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

[foxandpeng]

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/

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.





We can start commenting the last data.

In this post 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 

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

[W.A. Mozart]

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 

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.

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

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.

[DavidW]

I'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.

[Karl Henning]

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.

One big step in the right direction would be: Consider the possibility that your priors are incorrect.

[steve ridgway]

I looked for relevant research on the internet - sorted  .

[foxandpeng]

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.




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.

[W.A. Mozart]

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.

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.


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.

[W.A. Mozart]

One 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.

[W.A. Mozart]

I looked for relevant research on the internet - sorted  .

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.

[W.A. Mozart]

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.

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.

[foxandpeng]

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.

Ha. As I say, I'm out.

[DavidW]

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.

Okay let's not be churlish.  Fox was helpful and friendly.

[Spotted Horses]

Ha. As I say, I'm out.

The latest one to fall into this sink-hole of a thread!

[W.A. Mozart]

The 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.

[Maestro267]

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.

[W.A. Mozart]

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.

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?

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.

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.

[steve ridgway]

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.

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.

[W.A. Mozart]

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.

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.

[steve ridgway]

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 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.

[Spotted Horses]

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.

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.