turned it into a supremely flexible and powerful musical idiom. Doyle, however, is fluent in a number of languages and is able to shift from one to another as required by the film; he is even (as I discussed earlier) able to direct his audience's attention on to and away from his music as required, again,
by the film. All of this is because his music is in service of the film, rather than the other way round as in opera, where in general the plot and the visual design are secondary to the music. So Lucas wants a 'classical sound' not for its own ends but because it will serve his film best. I'm sure this is obvious, but it's also important, because it gives us a more complex mode of listening.
1) I am going to listen to Mozart. I know what to expect stylistically. I listen to it using my expectations of the classical style. It fulfils them, and pleases me in a straightforward and balanced way.
2) I am going to listen to Williams. Though should I just be listening, or should I be watching too? If just listening, should I try to unimagine the visuals that are going to play out in my mind and that the music was designed to underscore? If this is a rewritten version of the film score for concert performance these questions remain, only more complex than ever now - do I listen with the source visuals/plot/characters in mind even though the music is now divorced from the screen - because after all the tunes themselves still have all those original associations. Also, I'm not sure what style Williams will be using in this score, because I know he is fluent in many, that he can switch between easily, so how do I react to these changes? Is it wrong if they make me feel uncertain of where I 'am,' as it would do if the central movement of a Mozart concerto was in the style of Portuguese fado and the finale of bebop - which would leave me feeling, 'what was that? where was Mozart?' Where is John Williams in the cantina? He's definitely a different John Williams to that guy on Tatooine. Although on Tatooine I heard something that really reminds me of something else (stay calm, Igor...) - it sounds like plagiarism. Is it? Is it deliberate? (of course it is). What do I make of
that?These are the kind of questions that make sweeping statements about what these soundtracks 'are' more complex than you are making out. To me they make soundtracks
more interesting and thought-provoking than the simple questions of style you are asking.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on April 04, 2024, 10:12:45 AMI don't know what else should I do at this point to demonstrate that the intent is to create classical music.
The intent is to create music that reflects classical styles, as part of the 'dressing' for the film. I'm not really bothered if you want to call that classical music or not - that's your concern - but it is important that you understand this point. Lucas called on Spielberg for advice because he wanted a certain style of music for his intended 'space opera,' and Spielberg recommended Williams because he knew that Williams created great music in that style - in that 'dress.'
The question that really, really, interests me is this the last one I asked above - perhaps you can provide some answers:
Williams' concert work is, AFAIK, pretty original stuff. But his film scores, brilliant though they are, are not. Why are some of his blockbuster film scores, including Star Wars, so riddled with what the uncharitable would call plagiarism?
There are a number of possible answers to this, but I think I know what my conclusion is.
possible answer 1) - Williams stole, and hoped we wouldn't notice - I think this wildly improbable. These moments are blindingly obvious
possible answer 2) - it was all accidental appropriation - I also think this almost impossibly unlikely in someone of Williams' erudition
possible answer 3) - Williams wants us to
notice his borrowings (though maybe unconsciously) because he is seeking to have his scores take part in a kind of dialogue with the past, with the great traditions, a dialogue that he also wants us to have in our own heads as we listen. I.e. he's composing not just 'classical style' music, but music which is closely paraphrasing actual chunks of the 'classical repertoire' so that its connection with them is not just aspirational or implied, it is
explicit.I can't really think of another explanation, but this one convinces me. It is also quite revealing for the way it emphasizes the kind of 'meta' or 'post-modern' things that are occuring in many soundtracks, orchestral or otherwise - the Wagner tropes in Herrmann's fabulous score for
Vertigo that I mentioned earlier are just one more example; ditto those in Shore's consciously Nibelungian, leitmotif-ridden scores for Jackson's Tolkien movies. These things are always occuring in soundtracks, meaning that they speak to the listener not just directly but also through their very deliberate associations to other music. It's fascinating stuff! It happens in straight concert music too, of course - I'm thinking right now of the way the central movement of John Adams' Harmonielehre skirts with Wagner (Parsifal) and Mahler (#10) and with military bugle call tropes etc. etc. - but it's at the heart of orchestral soundtrack music.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on April 04, 2024, 10:12:45 AMNow, I don't know exactly how the last pages of discussion with @Florestan and @Luke are useful to discuss about this.
Perhaps you might explain if your observations have anything to do with the central point of this discussion, and how exactly should I interpret them in relation to the main subject.
I've said what I want to say!
Quote from: Luke on April 04, 2024, 11:37:48 AMAlso, I'm not sure what style Williams will be using in this score, because I know he is fluent in many, that he can switch between easily, so how do I react to these changes? Is it wrong if they make me feel uncertain of where I 'am,' as it would do if the central movement of a Mozart concerto was in the style of Portuguese fado and the finale of bebop - which would leave me feeling, 'what was that? where was Mozart?' Where is John Williams in the cantina? He's definitely a different John Williams to that guy on Tatooine. Although on Tatooine I heard something that really reminds me of something else (stay calm, Igor...) - it sounds like plagiarism. Is it? Is it deliberate? (of course it is). What do I make of that?
Yes. Very well put.
To use the Ops formula: Lucas asked Williams to make the cantina sound like Benny Goodman (which Lucas did), knew he was the guy who could do it, therefor Williams is a jazz composer, therefor Star Wars is jazz.
(but we can all agree that "Yub Nub" is classical, right?)
Quotepossible answer 3) - Williams wants us to notice his borrowings (though maybe unconsciously) because he is seeking to have his scores take part in a kind of dialogue with the past, with the great traditions, a dialogue that he also wants us to have in our own heads as we listen. I.e. he's composing not just 'classical style' music, but music which is closely paraphrasing actual chunks of the 'classical repertoire' so that its connection with them is not just aspirational or implied, it is explicit.
Also very well put.
Quote from: SimonNZ on April 04, 2024, 01:07:11 PMtherefor Williams is a jazz composer, therefor Star Wars is jazz.
The first music of Williams' that I heard was his theme to "Lost in Space," and one might have taken him for a jazz composer:
This is probably the right moment to point out that Williams wrote a darned peachy Jitterbug for Spielberg's
1941.
Dammit...I've had "Jub Nub" stuck in my head for the last two hours.
Quote from: SimonNZ on April 04, 2024, 05:08:11 PMDammit...I've had "Jub Nub" stuck in my head for the last two hours.
So sorry!
Quote from: Karl Henning on April 04, 2024, 04:07:33 PMThe first music of Williams' that I heard was his theme to "Lost in Space," and one might have taken him for a jazz composer:
This is probably the right moment to point out that Williams wrote a darned peachy Jitterbug for Spielberg's 1941.
Williams' score for "Catch me if you can" is a just brilliant evocation of 1960's 'cool' jazz. Absolutely right witty, slick score for this fun film. The 20th(!) Spielberg collaboration and seamlessly integrates original cues with exisitng tracks.
Quote from: Szykneij on April 04, 2024, 06:50:31 AMThe title of the thread is "People Obsessed with Categories" and the op appears to be a prime example based on his vigorous support of his position. Most who have posted in this thread have stated their appreciation and enjoyment of recorded soundtracks although they don't believe or don't care if they are classified as classical music. There are others who believe if it isn't classical, it isn't good, or at least have their own hierarchy of musical quality. To each his own. To me, it's all good.
I'm not obsessed with categories. I simply think that they are useful to find music that you like, and they should remain generic, because their purpose is to understand more or less about what we're speaking about, not to obsess over little details.
I've already written that if I look for pieces inside a website of classical music, I expect to also find classical soundtracks. If they are omitted, for me it's censorship.
Does this make me obsessed by categories? I don't think so. If I was obsessed, I'd try to formulate rigid rules to distinguish classical music from non-classical music, and "we can't accept this music in the category because it's a soundtrack" it sounds like a rigid (and also arbitrary) rule to my ears.
I suspect that in most cases it has a lot to do with snobbery, because some people think that classical music is music for the people with high culture, and they are afraid that if the music of Star Wars is included in the category, the myth will be lost.
That's quite insulting, because you've had people take the time to explain their thinking carefully and with subtlety to you and you're trying to reduce this to snobbishness.
The ridiculous thing is that no one here has said (nor have I ever seen anyone say) "we can't accept this music in the category because it's a soundtrack" - the real myth is that anyone would say such a thing.
What people have said is that the simple labelling of this music is a more complex issue than you suppose because of its mixed nature.
Quote from: Luke on April 04, 2024, 11:37:48 AMIt is you who is drawing a distinction here. I think most of us would say that orchestral scores are either classical scores or scores which want to borrow some of the trappings of classical scores for whatever reason.
Do you consider the theme of "Catch Me If You Can" as classical music? It's orchestral, but is it classical music?
I agree that in many (most?) cases the orchestra is used because the intent is to compose classical music, but this is not always the case.
If I'd say that orchestral music = classical music, my position would be easily attackable. So, only orchestral scores with clear elements of classical music (one of the many styles of classical music, from medieval to contemporary) should be categorized as "classical".
QuoteSo Lucas wants a 'classical sound' not for its own ends but because it will serve his film best. I'm sure this is obvious, but it's also important, because it gives us a more complex mode of listening.
Actually, George Lucas is fan of classical music (from what I read), and this might be an other reason for which he wants classical music for his films. The music sounds right to his ears.
QuoteWhere is John Williams in the cantina? He's definitely a different John Williams to that guy on Tatooine.
The music of the cantina is diegetic music, so it serves a different purpose in respect to the score. The score is entirely rooted in classical music, but to play classical music in a cantina would be out of place.
QuoteThese are the kind of questions that make sweeping statements about what these soundtracks 'are' more complex than you are making out. To me they make soundtracks more interesting and thought-provoking than the simple questions of style you are asking.
The point is that genres are classified according to styles, so the style is the only relevant thing when it comes to respond to the question of this discussion.
Once we agree that the music of John Williams and Mozart is classical, we can discuss the differences between a piano concerto and a classical film score. Of course there are differences between different SUBcategories.
There also differences between a symphony and a sonata, or between a symphony and an opera. Basically, classical music is a catch-all category and some people are telling us that classical film scores are not allowed in this catch-all category.
I don't see what's the point of trying to define rigid parameters for a catch-all category.
If you like rigid parameters, you should at least start to put symphonies and operas in different musical genres. If you put both things in the same category (classical music), the category becomes clearily a catch-all category and there is no reason to not also place classical film scores inside it.
QuoteI'm not really bothered if you want to call that classical music or not - that's your concern - but it is important that you understand this point.
Would you insert classical film scores in your database, if you had a website to search pieces of classical music?
If you became the director of Classic FM, would you go on with the promotion of classical film scores? Would you insert them in the Classic FM Hall Of Fame?
If you were a conductor, would you program classical film music?
The subject would become relevant for you if you had to take decisions of management in societies/institutions of classical music.
QuoteWilliams' concert work is, AFAIK, pretty original stuff. But his film scores, brilliant though they are, are not. Why are some of his blockbuster film scores, including Star Wars, so riddled with what the uncharitable would call plagiarism?
If I understood your question correctly, you are asking why the melodies of his film scores sometimes sound like melodies of already existing classical pieces.
You are not saying that his film music is unoriginal because it's stylistically romantic, right?
Now, the answer to your question is easy: it's not true that all melodies of John Williams are unoriginal, and in the cases where they are not original it might be that the director asked him to copy an other piece.
It's a bit like to give a picture of a house to your architect to explain what is the house of your dreams.
Sometimes the film composers receive temp tracks because the director knows exactly what he wants. In these cases you might note similarities with an other piece of classical music, because that piece was the temp track.
In other cases, the film composer has a blank paper and he can write what he wants. In this case, you will have a completely original melody.
Until you won't demonstrate that the melody of the Imperial March, of the Duel of the Fates, of the Battle of the Heroes (some of the most praised pieces of John Williams) are unoriginal, I'll consider John Williams as a valid and melodically prolific composer.
That said, the so called "plagiarism" is often artistic.
An example of artistic plagiarism is the score of The Lion King. If Hans Zimmer had copied the melodies of Mozart note by note it would be plagiarism, but since he only quoted the themes of Mozart inside his own original melodies, the score is an artistic tribute to Mozart, not pure plagiarism.
If the plagiarism of John Williams is something similar (in the cases in which it occurs), I consider it as an artistic tribute, not as a true plagiarism.
The great classical composers also used to create artistic tributes to other composers, and I don't see why the case of Hans Zimmer shouldn't also be considered as an artistic tribute.
All that said, I've responded to your question, but I think that we are missing the central point of this discussion an other time.
One thing is to discuss if the music of John Williams is classical or not. An other one is to discuss how much melodic originality contains his classical music.
I'm only going to answer the following, and as briefly as I can. I have much more important things to be doing. That's why I resent being misread.
Quote from: WAMNow, the answer to your question is easy: it's not true that all melodies of John Williams are unoriginal,
...I don't remember saying that they were, in fact I said it's an issue only in some of his music, and AFAIK in none of his concert music...
Quoteand in the cases where they are not original it might be that the director asked him to copy an other piece.
It's a bit like to give a picture of a house to your achitect to explain what is the house of your dreams.
Sometimes the film composers receive temp tracks because the director knows exactly what he wants. In these cases you might not similarities with an other piece of classical music, because that piece was the temp track.
I mean all this is true, but it only amplifies my case that a) film scores take place in a complex dialogue with past models, and b) film score authorship and intention are complex things.
In general I think you are reading me as accusing Williams of being a plagiarist etc, but on the contrary, I'm saying that film scoring is a fascinating, complex thing, and that Williams is an interesting composer to think about.
QuoteIn other cases, the film composer has a blank paper and he can writes what he wants. In this case, you will have a completely original melody.
Maybe, maybe not.
QuoteUntill you won't demonostrate that the melody of the Imperial March, of the Duel of the Fates, of the Battle of the Heroes (some of the most praised pieces of John Williams) are unoriginal, I'll consider John Williams as a valid and melodically prolific composer.
You're knocking on an open door, I never said he wasn't...
QuoteThat said, the so called "plagiarism" is often artistic.
An example of artistic plagiarism is the score of The Lion King. If Hans Zimmer copied the melodies of Mozart note by note it would be plagiarism, but since he only quotes themes of Mozart inside his own original melodies, the score is an artistic tribute to Mozart, not plagiarism.
If the plagiarism of John Williams is something similar (in the cases in which it occurs), I consider it as an artistic tribute, not as a true plagiarism.
That's really saying what I've been saying. I never accused JW of plagiarism, I said that could be a conclusion people might draw but that I didn't agree with it. Please read what I write, not what you think I write.
Where I differ with what you just said is that I think that in closely copying e.g.Holst or Stravinsky JW is not so much paying homage as trying to root his scores very audibly and consciously into this dialogue with the repertoire
I haven't seen many bad-faith participants in debate here on GMG worse than the OP. And apart from his lack of interest in actually learning about music, he appears incapable of learning why that behavior does not encourage our participation.
@Luke @Karl Henning QuoteWilliams' concert work is, AFAIK, pretty original stuff. But his film scores, brilliant though they are, are not.
This text doesn't say "some pieces in the scores of John Williams are not original" but it says "his film scores are not original". So, the interpretation "all/most pieces in the scores of John Williams are unoriginal" is perfectly possible. It's not that I misread texts. It's that the texts are open to interpretation.
In a debate is perfectly normal that when you write X, someone can interpret X in a determined way, and if his interpretation is not what you really wanted to say, you should explain X with more precise words instead of accusing your interlocutor of being in bad faith, otherwise the debate becomes personal.
Now, the important point for this debate is that some pieces of John Williams are original, other ones are unoriginal. The ones which are original are surely artistic, the ones which are unoriginal can still be considered artistic if they can be seen as artistic tributes and not as brutal plagiarism.
However, everything we write here should have a logical conclusion which brings a clear argument to the debate "can some film music be considered classical or not?".
In relation to the main subject of this discussion, I'll say that in all genres of music (including classical music) you can write pieces for pure artistic purposes (to please yourself) or to satisfy a commercial order.
You can write a rap song for yourself and you can write a rap song to satisfy a commercial order.
You can write a rock song for yourself and you can write a rock song to satisfy a commercial order.
This is also true for jazz, for pop, and for every existing genre, including classical music.
So, what are the exact conclusions of the observations regarding the film music of John Williams?
Do you want to drive me to the conclusion that classical film music is music written to satisfy a commercial order? Yes, I already know this.
Classical music, as any other existing genres, can have commercial purposes. Let's explain this simple fact to the people who think that classical music is a special thing in respect to all other musical genres.
It's not, from this point of view. A lot of classical music was/is written or played to satisfy a commercial order.
This is also true for the classical music of the gold era. Although someone might say that the music was not business-oriented like in the modern world, there is still the fact that Beethoven had to write a new version of String Quartet No. 13 because the publisher didn't like the Grosse Fugue.
Beethoven obeyed because, like John Williams, he had to pay the bills.
Fate dragged me back into this thread yesterday when I bought this CD in a charity shop without realising that John Williams' Close Encounters Of The Third Kind - Suite and Star Wars: Main Title had been appended to the original recording of The Planets.
(https://i.discogs.com/7UJcCCnA7QUyRWzlGE0YXxAA2Zouqk1PwbgB5oPxmTE/rs:fit/g:sm/q:90/h:600/w:600/czM6Ly9kaXNjb2dz/LWRhdGFiYXNlLWlt/YWdlcy9SLTIxMzU2/ODctMTM2OTc4MDgx/NC0zMDk4LmpwZWc.jpeg)
(https://i.discogs.com/CdB0mvtxHzbAGlH0lAm3OXNdiVXtlmeU55adFLnaGsw/rs:fit/g:sm/q:90/h:596/w:600/czM6Ly9kaXNjb2dz/LWRhdGFiYXNlLWlt/YWdlcy9SLTIxMzU2/ODctMTM2OTc4MDgy/MS0yODczLmpwZWc.jpeg)
I can't imagine why Decca released this - you only need to play the whole CD through once to realise just how much Williams derived from the Holst composition. Playing the Ligeti pieces (Requiem, Lux Aeterna, Atmospheres) from the album 2001: A Space Odyssey (Music From The Motion Picture Sound Track) first would be even more revealing (plus one might compare the five note alien contact phrase in Close Encounters with the Sunrise from Also Sprach Zarathustra).
(https://i.discogs.com/NZ1g_3q4XhRXHKh35OFhpSi6O_rDoILI5GCBBcL7gs8/rs:fit/g:sm/q:90/h:500/w:500/czM6Ly9kaXNjb2dz/LWRhdGFiYXNlLWlt/YWdlcy9SLTQ4Mzgz/MS0xMjM5NTQ1ODUx/LmpwZWc.jpeg)
The Williams pieces may be quite acceptable as soundtrack music to be heard very occasionally while watching the movie, possibly reminding some listeners of these classical pieces, but all we have to do is imagine the reaction of the critics if they hadn't been used for soundtracks but had instead been presented as original classical music compositions (if any orchestra would actually have performed them). In fact I don't think it's a good idea to perform them in concert or play them on the radio as they could corrupt one's memories of the genuine classical pieces. Fortunately one listen was not enough for anything of them to stick in my mind, so if I don't play them again I won't diminish my enjoyment of Holst and Ligeti.
It's the Stravinsky one (from the Tatooine music) which staggers me in its audaciousness. But, as I said, I know these are more complex issues than simple plagiarism.
Quote from: steve ridgway on April 06, 2024, 07:06:26 AMI can't imagine why Decca released this
Not for artistic reasons, pure marketing.
Quote from: Karl Henning on April 06, 2024, 07:22:54 AMNot for artistic reasons, pure marketing.
But they didn't mention
Star Wars or
Close Encounters on either the front or the spine - how would any movie fans come to look at the back to see them?
Quote from: Luke on April 06, 2024, 07:14:26 AMIt's the Stravinsky one (from the Tatooine music) which staggers me in its audaciousness. But, as I said, I know these are more complex issues than simple plagiarism.
Just to clarify, I mean this, that I posted earlier on, from 1.22
Quote from: steve ridgway on April 06, 2024, 07:28:45 AMBut they didn't mention Star Wars or Close Encounters on either the front or the spine - how would any movie fans come to look at the back to see them?
Hmmmm.
Quote from: Luke on April 06, 2024, 07:33:16 AMJust to clarify, I mean this, that I posted earlier on, from 1.22
Yes, but no one cares about that part of the score. Speaking about Star Wars, John Williams is mainly praised for three pieces: The Imperial March, Duel of the Fates and Battle of the Heroes.
In the videos I've watched (including yours) which speak about the plagiarism of John Williams, the masterpieces are not touched... so, I suppose that we can consider them as original compisitions of the american composer, unless someone is not able to prove the opposite.
So, unlike what
@Karl Henning says, there are valid artistic reasons to praise John Williams.
Finally, I'd like to add my 2 cents about the subject.
I have noticed a similarity between the slow part of the overture of the opera "Lo sposo deluso" of Mozart and the "Hymn to the Fallen" that John Williams wrote for "Saving Private Ryan".
What do you think?
Now, listen to the overture at the minute 04:24.
@steve ridgway
Quote from: Luke on April 06, 2024, 07:33:16 AMJust to clarify, I mean this, that I posted earlier on, from 1.22
Crikey to all of those! :o
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on April 06, 2024, 08:25:58 AMYes, but no one cares about that part of the score.
Exactly! Because it's a bit of soundtrack music, not a standalone classical piece.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on April 06, 2024, 08:25:58 AMI have noticed a similarity between the slow part of the overture of the opera "Lo sposo deluso" of Mozart and the "Hymn to the Fallen" that John Williams wrote for "Saving Private Ryan".
What do you think?
I really don't know, neither appeals to me and I couldn't concentrate on them for long :-[ .
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on April 06, 2024, 08:25:58 AMYes, but no one cares about that part of the score.
Oh it's just the bits that you like that matter, is it?
I care about this part of the score, I think it sounds just great (unsurprisingly, given its model)
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on April 06, 2024, 08:25:58 AMSpeaking about Star Wars, John Williams is mainly praised for three pieces: The Imperial March, Duel of the Fates and Battle of the Heroes.
By you. Actually the impression I get is that the most celebrated music of all in the Star Wars music are the Holst-based Martian one and the Tchaikovskalike one
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on April 06, 2024, 08:25:58 AMIn the videos I've watched (including yours) which speak about the plagiarism of John Williams, the masterpieces are not touched... so, I suppose that we can consider them as original compisitions of the american composer, unless someone is not able to prove the opposite.
Again, the masterpieces as
you select them, to suit your argument. The two pieces I mentioned above, which I think are the most iconic of all (based on how often I hear them quoted and referred to) certainly
are touched on. However, I actually don't think the ''Imperial March' could exist without Mahler and Shostakovich, in particular, and I think the second of those two, given how often his orchestral march music evokes the heartless brazenness and cruelty of the Stalinist 'empire under which he suffered, is a very appropriate point for Williams to refer to texturally/rhythmically/orchestrally/melodically. i.e. compare the Williams Imperial March to something like the 'invasion' music in Shostakovich 7.
Edit, for clarity. This doesn't mean Williams is copying Shostakovich here. It merely means the similarities are strong, and that presumably Williams knew and meant that his music was therefore in dialogue with this particular stylistic region of the classical. tradition. I'm all for it. It makes total sense in the context of his space opera film score, and embeds it in something more terrestrial, which is surely the point, just as the iconocgraphy etc. of the Empire is so obviously reminiscent of Nazi iconography .But he's not speaking his own style here, just as the costume and set designers aren't.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on April 05, 2024, 03:57:52 AMThe music of the cantina is diegetic music, so it serves a different purpose in respect to the score. The score is entirely rooted in classical music, but to play classical music in a cantina would be out of place.
In the film its diegetic music, but what is it on the album? If this album was listed on a site as classical and sold to me as classical - as you would like - then what am I to think of the cantina music? Am I meant to think that "Jub Nub" at the end of the Jedi cd is meant to be a modern "Ode To Joy"? What of all the other diegetic music that appears on so many other soundtracks you'd like to see marketed as classical? And if the Men In Black soundtrack gets sold to some credulous buyer as classical then what are they to make of Will Smith's rap?
Actually, don't bother answering, I don't really care.
Classical Rap.... ah, if only I could think of some portmanteau word that could describe the sound of this imaginary genre...
Quote from: steve ridgway on April 06, 2024, 08:51:19 AMExactly! Because it's a bit of soundtrack music, not a standalone classical piece.
So, how do you explain this data (https://cdn.bachtrack.com/files/350970-Annual%20classical%20music%20statistics%202023.pdf) of Bachtrack (https://bachtrack.com/about-us).
The most performed composers in 2023 were (in order of numbers of perfomances):
1. Mozart, W.A.
2. Beethoven, Ludwig van
3. Bach, Johann Sebastian
4. Brahms, Johannes
5. Schubert, Franz
6. Rachmaninov, Sergei
7. Tchaikovsky, Pyotr Ilyich
8. Strauss, Richard
9. Schumann, Robert
10. Ravel, Maurice
However, speaking about LIVING composers, the list is as follows:
1. Williams, John2. Pärt, Arvo
3. Widmann, Jörg
4. Adès, Thomas
5. Glass, Philip
6. Adams, John
7. Gubaidulina, Sofia
=8 Shaw, Caroline
=8 Chin, Unsuk
10. Clyne, Anna
Classical soundtracks are the most popular form of contemporary classical music. If you want to relaunch classical music, you have to play them in the concert hall, together with the classics of concert music.
On the other hand, if the classical music institutions will follow your snobbery, classical music will lose popularity, day after day, because they will disconnect with the real world.
Quote from: Luke on April 06, 2024, 10:19:26 AMOh it's just the bits that you like that matter, is it?
QuoteAgain, the masterpieces as you select them, to suit your argument.
Look at this playlist in youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1T5_82U3JVo&list=PLeigbpMXUkYlKcypDJRIUDuyz2HtGGEk0&index=1), which contains the full soundtrack of "New Hope".
"The Dune Sea of Tatooine" has 702'296 views and 2647 likes (0.38% of people who listened to the piece reacted with a like).
Now, look at "The Throne Room".
552'783 views and 4'424 likes (0.8% of people who listened to the piece reacted with a like).
We're speaking only about the score of the first episode.
Now, look at the imperial march (which was composed later, for "The Empire Strikes Back").
2.7 milions views and 33'358 likes (1.24% of people who listened to the piece reacted with a like).
Finally, Duel of the Fates.
151'418 views and 2'750 likes (1.82% of people who listened to the music reacted with a like: the percentage of positive reactions here is 5 times greater in respect to "The Dune Sea of Tatooine").
Furthermore, if sou search in Youtube "star wars the dune sea of tatooine live" you find ZERO live perfomances.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=star+wars+the+dune+sea+of+tatooine+live (https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=star+wars+the+dune+sea+of+tatooine+live)
If you search "star wars duel of the fates live" you find many different live performances.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=star+wars+duel+of+the+fates+live (https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=star+wars+duel+of+the+fates+live)
The first one is this one.
It's clear that John Williams would survive as an artist even if you removed "The Dune Sea of Tatooine" from his artistic output.
QuoteThe two pieces I mentioned above, which I think are the most iconic of all (based on how often I hear them quoted and referred to) certainly are touched on. However, I actually don't think the ''Imperial March' could exist without Mahler and Shostakovich, in particular, and I think the second of those two, given how often his orchestral march music evokes the heartless brazenness and cruelty of the Stalinist 'empire under which he suffered, is a very appropriate point for Williams to refer to texturally/rhythmically/orchestrally/melodically. i.e. compare the Williams Imperial March to something like the 'invasion' music in Shostakovich 7.
If we speak about style, and not about melodies (chord progressions, or whatever...), Mozart is a product of Haydn et al, but he's still considered as one of the greatest composers. Why? Because the essential point is to create emotionally powerful music with high craftmanship, not creating new styles.
QuoteBut he's not speaking his own style here, just as the costume and set designers aren't.
The same can be said about Mozart. His music is basically a better version of the music of Haydn. Same style, but more inspired melodies.
John Williams, like Mozart, will be remembered for his emotionally powerful music combined with craftmanship, and no one will care about the fact that he didn't create new styles.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on April 07, 2024, 01:23:41 AMSo, how do you explain this data (https://cdn.bachtrack.com/files/350970-Annual%20classical%20music%20statistics%202023.pdf) of Bachtrack (https://bachtrack.com/about-us).
The most performed composers in 2023 were (in order of numbers of perfomances):
1. Mozart, W.A.
2. Beethoven, Ludwig van
3. Bach, Johann Sebastian
4. Brahms, Johannes
5. Schubert, Franz
6. Rachmaninov, Sergei
7. Tchaikovsky, Pyotr Ilyich
8. Strauss, Richard
9. Schumann, Robert
10. Ravel, Maurice
However, speaking about LIVING composers, the list is as follows:
1. Williams, John
2. Pärt, Arvo
3. Widmann, Jörg
4. Adès, Thomas
5. Glass, Philip
6. Adams, John
7. Gubaidulina, Sofia
=8 Shaw, Caroline
=8 Chin, Unsuk
10. Clyne, Anna
Classical soundtracks are the most popular form of contemporary classical music. If you want to relaunch classical music, you have to play them in the concert hall, together with the classics of concert music.
On the other hand, if the classical music institutions will follow your snobbery, classical music will lose popularity, day after day, because they will disconnect with the real world.
You mean more people want to listen to music from films they love than have an interest in late 20th century classical music ::) .
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on April 07, 2024, 02:01:53 AMJohn Williams, like Mozart, will be remembered for his emotionally powerful music combined with craftmanship, and no one will care about the fact that he didn't create new styles.
It's far too early to tell; in a century or so someone might compare Williams' music against contemporaries such as Schnittke, Penderecki, Takemitsu etc. but at the moment its reputation is distorted by association with those very popular movies.
If I believe something, just repeating it makes it true, right?
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on April 07, 2024, 02:01:53 AMThe same can be said about Mozart. His music is basically a better version of the music of Haydn. Same style, but more inspired melodies.
That comment might be also worth posting on the Haydn composer thread, for those who have stopped following this one. I imagine that it might engender at least 30 pages of replies.
Quote from: DaveF on April 07, 2024, 05:56:54 AMThat comment might be also worth posting on the Haydn composer thread, for those who have stopped following this one. I imagine that it might engender at least 30 pages of replies.
Which I am afraid would progress as follows: OP says "A", other posters say "have you thought about B?", OP repeats "A", other posters "and what about C?", OP again answers "A", and so forth, ad nauseam "A", "A!", ""A!!!"
Quote from: ritter on April 07, 2024, 06:18:36 AMWhich I am afraid would progress as follows: OP says "A", other posters say "have you thought about B?", OP repeats "A", other posters "and what about C?", OP again answers "A", and so forth, ad nauseam "A", "A!", ""A!!!"
ABACABA works for classical composers, but would it work for film music? ;)
VS
This thread needs to be left alone in a quiet dark corner to shrivel and fade......
Quote from: Karl Henning on April 07, 2024, 04:25:13 AMIf I believe something, just repeating it makes it true, right?
Quote"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
--Isaac Asimov
I think it applies globally and not just the US. And social media has amplified that effect.
Quote from: DaveF on April 07, 2024, 05:56:54 AMThat comment might be also worth posting on the Haydn composer thread, for those who have stopped following this one. I imagine that it might engender at least 30 pages of replies.
Nah I think I would delete the post out of turn and tell WAM to stay in his lane! >:D An abuse of power? Yes. But worth it? Definitely. $:)
Quote from: steve ridgway on April 07, 2024, 04:18:08 AMIt's far too early to tell; in a century or so someone might compare Williams' music against contemporaries such as Schnittke, Penderecki, Takemitsu etc. but at the moment its reputation is distorted by association with those very popular movies.
Of course the fact that cinema is a popular artform helps John Williams to gain visibility in respect to other contemporary composers who only write concert works, but this is exactly the point: you can not ignore that, today, the most popular form of classical music is the one composed for soundtracks.
Imagine a society where opera is much more popular among the folks than symphonies. What happens if the classical insitituions only play symphonies and ignore opera? Of course, it will happen that the classical institutions will lose the contact with the folks. It's easy!
So, is cinema, in the contemporary society, more popular than symphonies? Yes, of course it is. So what? Simply take note of the structure of our society and play the damn soundtracks in the concert hall!
The data I reported above is encouraging, because it looks like they are already following my recommendations, although I'd like to note that there is much more than John Williams in the world of classical soundtracks and that I'd like to see an increase of the number of perfomances of Howard Shore, James Horner and many others, who have composed some of the most beloved classical soundtracks.
Quote from: DaveF on April 07, 2024, 05:56:54 AMThat comment might be also worth posting on the Haydn composer thread, for those who have stopped following this one. I imagine that it might engender at least 30 pages of replies.
It's my opinion that Mozart, even as a child (age lower than 13), was more skilled melodically than the adult Haydn.
With "melodically more skilled" I mean that the pieces of Mozart have better melodies in average, and not that Haydn never wrote good melodies.
Perhaps, this might explain why Mozart, and not Haydn, is the most famous composer of the classical period.
Quote from: ritter on April 07, 2024, 06:18:36 AMWhich I am afraid would progress as follows: OP says "A", other posters say "have you thought about B?", OP repeats "A", other posters "and what about C?", OP again answers "A", and so forth, ad nauseam "A", "A!", ""A!!!"
W.A. Mozart writes X.
User 1 writes Y, and W.A. Mozart responds to Y with arguments.
User 2 writes Z, and W.A. Mozart responds to Z with arguments.
And so on...
To say that I don't respond to counterarguments is a lie. You simply think that I should change my opinion, and not that I should respond to counterarguments, since I'm already doing this.
Quote from: Karl Henning on April 07, 2024, 04:25:13 AMIf I believe something, just repeating it makes it true, right?
Well, I might say that repeating that classical soundtracks are not classical music won't make them not classical.
How many other pages do we need before everyone simply admits that classical soundtracks exist and that therefore I'm right?
Quote from: SimonNZ on April 06, 2024, 04:04:36 PMIn the film its diegetic music, but what is it on the album? If this album was listed on a site as classical and sold to me as classical - as you would like - then what am I to think of the cantina music? Am I meant to think that "Jub Nub" at the end of the Jedi cd is meant to be a modern "Ode To Joy"? What of all the other diegetic music that appears on so many other soundtracks you'd like to see marketed as classical?
To be honest, I don't understand why you want to bring your arguments in so ridiculous areas, since even a child understands the very simple solution with mixed soundtracks: to classify the single pieces according to their genre, and to list all the genres when it comes to the classification of the suite.
So, if for example a determined filme scores contains classical pieces as well as jazz pieces, you can put "jazz" + "classical" on the box, insert the score in databases of classical music and jazz, and you are done.
In regards to the inidividual pieces of the suite, the matter is even more simple: the jazz pieces are jazz, the classical pieces are classical.
QuoteAnd if the Men In Black soundtrack gets sold to some credulous buyer as classical then what are they to make of Will Smith's rap?
Please, explain why this piece can not be categorized as "contemporary classical music" (with the modern elements that you can expect in contemporary music, since the classical music of today is not necessarily supposed to sound exactly like 19th century music).
I mean, if you tell me that this music is not classical music because it doesn't sound like Mozart or Brahms, what do we do with this?
Is evolution allowed in classical music, or if we say that this piece of Gorecki is classical music than we must also categorize rap music as classical?
If the piece of Gorecki is contemporary classical music, why can't we see that piece of Danny Elfman as such? What exactly does prevent its classification as "classical music"?
Rinse and repeat:
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on April 07, 2024, 02:01:53 AMThe same can be said about Mozart. His music is basically a better version of the music of Haydn. Same style, but more inspired melodies.
Quote from: Karl Henning on March 20, 2024, 10:19:48 AMYour classic move of claiming that an assertion is de facto truth.
You've taken your asinine act to the next level.
Quote from: Karl Henning on April 07, 2024, 10:03:47 AMRinse and repeat:
You've taken your asinine act to the next level.
I believe that our esteemed fellow GMGer has a very limited understanding of what classical music actually is (possibly due to a lack of real exposure to it — at least that is what transpires from his observations). This idea (or rather, almost a fixation) that melody is the defining factor leads to sweeping (and blatantly unfounded) conclusions like the one of
Mozart vs.
Haydn.
Several pages ago, the OP agreed with my statement that classical is really an "I know it when I see it" kind of definition. Well, I know that there's no possible way that selection from
Men in Black (two posts above) can be regarded as classical, and I am almost certain it doesn't pretend to be.
It would appear that the OP is intent in "elevating " film music he enjoys to the status of "classical". And I use the term "elevating" quite consciously: it has been pointed out to our esteemed fellow GMGer that many of the examples he uses can be regarded as excellent music, without the need of them being labelled as "classical". But no, they
must be classical, based on arguments that seem not to have convinced one single member of this forum (over 30 pages of completely sterile discussion).
One factor that our esteemed fellow GMGer seems to ignore is the necessary "autonomy" of the musical work that is essential to the classical genre. A symphony by
Beethoven or
Shostakovich , a prelude by
Debussy or a
Klavierstück by
Stockhausen, an opera by
Wagner,
Bellini or
Berg, or a string quartet by
Haydn or
Cherubini can be performed anywhere by all kinds of ensembles or soloists, but remain essentially the same (enriched, of course, by the interpretative insights the performers can add —but always within the framework set by the composer—). Other genres work differently: a cover of a song by the Beatles is a completely different thing than the original, as the performer is much more to the forefront than the work itself.
Film music, effective and accomplished as it may be, looses its
raison d'être when separated from the medium it was intended for, and, let's be honest, most attempts to include it in concert programs end in a sort of cross-over limbo.
But well, we'll keep getting YouTube videos posted of all kinds of film music until the cows come home, we'll keep having to see embarrassing, fly-by-night statistics used as "proof" of some kind of truth, and so on. It won't stop until we accept that any snippet from
Star Wars or
The Lion King should stand next to
Daphnis et Chloé or the
Monteverdi Vespers in a classical "pantheon".
O ciel, che noia!
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on April 07, 2024, 09:54:49 AMWhat exactly does prevent its classification as "classical music"?
All the stuff that has been explained in detail over the past however many pages, but that you ignore. All the complexities that are the only thing that make the subject interesting and revealing, but which you refuse to think about. From my perspective I've tried to think the best and to be patient, but the latest reductive ridiculousness re Haydn (and your own unique and ineffable ability to rank composers as 'melodists') is enough. Even my rudimentary troll sensors are lighting up now.
Basta
Quote from: ritter on April 07, 2024, 10:37:30 AMI believe that our esteemed fellow GMGer has a very limited understanding of what classical music actually is (possibly due to a lack of real exposure to it — at least that is what transpires from his observations). This idea (or rather, almost a fixation) that melody is the defining factor leads to sweeping (and blatantly unfounded) conclusion like the one of Mozart vs. Haydn.
Several pages ago, the OP agreed with my statement that classical is really an "I know it when I see it" kind of definition. Well, I know that there's no possible way that selection from Men in Black can be regarded as classical, and I am almost certain it doesn't pretend to be.
It would appear that the OP is intent in "elevating " film music he enjoys to the status of "classical". And I use the term "elevating" quite consciously: it has been pointed out to our esteemed fellow GMGer that many of the examples he uses can be regarded as excellent music, without the need of them being labelled as "classical". But no, they must be classical, based on arguments that seem not to have convinced one single member of this forum (over 30 pages of completely sterile discussion).
One factor that our esteemed fellow GMGer seems to ignore is the necessary "autonomy" of the musical work that is essential to the classical genre. A symphony by Beethoven or Shostakovich , a prelude by Debussy or a Klavierstück by Stockhausen, an opera by Wagner, Bellini or Berg, or a string quartet by Haydn or Cherubini can be performed anywhere by all kinds of ensembles or soloists, but remain essentially the same (enriched, of course, by the interpretative insights the performers can add —but always within the framework set by the composer—). Other genres work differently: a cover of a song by the Beatles is a completely different thing than the original, as the performer is much more to the forefront than the work itself.
Film music, effective and accomplished as it may be, looses its raison d'être when separated from the medium it was intended for, and, let's be honest, most attempts to include it in concert programs end in a sort of cross-over limbo.
But well, we'll keep getting YouTube videos posted of all kinds of film music until the cows come home, we'll kerp having to see embarrassing, fly-by-night statistics used as "proof" of some kind of truth, and so on. It won't stop until we accept that ant snippet from Star Wars or The Lion King should stand next to Daphnis et Chloé or the Monteverdi Vespers in a classical "pantheon".
O ciel, che noia!
I 'liked' this post. But I'd like to like it a lot more, like.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on April 07, 2024, 09:54:49 AMWhat exactly does prevent its classification as "classical music"?
What exactly prevents you from reading, or comprehending the exhaustive prior discussion? Is it that you keep asking the same question as long as you don't get the answer you want?
Quote from: Roasted Swan on April 07, 2024, 07:10:18 AMThis thread needs to be left alone in a quiet dark corner to shrivel and fade......
Thanks for trying.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on April 07, 2024, 09:54:49 AMTo be honest, I don't understand why you want to bring your arguments in so ridiculous areas, since even a child understands the very simple solution with mixed soundtracks: to classify the single pieces according to their genre, and to list all the genres when it comes to the classification of the suite.
Well, I just asked some children and they said they were fine with just calling soundtracks "soundtracks".
I turned to go but one called me back and wanted to know why someone who wanted to change programming policy wasn't arguing with the actual concert programmers, and why someone who wanted a change in marketing wasn't arguing with marketing departments. He wanted to know what the point was of playing Keyboard Warrior on some random chat group, when they should be taking their fight to the people who could actually implement change.
I didn't have an answer for that.
As I was leaving another said "I'm a child an even I can see how illogical that is".
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on April 07, 2024, 09:06:52 AMOf course the fact that cinema is a popular artform helps John Williams to gain visibility in respect to other contemporary composers who only write concert works, but this is exactly the point: you can not ignore that, today, the most popular form of classical music is the one composed for soundtracks.
Imagine a society where opera is much more popular among the folks than symphonies. What happens if the classical insitituions only play symphonies and ignore opera? Of course, it will happen that the classical institutions will lose the contact with the folks. It's easy!
So, is cinema, in the contemporary society, more popular than symphonies? Yes, of course it is. So what? Simply take note of the structure of our society and play the damn soundtracks in the concert hall!
The data I reported above is encouraging, because it looks like they are already following my recommendations, although I'd like to note that there is much more than John Williams in the world of classical soundtracks and that I'd like to see an increase of the number of perfomances of Howard Shore, James Horner and many others, who have composed some of the most beloved classical soundtracks.
No, it's just that the music of living composers is not popular compared to most classical music and you're comparing just that small minority to the music of Williams which is relatively prominent at the moment due to the number of blockbuster movies and long running franchises for which the fans have nostalgic feelings and want to be reminded of. As proof of what people want to be associated with, a search on Amazon for
star wars t shirt returns 325 items,
mozart t shirt lists "over 1,000", while
arvo pärt t shirt (your no. 2 living composer) produces none at all.
Whether orchestras program soundtracks is a commercial decision for them. They're obviously capable of playing the material; whether they enjoy it or are forced to do it for lack of other income I couldn't say.
Quote from: steve ridgway on April 07, 2024, 08:55:38 PMThey're obviously capable of playing the material; whether they enjoy it or are forced to do it for lack of other income I couldn't say.
This is something I've been wanting to ask those members here who have played in orchestras: if the management came to you and said that instead of being a couple of crossover shows each year it was now going to be the orchestras primary focus to play concerts of soundtrack music...is that a job you would even want to do? Would the lack of challenge be considerably less fulfilling? Would orchestras cease to attract the best players if this was their focus? Or is it just, "meh, the rent doesn't pay itself"?
This thread is making me think though - there's a lamentable shortage of Star Wars posters in art galleries and Star Wars props, outfits and merchandise in museums ::) .
Quote from: SimonNZ on April 07, 2024, 10:35:09 PMThis is something I've been wanting to ask those members here who have played in orchestras: if the management came to you and said that instead of being a couple of crossover shows each year it was now going to be the orchestras primary focus to play concerts of soundtrack music...is that a job you would even want to do? Would the lack of challenge be considerably less fulfilling? Would orchestras cease to attract the best players if this was their focus? Or is it just, "meh, the rent doesn't pay itself"?
I doubt there would be enough work for a full-time professional orchestra specialising in film music. Possibly as a touring orchestra but if it were a traditional 'resident' orchestra based in a city or region I cannot imagine that there would be an audience for the same style of music week after week. But if you look in concert listings currently there are a lot of pick-up orchestra travelling around doing "film music spectaculars" kind of thing.
Historically in the UK - quite a few years ago the Royal Phi;lharmonic was in a parlous financial state and they were pretty much saved by doing endless "Classical Pops with canon and mortar effects" for Raymond Gubbay at the Royal Albert Hall. In turn this became the format for literally hundreds of "muddy field" concerts given by just about every professional band going. This was/is a great way of generating income for the orchestra as an organisation but also a way of providing some performing fees for players during the 'off-season' of the summer months.
Of course there is a certain degree of resignation for players doing 1812 (or Star Wars!)
again but then players can feel the same about Beethoven's 5th. Its not a qualitative judgement on the music per se - its the repetition. Curiously for myself - I've never minded frequent repetition as literally no 2 performances are ever exactly the same. As someone who has spent a lot of their performing career in musical theatre its quite normal to rack up hundreds of performances of a single thing/show so "just" half a dozen 1812's is nothing(!). Likewise some players will never particularly enjoy playing cross-over music (shows/film/pop-for-orchestra etc) and some will. Look at the BBC Concert Orchestra which is remarkable adept at switching in a heartbeat from say A Sinatra tribute to a Martinu Symphony. For that specific group of players I suspect the attraction of that orchestra (apart from the good BBC pension plan - seriously!) is the extreme variety of music and styles they get to play.
My feeling is the whole premise of this overlong thread is flawed. I don't know any player who is that fussed by categories. Music is music is music and as long as its at least half-decent and the person conducting is at least half decent the orchestra will do their best.
Quote from: ritter on April 07, 2024, 10:37:30 AMI believe that our esteemed fellow GMGer has a very limited understanding of what classical music actually is (possibly due to a lack of real exposure to it — at least that is what transpires from his observations).
If you tell me how many new pieces of classical music you listen to each week, I'll tell you the data about me.
QuoteThis idea (or rather, almost a fixation) that melody is the defining factor leads to sweeping (and blatantly unfounded) conclusions like the one of Mozart vs. Haydn.
Yes, for me the melody is the most important ingredient: in order to give a high rating to a piece, it must contain interesting melodies. So what? Am I not entitled to my preferences?
QuoteSeveral pages ago, the OP agreed with my statement that classical is really an "I know it when I see it" kind of definition. Well, I know that there's no possible way that selection from Men in Black (two posts above) can be regarded as classical, and I am almost certain it doesn't pretend to be.
Yes, right, we've agreed about this, and I still think that it's the best definition of classical music: if it sounds like classical music, it's classical music.
The difference between me and you is probably that I don't necessarily expect that a piece of contemporary classical music sounds exactly like the classics of the past.
Since innovation is allowed in classical music (otherwise the classical music of today would still sound like Vivaldi), when I have to determine if a contemporary composition is or not classical music I don't ask myself if it sounds exactly like the classics of the past, but if there are at least some elements of classical music.
I ask myself if the composition is an attempt to imitate or modernize classical music.
I've already posted an interesting article about the category "cinematic classical", which must not be confused with the category "classical soundtrack".
Infact, when you compose a classical soundtrack, is not necessarily cinematic classical. You can compose a soundtrack based on Classical music (1750-1820) and in that case the correct classification will be "neoclassical", not "cinematic classical".
Cinematic classical is, specifically, a form of CONTEMPORARY MUSIC which tries to bring innovation to classical music.
It's called "cinematic classical" because it has probably born inside cinema, but the article explains that even a piece of concert music might be categorized as "cinematic classical" if it's in dialogue with this contemporary and innovative musical tradition.
When I say that the score of "Men in Black" is classical music, I think specifically about "cinematic classical". I'm not saying that it's neobaroque, neoclassical, or neoromantic music. It's cinematic classical.
Why? Because I perceive it as an attempt to innovate/modernize classical music, and in the innovative elements I feel those typical elements that are associated with cinematic music.
With this in mind, I try to repeat the question: what are the elements that make you think that "cinematic classical" is not a good label for this piece? If it's not a good label, what is the right label?
Here below I copy the article about cinematic classical: https://rateyourmusic.com/genre/cinematic-classical/ (https://rateyourmusic.com/genre/cinematic-classical/)
This genre describes the style of orchestral compositions generally associated with soundtracks to modern high-budget films, games, and other non-live media. It has its roots in Western Classical Music, particularly late Romanticism, taking inspiration from the dramatism, large orchestra, use of leitmotif, and emotiveness of the genre. There is also a notable influence from Modern Classical, with its common focus on atmosphere and texture over melody. Additionally, non-classical sources such as Traditional Folk Music, Jazz and modern popular music are often incorporated into the orchestral setting, generally to set the location, themes or time period of the accompanying media. The style is played with a large symphonic orchestra, with additional modern and non-Western instruments included if required by the composer. Whilst this form of music is associated strongly with soundtracks, not every example of it is a soundtrack, and not every orchestral soundtrack fits this style.
The development of synchronised sound allowed full symphony orchestras to accompany films, not bound by the size of a cinema. Most films of the period of the 1930s and 1940s were scored with a combination of Easy Listening and operatic romanticism, particularly influenced by Richard Wagner and Richard Strauss. Some early examples exist of scores beginning to fuse romantic and modern classical for dramatic effect however, such as Wolfgang Zeller's score to the 1932 horror film Vampyr.
The 1950s was the decade where mainstream soundtracks begun to move away from pure romanticism, into the more modern and eclectic approach described by this grouping. In this period, composers such as Miklós Rózsa begun using musicological research to inform their works to create soundtracks that would fit better with a film's setting. Composers who studied with or were influenced by avant-garde modern classical composers also began to emerge. They used new techniques like atonality, unresolved dissonance and even Serialism in their works, though not to the extent that the soundtrack would be inaccessible to the general public. Particularly influential from this time were Bernard Herrmann's works for filmmaker Alfred Hitchcock, including Vertigo and Psycho.
This approach to orchestral music became the standard. For example, Ennio Morricone's soundtrack to Il buono, il brutto, il cattivo [The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly] fuses melodic symphonic orchestral sections with tense, dissonant modernism and non-classical sources that indicate location such as Mexican Folk Music and Western music, creating the widely known sound of Spaghetti Western. John Williams fused the sweeping late period romanticism of 'Golden Age' Hollywood scores with melodic symphonic bombast, sections of 20th century atonality and dissonant cluster chords. The incorporation of some Electronic elements into the orchestral setting became common as synthesizers and digital technology became more widely accessible, for example Wendy Carlos's soundtrack to TRON. Minimalism was another important later influence on the style, with Hans Zimmer's soundtrack to Inception very clearly showing the incorporation of the genre in its repetitive nature under the Epic Music style. Note, however, that not all modern orchestral soundtracks fit this style, such as the score to The Shining which is more purely derived from avant-garde modern classical, and the score to The Age of Innocence which returns to classical romanticism to fit its setting.
Whilst mostly associated with films, the style can be found in other media. In television, the style is used mostly in cinematic, fictional series, with examples including Star Trek, Game of Thrones and Lost. Video games were initially bound by their technical limitations, though attempts were made to recreate the style in certain adventure games such as I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream. Later, pre-recorded soundtracks were made possible, which allowed for orchestral soundtracks, with examples of this style being found in games such as Halo 3 and Shadow of the Colossus.QuoteIt would appear that the OP is intent in "elevating " film music he enjoys to the status of "classical".
So, does "classical music" means "music of high status" for you? Not "music which follows determined forms and styles"?
For me it's the second, so given my definition (which is also the definition used by the entire society), I don't see why to admit the simple fact that a lot of film music is rooted in forms/styles of classical music would elevate film music to a high status.
I'd like to add that I'm not a great fan of the score of "Men in Black", so if I really wanted to label determined soundtracks as "classical" only because I like them, it would be silly to use "Men in Black" as an example.
If the point is to show the high status of film music, I can simply put on the table the score of "Lord of The Ring" (by Howard Shore), which is one of the highest examples of "great film music". I don't need to give it labels to show how great the music is.
If I tell you that "classical" is a good label for the music of LOTR, it's simply because it's rooted on classical styles/forms. There isn't any qualitative judgement in the label. I express the qualitative judgements when I say that the music is excellent.
That said, if you like strawmen, I'll be happy to use them as well, and I'll say that many people don't admit the classical nature of many film scores only because they don't like them and they think that by denying their genre they put them to a lower status, since they have interiorized the idea that classical music is music of higher status.
I can ensure you that I don't need this silly rhetoric to elevate film music. If I simply wanted to elevate film music, I might simply tell you that film music is as good as classical music.
Infact it doesn't really matter, in that regards, if symphonic film music belongs or not to the classical genre. It's still academic music, which requires a high craftmanship. It even requires a higher craftmanship than classical music in determined areas.
QuoteBut no, they must be classical, based on arguments that seem not to have convinced one single member of this forum (over 30 pages of completely sterile discussion).
To be honest, why should I convince 5 users in a forum, when the entire society recognizes the simple fact that there is a subset of "classical music" called "classical soundtrack", and/or that there is a genre of contemporary music called "cinematic classical", which is rooted in classical music?
https://rateyourmusic.com/genre/cinematic-classical/
https://www.allmusic.com/genre/classical-ma0000002521
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_classical_music_genres
https://www.prestomusic.com/classical/genres
https://halloffame.classicfm.com/2023/
Oh, I have to add "Bachtrack" to the list, since it classifies the concerts of John Williams as "classical events".
https://cdn.bachtrack.com/files/350970-Annual%20classical%20music%20statistics%202023.pdf (https://cdn.bachtrack.com/files/350970-Annual%20classical%20music%20statistics%202023.pdf)
Do I really need to convince anyone here? No, you are a minority out there.
I opened this thread only for the sake of discussion, and I give voice to people who are frustrated for the direction of the society.
My threads are interesting for the psychologists who study the phenomenomen called "denial".
"Denial or abnegation (German: Verleugnung, Verneinung) is a psychological defense mechanism postulated by psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud, in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial_(Freud) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial_(Freud))
Wow! Simply...WOW!
I am out of here.
O ciel, che noia!
Quote from: steve ridgway on April 07, 2024, 04:07:02 AMYou mean more people want to listen to music from films they love than have an interest in late 20th century classical music ::) .
Quote from: ritter on April 07, 2024, 10:37:30 AMFilm music, effective and accomplished as it may be, looses its raison d'être when separated from the medium it was intended for
I respond to these posts of
@ritter and
@steve ridgway with the data of a poll I created yesterday in the subreddit "soundtracks".
https://www.reddit.com/r/soundtracks/comments/1by8z1g/do_you_like_soundtracks_of_films_that_you_dont/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/soundtracks/comments/1by8z1g/do_you_like_soundtracks_of_films_that_you_dont/)
The question of the poll: "Do you like soundtracks of films that you don't like or you have never watched?".
The current results:
- 26 votes: Yes, I like soundtracks of films that I don't like
- 13 votes: Yes, I like soundtracks of films that I have never watched
- 33 votes: Yes, both previous options
- 2 votes: No, I only like soundtracks of films that I like
- 4 votes: I don't want to vote, show me the results.
= 78 votes (total)
So, only 2 people, i.e. 2.56% of voters, declare that they only like the music of soundtracks when it's connected to films they like.
Most of them, declare to enjoy the music of films that they have never watched or that they don't like.
I'm among the 33 people who voted "Yes. Both perevious options.".
Infact, my favourite composer of soundtracks is Alan Menken, who composed music for the Disney animated films.
Do you know what is my interest for the Disney animated films? It was quite low when I was a child, now it's even lower.
The only thing that I really like of them is the music of Alan Menken.
Of course soundtracks have been originally composed to accompany moving pictures... it's an undeniable fact.
However, it's also an undeniable fact that the music of ballets was originally composed to accompany a ballet and the music of opera was originally composed to accompany a story, but this doesn't mean that you can't enjoy ballet music without the ballets, or that you can not enjoy an aria of an opera extracted from the original context and presnted as concert music.
The same exact thing it's true for soundtracks: the fact that the music was originally composed to accompany moving pictures doesn't mean that you can not enjoy the music once extracted from the original context.
The data of my poll shows that most fans of soundtracks simply enjoy the music and that they don't need any emotional connection with the film to appreciate it.
So, in conclusion, it's not true that soundtracks lose their "raison d'être" once extracted from their contexts and that people simply listen to soundtracks of films they like.
You can not see the results of the poll beacuse it's still open. I'll give you a screenshot.
(https://i.ibb.co/pvPfSqc/screen.png)
In the comments of the poll
--------
The vast majority of my soundtrack collection is for films I haven't seen.--------
Star Trek V by Jerry Goldsmith. Terrible movie, incredible score.
Quote from: Roasted Swan on April 08, 2024, 12:11:50 AMMy feeling is the whole premise of this overlong thread is flawed. I don't know any player who is that fussed by categories. Music is music is music and as long as its at least half-decent and the person conducting is at least half decent the orchestra will do their best.
This, in spades.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on April 08, 2024, 04:28:01 AMThe question of the poll: "Do you like soundtracks of films that you don't like or you have never watched?".
The current results:
- 26 votes: Yes, I like soundtracks of films that I don't like
- 13 votes: Yes, I like soundtracks of films that I have never watched
- 33 votes: Yes, both previous options
- 2 votes: No, I only like soundtracks of films that I like
- 4 votes: I don't want to vote, show me the results.
= 78 votes (total)
The data of my poll shows that most fans of soundtracks simply enjoy the music and that they don't need any emotional connection with the film to appreciate it.
Wikipedia List of films by box office admissions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_by_box_office_admissions) -
Star Wars - 338,400,000
Your poll - 78
Thank you anyway for helping me reach firm conclusions on soundtrack music, I'll drop off the thread now 8) .
Quote from: Karl Henning on April 08, 2024, 04:59:38 AMThis, in spades.
Well I mean I think there is only ONE poster here that doesn't agree that music is music, enjoy what you enjoy.
Quote from: steve ridgway on April 08, 2024, 05:35:36 AMWikipedia List of films by box office admissions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_by_box_office_admissions) - Star Wars - 338,400,000
Your poll - 78
Thank you anyway for helping me reach firm conclusions on soundtrack music, I'll drop off the thread now 8) .
Your data doesn't say that the people who don't like Star Wars also don't like the soundtrack, so I don't see what you want to demonstrate with this data.
My data demonstrates precisely that most fans of soundtracks enjoy music of films that they don't like or that they have never watched, so it's not true that the music of soundtracks is fruitless without the films.
It would be better to admit that you were wrong, instead of trying to fight the reality.
Quote from: Luke on April 07, 2024, 10:42:57 AMAll the stuff that has been explained in detail over the past however many pages, but that you ignore. All the complexities that are the only thing that make the subject interesting and revealing, but which you refuse to think about.
The problem is that the definition of classical music is not complex. If it sounds like classical music, it's classical music. If it sounds like jazz, it's jazz, If it sounds like rock, it's rock. If it sounds like rap, it's rap.
To be honest, the only relevant post was the one of
@ritter, who wrote that the music of Men in Black doesn't sound like classical music.
It's a shame that he doesn't want to discuss the subject, now that we are finally arrived to the essential point of this discussion.
The subject is: how do we determine if an innovative contemporary composition is classical music or not?
If a contemporary composition had to sound exactly like the classics of the past in order to be considered classical music, evolution wouldn't be allowed in classical music.
However, if a contemporary composition has innovative elements, there is the problem to determine if it can be considered as classical music or not.
So, how do we proceed? Perhaps we should consider as classical music the compositions which have AT LEAST SOME classical elements, combined with modern elements.
How can we consider this as " contemporary classical music" without the required flexibility of classification? Does it sounds like Mozart or Tchaikovsky? No! I bet that if it was a soundtrack, everyone would tell me "this is not classical music!".
Has the piece of Men in Black AT LEAST SOME classical elements? I think yes, and they are not hidden elements, but evident elements.
However, in the OP I wrote.
--------------
Since the classification is subjective and not objective, determined by our istinct, we might not agree about the classification of one musical work... so what? Is it so important to determine if something is classical music or not?--------------
Well, we are here. Apparently, while I feel that there are classical elements in the piece of Men in Black, ritter doesn't feel them.
So what? We can agree to disagree. The only thing I can say about it, is that if most people agree with me, the score of Men in Black will be categorized as classical, while if most people agree with ritter it won't.
I don't even want to convince ritter of my opinion. It's subjective. This is what I wrote in the OP, and I remain faith to what I wrote.
Finally, someone brought a relevant point to this discussion, but apparently he has established that his point of view is the right one and he doesn't want to hear my opinion, i.e. my "classica feelings" about this music.
QuoteFrom my perspective I've tried to think the best and to be patient, but the latest reductive ridiculousness re Haydn (and your own unique and ineffable ability to rank composers as 'melodists') is enough. Even my rudimentary troll sensors are lighting up now.
So, am I not entitled to think that the melody is the most important ingredient? Am I not entitled to think that the melodies of Mozart are in average better than the ones of Haydn?
If someone prefers Mozart more than Haydn, it means that he is a troll?
This discussion is full of hate. I must have opened a great Pandora's box with this discussion. This tells me that in the future soundtracks will be probably regarded as great art, given how much shake up today's society and the beliefs of many people.
Ah yes, the 3-4 people who participate regularly in this one thread on one minority-interest discussion via an increasingly-obsolete means of communication = "today's society."
You're not special, mate.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on April 08, 2024, 03:41:25 AMYes, for me the melody is the most important ingredient: in order to give a high rating to a piece, it must contain interesting melodies. So what? Am I not entitled to my preferences?
You are entitled to all your preferences. No one is saying anything else, so don't pretend they are, it's a strawman... I think I'll count your strawmen in the two posts of yours i'm replying to here. Let's see how far I get. So that's strawman #1. (http://ponderful.weebly.com/uploads/2/6/9/1/26910163/published/oz.jpeg?1505792105)
What you are not entitled to do is to present your subjective and very personal preferences as objective fact as if they were accepted and agreed on by all. That you are suggesting this is strawman # 2.
(http://ponderful.weebly.com/uploads/2/6/9/1/26910163/published/oz.jpeg?1505792105)
Not everyone agrees that the melody is the most important thing in evaluating a piece of music (I don't, for a start). Not everyone agrees that there
is a single most important thing in evaluating a piece of music (I don't, either). Not everyone apart from clickbait websites really thinks ranking and categorising is particularly important in something as beautifully mysterious and elusive as music, either (I don't). No one agrees on what makes a good melody (I probably don't).* Heck, some people don't even agree on what a melody
is (I think it's pretty hard to define, in the sense that there are always counterexamples). No one has done a like-for-like qualitative comparison of every one of Mozart's melodies v every one of Haydn's, and even if they could be bothered to try, for the reasons above it's both impossible and pointless. Therefore what you prefer (which is completely fine) is also irrelevant.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on April 08, 2024, 03:41:25 AMYes, right, we've agreed about this, and I still think that it's the best definition of classical music: if it sounds like classical music, it's classical music.
No. And strawman #3. (http://ponderful.weebly.com/uploads/2/6/9/1/26910163/published/oz.jpeg?1505792105) Many, many days ago I posted, repeatedly, refutation of this simplistic 'fact,' and you ignored it repeatedly because the points I raised complicate your little game of putting things into boxes and showed that things which sound virtually the same can easily and uncontroversially be classified as stylistically different. Here was my example:
Quote from: Luke on March 19, 2024, 10:46:19 PM...take the following two works:
(https://i.discogs.com/dAzFl70kkkd3SF4IgA_VKKVlfgAw9QoveHdIIm4Walg/rs:fit/g:sm/q:90/h:594/w:600/czM6Ly9kaXNjb2dz/LWRhdGFiYXNlLWlt/YWdlcy9SLTI2MjAz/NzMtMTI5MzYzMTQw/NC5qcGVn.jpeg)
(https://www.discogs.com/release/2620373-Karlheinz-Stockhausen-Telemusik-Mixtur/image/SW1hZ2U6NDUzNjkzNg==)
Composed by Stockhausen in 1966 Telemusik is characterised by the use of field recordings of 'world music,' electronically treated and brought into juxtaposition with each other
(https://i.discogs.com/mpLYHAdqibdoOlzb9OGzLNlU5fVMnhqrHYDR6giKXRw/rs:fit/g:sm/q:90/h:579/w:597/czM6Ly9kaXNjb2dz/LWRhdGFiYXNlLWlt/YWdlcy9SLTMyNTky/OS0xMzk5Mjg3OTM0/LTg5MTQuanBlZw.jpeg)
(https://www.discogs.com/release/325929-Holger-Czukay-Rolf-Dammers-Canaxis/image/SW1hZ2U6MTIyNjQ1MzA=)
Composed by a Stockhausen pupil in 1969, using techniques learnt from Stockhausen and Stockhausen's own studio/equipment, Canaxis is characterised by the use of field recordings of 'world music,' and of 'early music' electronically treated and brought into juxtaposition with each other.
At times Canaxis and Telemusik sound almost indistinguishable from each other; they were created at around the same time as each other, using the same techniques, using similar source material, by a master composer and by one of his apprentices, the latter even using the former's studio and equipment to do so. So why is one considered 'classical' and the other not?
{And, by the way, because I know this matters to you, let me check with Allmusic, which tells me that Canaxis is 'Pop/Rock, Avant Garde' and Telemusik is 'Electronic/Computer Music, Classical')
Or let me return to another example I gave you earlier in this thread, also ignored. What style is this?
Quote from: Luke on March 21, 2024, 11:36:21 AM
Context is all. Music is complex. Styles are used referentially. They can say one thing and mean another. They can be placed inside " "
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on April 08, 2024, 03:41:25 AMThe difference between me and you is probably that I don't necessarily expect that a piece of contemporary classical music sounds exactly like the classics of the past.
Hello, strawman #4! (http://ponderful.weebly.com/uploads/2/6/9/1/26910163/published/oz.jpeg?1505792105) I can
guarantee you that the difference is not this.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on April 08, 2024, 03:41:25 AMSince innovation is allowed in classical music (otherwise the classical music of today would still sound like Vivaldi), when I have to determine if a contemporary composition is or not classical music I don't ask myself if it sounds exactly like the classics of the past, but if there are at least some elements of classical music.
Not sure if that strawman #5 or just strawman #4 closer up...
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on April 08, 2024, 03:41:25 AMI ask myself if the composition is an attempt to imitate or modernize classical music.
No, it's #5! (http://ponderful.weebly.com/uploads/2/6/9/1/26910163/published/oz.jpeg?1505792105)
How is this at all relevant? I'm lost in what all this is trying to say.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on April 08, 2024, 03:41:25 AMI've already posted an interesting article about the category "cinematic classical", which must not be confused with the category "classical soundtrack".
I sense an approaching army of strawmen, so before they reach us, let me just say that this is ridiculous, unless the word classical has different meanings in those two classifications, the two meaning s that I teach the 9 year olds at my school and that they are able to disentangle easily. But you've used it interchangeably in this thread as meaning either of them, and maybe that's what you mean here. As far as I am concerned, in this whole discussion, the word classical has been read by everyone except you as meaning, roughly, music written for the church, the chamber, or the concert hall, or music written in that long-lived tradition. It encompasses everyone from Perotin to Part, and is an enormously varied, wildly proliferating, beautiful thing whose limits are very hard to define. Music composed for films may well form part of that tradition, at times, but, just as with, oh, I don't know, the 'Third Stream' of Gunther Schuller, considering how and to what extent it does so is really interesting because it's not a simple binary in/out situation. That's a beautiful thing, not the problem you seem so intent on imagining.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on April 08, 2024, 03:41:25 AMIn fact, when you compose a classical soundtrack, is not necessarily cinematic classical. You can compose a soundtrack based on Classical music (1750-1820) and in that case the correct classification will be "neoclassical", not "cinematic classical".
Cinematic classical is, specifically, a form of CONTEMPORARY MUSIC which tries to bring innovation to classical music.
It's called "cinematic classical" because it has probably born inside cinema, but the article explains that even a piece of concert music might be categorized as "cinematic classical" if it's in dialogue with this contemporary and innovative musical tradition.
When I say that the score of "Men in Black" is classical music, I think specifically about "cinematic classical". I'm not saying that it's neobaroque, neoclassical, or neoromantic music. It's cinematic classical.
Why? Because I perceive it as an attempt to innovate/modernize classical music, and in the innovative elements I feel those typical elements that are associated with cinematic music.
With this in mind, I try to repeat the question: what are the elements that make you think that "cinematic classical" is not a good label for this piece? If it's not a good label, what is the right label?
Here below I copy the article about cinematic classical: https://rateyourmusic.com/genre/cinematic-classical/ (https://rateyourmusic.com/genre/cinematic-classical/)
This genre describes the style of orchestral compositions generally associated with soundtracks to modern high-budget films, games, and other non-live media. It has its roots in Western Classical Music, particularly late Romanticism, taking inspiration from the dramatism, large orchestra, use of leitmotif, and emotiveness of the genre. There is also a notable influence from Modern Classical, with its common focus on atmosphere and texture over melody. Additionally, non-classical sources such as Traditional Folk Music, Jazz and modern popular music are often incorporated into the orchestral setting, generally to set the location, themes or time period of the accompanying media. The style is played with a large symphonic orchestra, with additional modern and non-Western instruments included if required by the composer. Whilst this form of music is associated strongly with soundtracks, not every example of it is a soundtrack, and not every orchestral soundtrack fits this style.....[cut]...
I have no words. What is all this trying to prove? That lots of music for films and games is influenced by and uses techniques of earlier composers? No way! But none of this makes it a single separate
style, even though the above is an attempt to classify it as such. It makes it a way of writing film music, simply a way of creating functional music that uses other styles as signifiers to help to perform its function. That's great. There's nothing wrong with it. Some of the music created is fantastic. It's composers are often incredibly skillful. None of this is in dispute.
What is in dispute is your inability to see that the function of music, the way it is created, and then the way it is listened to, whether in the cinema or extracted from context and heard at the concert hall, is part of our experience of it and affects how we classify it. I don't think anyone is even arguing that a piece of film music couldn't be heard as a piece of classical music in principle. There are many pieces of film music I happily listen to because they bring me huge pleasure. It's just that there are so many other filters in the way that make it hard to hear as a piece of music in their own right.
When this point has been raised before you have previously replied with the suggestion that e.g. opera or ballet are in some way the same thing, being connected to narratives and visuals of their own. But opera and ballet are different for two reasons.
1) opera and ballet are generally the vision of the composer. What we see is fitted to work with what we hear, not the other way around. We talk of Stravinsky's Rite of Spring (with design by Nicholas Roerich and choreography by Nijinsky) because IS was the originator and the moving force. But we don't talk of Howard Shore's Lord of the Rings (with visuals by Peter Jackson) because HS's wonderful work was not the prime mover.
2) more important: the 'visuals' of opera and ballet are not fixed. They change from performance to performance and production to production. Shore's music for The Lord of the Rings will always be afixed to Elijah Wood's Frodo, Ian McKellen's Gandalf and Andy Serkis's Golllum, to
that particular Rivendell, those particular
Mines of Moria. All of those images form part of it, inextricably, even when the music is torn away from film and turned into a supposedly separate 'Lord of the Rings Symphony' (which exists, of course). Whereas in Johan de Meij's Lord of the Rings Symphony (for wind band) there are no single set of fixed visuals for it to be attached too, despite its programmatic roots.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on April 08, 2024, 03:41:25 AMSo, does "classical music" means "music of high status" for you? Not "music which follows determined forms and styles"?
It doesn't mean either. It's a strawman (#6?) to suggest that it can only mean one of those things (http://ponderful.weebly.com/uploads/2/6/9/1/26910163/published/oz.jpeg?1505792105)
My own definition of classical music, btw, explains all the issues in this thread, and in this kind of discussion in general. It is neither of your options. It is nothing to do with status, and nothing to do with style.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on April 08, 2024, 03:41:25 AMFor me it's the second, so given my definition (which is also the definition used by the entire society)
#7 (http://ponderful.weebly.com/uploads/2/6/9/1/26910163/published/oz.jpeg?1505792105)
Is it? Really? That's not a definition I've ever heard anyone give it, not least because it could apply to pretty much
all music, from every time and place.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on April 08, 2024, 03:41:25 AMI don't see why to admit the simple fact that a lot of film music is rooted in forms/styles of classical music would elevate film music to a high status.
huh? Who said it would? #8 has arrived. Enough for a party! (http://ponderful.weebly.com/uploads/2/6/9/1/26910163/published/oz.jpeg?1505792105)
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on April 08, 2024, 03:41:25 AMI'd like to add that I'm not a great fan of the score of "Men in Black", so if I really wanted to label determined soundtracks as "classical" only because I like them, it would be silly to use "Men in Black" as an example.
If the point is to show the high status of film music, I can simply put on the table the score of "Lord of The Ring" (by Howard Shore), which is one of the highest examples of "great film music". I don't need to give it labels to show how great the music is.
If I tell you that "classical" is a good label for the music of LOTR, it's simply because it's rooted on classical styles/forms. There isn't any qualitative judgement in the label. I express the qualitative judgements when I say that the music is excellent.
Shore's music for LOTR goes beyond excellent, it is some of the finest film scoring I've ever heard. It relies massively on Wagner, a debt Shore is very conscious of and which he acknowledges beautifully and graciously at the very, very, very end of the score for the final film, at the end of the credits when almost everyone has left the cinema: the final bars of his score are a clear reference to the final bars of Walkure. A fabulous gesture, a wink for those 'in the know.' But there we go - like John William's appropriation of Stravinsky, Holst and all the others, Shore's last second shout out to Wagner is a way to tell us that he recognises that there's another tradition to which he also relates beyond Middle Earth. But for the reasons I mentioned above, Shore's music will always associate not just with Tolkien's stories but with the very particular, precise and immutable version of those stories put down by Peter Jackson. And thus, if we wish to listen to it as classical, we do so only by allowing it to bring all of those particularities into the concert hall with it. Fine - but just be aware of what's happening. That's all I'm saying.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on April 08, 2024, 03:41:25 AMThat said, if you like strawmen, I'll be happy to use them as well,
Oh, this is bliss...
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on April 08, 2024, 03:41:25 AMand I'll say that many people don't admit the classical nature of many film scores only because they don't like them and they think that by denying their genre they put them to a lower status, since they have interiorized the idea that classical music is music of higher status.
At least you recognised that this one is a strawman too (#9 I think). I like a lot of film scores, my issue with everything you have been saying is just your inability to recognise that there are complex questions of reception - how we hear music - that come into play when we hear a soundtrack in a concert hall. It's nothing to do with musical style, or with any nonsense about status.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on April 08, 2024, 03:41:25 AMI can ensure you that I don't need this silly rhetoric to elevate film music. If I simply wanted to elevate film music, I might simply tell you that film music is as good as classical music.
You're not elevating film music. In fact in ignoring the subtle, terrific and difficult job it does and just trying to reduce everything down to coarse questions of style, you are underestimating it.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on April 08, 2024, 03:41:25 AMInfact it doesn't really matter, in that regards, if symphonic film music belongs or not to the classical genre. It's still academic music, which requires a high craftmanship. It even requires a higher craftmanship than classical music in determined areas.
I can agree with this Hooray!
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on April 08, 2024, 03:41:25 AMTo be honest, why should I convince 5 users in a forum, when the entire society recognizes the simple fact that there is a subset of "classical music" called "classical soundtrack", and/or that there is a genre of contemporary music called "cinematic classical", which is rooted in classical music?
Makes #10! Which entire society is this? What you have on this board is '5 users' (and the others) who think that questions of musical aesthetic and reception, how and why we hear music, in what context, are interesting things to consider and one who says 'this sounds a bit like Haydn so let's say it's the same thing only maybe better because of its melodies'
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on April 08, 2024, 03:41:25 AMhttps://rateyourmusic.com/genre/cinematic-classical/
https://www.allmusic.com/genre/classical-ma0000002521
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_classical_music_genres
https://www.prestomusic.com/classical/genres
https://halloffame.classicfm.com/2023/
Oh, I have to add "Bachtrack" to the list, since it classifies the concerts of John Williams as "classical events".
https://cdn.bachtrack.com/files/350970-Annual%20classical%20music%20statistics%202023.pdf (https://cdn.bachtrack.com/files/350970-Annual%20classical%20music%20statistics%202023.pdf)
Because this is proof, yes, because the internet is always right, yes? because all questions on musical aesthetic can be answered with recourse to gross simplifications and misunderstandings, yes?
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on April 08, 2024, 03:41:25 AMDo I really need to convince anyone here? No, you are a minority out there.
It's all in the questions you ask, isn't it, and the strawmen in those questions.
If you ask 'should classical soundtracks be considered as classical music?' then I'm sure lots of people will readily agree.
But if you ask 'should film scores which refer to the styles of Mozart and Haydn be consider the same as Mozart and Haydn?' then I'm sure most people will say no. You need to stop relying on Reddit polls and so on as much as you do, because (as we in my country know only too well *Brexit*) referenda are only as good as the question asked and the information given.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on April 08, 2024, 03:41:25 AMI opened this thread only for the sake of discussion, and I give voice to people who are frustrated for the direction of the society.
This is the kind of stuff populist leaders trot out.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on April 08, 2024, 03:41:25 AMMy threads are interesting for the psychologists who study the phenomenomen called "denial".
Yes, they are, but perhaps not for the reason you imagine.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on April 08, 2024, 07:22:44 AMThe problem is that the definition of classical music is not complex. If it sounds like classical music, it's classical music. If it sounds like jazz, it's jazz, If it sounds like rock, it's rock. If it sounds like rap, it's rap.
No. See my above examples.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on April 08, 2024, 03:41:25 AMTo be honest, the only relevant post was the one of @ritter, who wrote that the music of Men in Black doesn't sound like classical music.
It's a shame that he doesn't want to discuss the subject, now that we are finally arrived to the essential point of this discussion.
The subject is:
how do we determine if an innovative contemporary composition is classical music or not?
...is it? when did that happen? I thought this was about film music...
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on April 08, 2024, 03:41:25 AMIf a contemporary composition had to sound exactly like the classics of the past in order to be considered classical music, evolution wouldn't be allowed in classical music.
However, if a contemporary composition has innovative elements, there is the problem to determine if it can be considered as classical music or not.
No there isn't.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on April 08, 2024, 03:41:25 AMSo, how do we proceed? Perhaps we should consider as classical music the compositions who have AT LEAST SOME classical elements, combined with modern elements.
Not necessarily. That's not what classical music is.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on April 08, 2024, 03:41:25 AMHow can we consider this as " contemporary classical music" without the required flexibility of classification? Does it sounds like MOzart or Tchaikovsky? No!
Has the piece of Men in Black AT LEAST SOME classical elements? I think yes, and they are not hidden elements, but evident elements.
However, in the OP I wrote.
--------------
Since the classification is subjective and not objective, determined by our istinct, we might not agree about the classification of one musical work... so what? Is it so important to determine if something is classical music or not?
--------------
Well, we are here. Apparently, while I feel that there are classical elements in the piece of Men in Black, ritter doesn't feel them.
So what? We can agree to disagree. The only thing I can say about it, is that if most people agree with me, the score of Men in Black will be categorized as classical, while if most people agree with ritter it won't.
I don't even want to convince ritter of my opinion. It's subjective. This is what I wrote in the OP, and remain faith to what I wrote.
Finally, someone brought a relevant point to this discussion, but apparently he has established that his point of view is the right one and hes doesn't want to hear my opinion, i.e. my "classica feelings" about this music.
I'm not really sure what the point of all that was.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on April 08, 2024, 03:41:25 AMSo, am I not entitled to think that the melody is the most important ingredient? Am I not entitled to think that the melodies of Mozart are in average better than the ones of Haydn?
If someone prefers Mozart more than Haydn, it means that he is a troll?
I think I covered that. Short recap: you are entitled to prefer what you want, but it doesn't make it an evidentiary fact that proves anything.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on April 08, 2024, 03:41:25 AMThis discussion is full of hate. I must have opened a great Pandora's box with this discussion. This tells me that in the future soundtracks will be probably regarded as great art, given how much shake up today's society and the beliefs of many people.
Don[t worry, I'm sure there's no hate here. None whatsoever. I am amused, and, yes, sometimes a little offended when you seem to (deliberately) put words into my mouth, and the mouths of others here. And I find that a bit upsetting. But I don't think you hate us!
....I know, I'm being obtuse, it's annoying isn't it, having your words used like that? You're saying that we, the 'enemy,' are full of hate. But it's not hate. I don't hate you at all, and my rhetorical tactics (e.g. in this message, the pictorial reference to strawmen wherever I see them) are just to make a point. It's not hate. It's frustration at you insisting on arguing against the biggest strawman of all: that we are all elitist snobs who hate film music and won't let it into our precious gilded classical castle, despite all the popular opinion outside the gates that says we should. None of us think that, as far as I can see. Williams, Shore et al are extremely skilled composers who write music that fits nicely into the classical traditions they reference. But we would just like some recognition from you that, doing what they do for the prime purpose of soundtracking a film, and performing those stylistic references for that same purpose, i.e. not for artistic merit but because the director wants them, and in general being secondary creators at the whim of those directors - all this complicates things a bit. It isn't as simple as you like to think.
* I was intrigued so I went to the greater Authorities of the Internet's infalible rating systems. Apparently this melody
(https://www.esm.rochester.edu/beethoven/files/7.2-Rhythmic-Motive-335x91.png)
...which repeats itself and then moves up to repeat itself a minor third higher (that's 13 Es, one F# and 8 Gs), comes from Beethoven's 7th best piece (udiscovermusic.com), or perhaps 8the best (classical-music.com), or 4th most famous (on vocal.medias authoritative list of 10 most famous Beethoven songs (I've forgotten the vocal movement, clearly)) or the 13th 'Best Beethoven Song' on the so-aptly named thetoptens.com. Meanwhile Google (I mistyped it as Goofle just then, appropriately) has it in Beethoven's top 9 most popular 'songs'. So it must be a very good melody even though it's a very bad melody. The entire top 9 on Goo
fgle, by the way are:
1 Fur Elise
2 Piano Concerto no 4 (but as conducted by Bernstein)
3 Piano Concerto no 4 (but as played by Brendel)
4 Bagatelle no 25 in A minor (which is Fur Elise, but who's counting)
5 Symphony no 5
6 The Pathetique Sonata (as payed by Paul Mauriat)
7 The movement under discussion from the 7th (but only as played by the Berlin Phil)
8 First movement of the Moonlight
9 First movement of the Pathetique (whoever plays it)
So now you know. Thank goodness for internet polls!
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on April 08, 2024, 07:22:44 AMThe problem is that the definition of classical music is not complex. If it sounds like classical music, it's classical music. If it sounds like jazz, it's jazz, If it sounds like rock, it's rock. If it sounds like rap, it's rap.
I'm reminded of Baldrick rewriting Samuel Johnson's Dictionary
And did I miss a page somewhere? At the start we we're being chastised for liking all the innovative modern classical which the OP sweeping dismissed as "avant-garde" saying we should be more like "real" people who like Mozart callbacks, but now apparently its
we who dislike innovation and its
we who require everything to sound like Mozart. When did we turn this corner?
I think it's when - and I only realised he was actually, genuinely doing this after writing that marathon last post of mine (I had a free afternoon..) - he decided it suited his argument to being to portray us all in periwigs aghast at what we see as the disrespectful innovatory hi-jinks of Hans Zimmer et al.
Quote from: Luke on April 08, 2024, 02:40:49 PMI think it's when - and I only realised he was actually, genuinely doing this after writing that marathon last post of mine (I had a free afternoon..) - he decided it suited his argument to being to portray us all in periwigs aghast at what we see as the disrespectful innovatory hi-jinks of Hans Zimmer et al.
The irony is that there are innovative soundtracks being made and some of those situated in contemporary classical and where the composers were given a lot of room to create their sound world, but they're not something the OP would ever accept or like or promote.
Mica Levi springs to mind
@Luke 1) Basically, you are scolding me because I forgot to put "In my opinion,..." before "... the music of Mozart is a better version of the music of Haydn".
I wonder why no one gets angry for the fact that
@SimonNZ forget to put "In my opinion..." before his considerations about the inferiority of film music in respect to concert music, and his considerations about the imaginary world in which the players leave their orchestra because they have to play film music, while in reality many of them are where they are because they felt in love with one or more orchestral soundtracks when they were younger.
While I have never tried to project my personal preferences for Mozart over Haydn to all people, SimonNZ was projecting his personal interests to the entire world, and no one is angry for this.
This is why I wrote that this discussion is full of hate towards me. Any excuse is good to lash out fiercely at me, but I don't care. I know that when you compare soundtracks to classical music in places dedicated to classical music you open the Pandora's box, and I'm happy to be the one who opens it.
All that said, even if I admit that I was speaking about my personal preference (are you happy now?), there is still the fact that Mozart is the most perfomed composer and Haydn is not even in the TOP 10.
I've already posted the statistics of Bachtrack for the year 2023.
Perhaps it's not ONLY my personal preference, but of course it's still a subjective thing, since someone has the right to think that Haydn was as great as Mozart, if not even better.
2) The very simple fact regarding Telemusik and Canaxis is that they are both "experimental electronic music". They have nothing to do with classical music, with pop, with rock, or whatever... "experimental electronic music", or "ambiental electronic music", is the best descriptor for both works.
When it comes to experimental music the classification is confusionary and unreliable, because the lack of categories to classificate this kind of music lead people to classificate the music according to the background of the musician.
So, if The Beatles compose experimental music, it must be pop because they are known as a pop group. If it's an experimental work of Metallica, it must be metal. If it's an experimental work of a classical musician, it must be classical, even if it has absolutely nothing to do with the musical tradition.
Now, if you ask me, the pure experimental music is a separate thing in respect to all other genres and if I was a creator of similar music I'de be offended by the fact that the people put my music in an existing musical tradition, since my goal would be to create innovative music that refuses to be a product of already existing music.
The grouping of musical works is meaningful until it's possible to find common denominators between pieces inside a group, and there are common denominators only when the composers create works that are inspired to already existing works.
This is why I think that it doesn't make sense to try to classificate experimental musical compositions as classical, as rock, as pop, as jazz, or whatever...
Note, please, that I'm not saying that revolutionary music which is clearily rooted in the classical tradition shouldn't be considered classical and that what I'm saying has nothing do with my personal preferences.
For example, I don't like the Symphony 5 of Joly Braga Santos (his fourth symphony is the last good symphony for me), but I also think that it's classical music.
It's simply a style of classical music that I don't like, but it's still classical music, with innovative elements that I don't like in respect to the previous symphonies of the same composer which are more traditional.
What I was trying to say regarding the so called "cinematic classical" is that the composers of that genre try to innovate classical music, but in a different way in respect to many composers of concert music of the 20th century.
Basically, their innovation is less controversial, because they try to produce innovative but catchy forms of music rooted in the classical tradition.
The point is that if you don't want to recognize that the innovative works of the genre "cinematic classical" are rooted in the tradition of classical music (and that they are, therefore, a part of contemporary classical music), then it's easy to also exclude most contemporary works of concert music, because most of them are not trying to create music that sounds exactly like the music of the great composers of the past.
They are trying to produce innovative music in the classical tradition like Danny Elfman in Men in Black, with the difference perhaps that many contemporary composers of concert works are less worried about catchyness.
3) Although I agree about the fact that IF (IF!) you have watched the film that contains a determined soundtrack, to hear the soundtrack in the concert hall will always bring the images of the film to your mind, this is also true for an aria of the Don Giovanni.
If you have watched the entire opera (and I did), when you will hear the final and dark part of the opera without the stage you will always inevitably see the Don Giovanni on fire inside your head.
So, although I agree with your observation that when I listen to "Duel of the Fates" I can not avoid to think about the final battle between Darth Maul and Kenoby/Qui-Gon, I don't see the point of what you are saying, because I can say the same exact thing about an aria of an opera I have watched.
Your observation would be relevant only if it was true that the music of the Don Giovanni worked well even without the stage while the music of LOTR without the film didn't, but I absolutely don't agree with this: the music of LOTR is really powerful even without the images (I can say this because I listened to the soundtrack before I watched the film). As many other soundtracks, it's simply beautiful music that it's strongly evocative in itself.
This is why most fans of soundtracks (see my poll) declare that they like music of films they have never watched or that they don't like, and I am one of them, so I know what I'm speaking about.
An other input for this discussion.
The craftmanship of creating music for images is something that has been strongly cultivated inside classical music.
Vivaldi infact has been one of the greatest composers of "soundtracks" of the history of music, and every fan of soundtracks who doesn't admit this fact can not be taken seriously.
Yes, because the "Four Seasons" are the soundtrack of a group of sonnets (each movement has a corresponding sonnet, see: https://baroquemusic.org/vivaldiseasons.html
Now, take for example Summer Presto:
"Alas, his worst fears were justified, as the heavens roar and great hailstones beat down upon the proudly standing corn"Basically, Vivaldi composed a soundtrack for a similar scene.
Note that his music is simply perfect as a soundtrack for this scene, and this is why I wrote that he has been one of the greatest composer of soundtracks.
The difference is that the contemporary composers of soundtracks have to compose music for concrete material, while Vivaldi had to imagine his own film in his head to write the correct music.
You will never fully understand the genius of Vivaldi if you are not aware about what there was in his mind while he was composing his music.
We can say that the art of Vivaldi required even a greater craftmanship in respect to composing real soundtracks, because it requires imagination.
The point, however, is that it's absurd to try to separate classical music from narrative, when historically the two things have been strongly connected.
We might say that, in large part, classical music tried to pair music with literature/narrative. Basically, it's what cinema is doing today.
It's not suprising that in cinema a lot of music is rooted in classical music: it makes perfectly sense, once you are aware of the history of classical music, once you know that the Four Seasons are "soundtracks" of sonnets", and so on...
This is a cry for help.
You missed my point re this particular part of the discussion (to be fair there was quite a lot of ground covered)
Your mental picture of Don Giovanni is not mine. Your mental picture of Vivaldi's Summer is not mine. The music retains its independence because these associations are not fixed.
But your mental image of Gandalf on the bridge of Khazad Dum in Jackson's film is identical to mine. The music is tied to a precise image; it is not fully independent.
Quote from: W.A. Mozart on April 09, 2024, 03:35:39 AMthe "Four Seasons" are the soundtrack of a group of sonnets (each movement has a corresponding sonnet, see: https://baroquemusic.org/vivaldiseasons.html
That would be a reasonable argument if it were known for certain that the concerti were written to illustrate the sonnets. However, since the words and music were published together, nobody knows which came first - i.e. Vivaldi (if he were also the poet) may have written the sonnets as a description of his own music.
To paraphrase Alien (great soundtrack btw);
In this thread no-one can hear you scream
Quote from: Luke on April 09, 2024, 05:04:55 AMYou missed my point re this particular part of the discussion (to be fair there was quite a lot of ground covered)
Your mental picture of Don Giovanni is not mine. Your mental picture of Vivaldi's Summer is not mine. The music retains its independence because these associations are not fixed.
But your mental image of Gandalf on the bridge of Khazad Dum in Jackson's film is identical to mine. The music is tied to a precise image; it is not fully independent.
Only if we have both watched the film and we both remember the scene where a determined part of the music is used.
I have never watched the film Avalon. I only know the music.
If you ask me how the music of this video is used in the film "The Hours", I can't tell you. I don't remember.
This fact makes the experience subjective. It would be objective only if all people who listen to the music had a perfect memory of the scene.
In regards to the difference between the music of a film and the music of an opera, the difference is not in the music in itself. The difference you noted is between cinema and theatre.
In the case of the theatre, the stage must be recreated for every recital.
In the case of cinema, a film is recorded.
This means that if we had both watched the same version of the Don Giovanni, there would be the same exact picture in our mind, but since we might have watched different versions, the picture might be different.
However, both pictures are about the Don Giovanni who dies, so it's not completely abstract.
Now, even if our experience in relation with the music, the film and so on... is subjective, it's still correct to say that the the music is objectively associated with a precise scene, so at the end I can agree that to make a distinction between "abstract music" and "non-abstract music" makes sense.
So, we have...
Abstract jazz (for example "Take five") Vs non-abstract jazz (the score of the film "The Faboulous Baker Boys")
Abastract pop (for example "Your song") Vs non-abstract pop (for example the score of "Top Gun")
Abstract rap (for example "Without me") Vs non-abstract rap (for example "Lose yourself", written for the film 8mile)
....
And, finally, after a long list...
Abstract classical music (For example "Philip Glass - Metamorphosis") and non-abstract classical music (for example the score of the film "The Hours", composed by Philip Glass).
So, in conclusion, if this is what you want to say, I can agree with you.
Opera might be more abstract than a film score, but I wouldn't put it in the the category of abstract music. The music is thought to be consumed with a stage.
Finally, we should also note that non-abstract music can become abstract music if to play a piece originally thought to be consumed in a non-abstract way outside of the original context becomes the normal practice.
This happened with the song "Lose Yourself" (Eminem sings it in all concerts) and with parts of the score of "Top Gun", but the relevant story for this discussion is that some classical scores are no more abstract music. Do you remember the data about John Williams, which shows that he is the most performed contemporary composer?
Well, the classical soundtracks of John Williams are no more abstract music: like the music of Top Gun, the music of John Williams has been tranformed succesfully into concert music.
Perhaps what the snobs (like the guy of the blog of The Guardian) don't like is that we are converting classical soundtracks into abstract classical music. Why? Because we like the music and we think that it's powerful even outside the films.
Do we agree with what I wrote, or is there anything you don't like in my text?
The poll of Reddit is closed now, so you can see the final results.
Question: "Do you like soundtracks of films that you don't like or you have never watched?"
- 32 votes: Yes, I like soundtracks of films that I don't like.
- 14 votes: Yes, I like soundtracks of films that I have never watched.
- 42 votes: Yes, both previous options.
- 3 votes: No, I only like soundtracks of films that I like.
- 4 votes: I don't want to vote. Show me the results.
= 95 votes (total)
Link to the poll: https://www.reddit.com/r/soundtracks/comments/1by8z1g/do_you_like_soundtracks_of_films_that_you_dont/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/soundtracks/comments/1by8z1g/do_you_like_soundtracks_of_films_that_you_dont/)
3 / (95 - 4) = 3.3%
Only 3.3% of the voters declare that they only like the music of films that they have wached and that they like.
This demonstrates that it's not true that people like the music of soundtracks only because they like the films.
In the comments under the poll: "The vast majority of my soundtrack collection is for films I haven't seen."