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

[VonStupp]

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!!!"

ABACABA works for classical composers, but would it work for film music?
VS

[Roasted Swan]

This thread needs to be left alone in a quiet dark corner to shrivel and fade......

[DavidW]

If I believe something, just repeating it makes it true, right?

"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.

[DavidW]

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.

Nah I think I would delete the post out of turn and tell WAM to stay in his lane! An abuse of power?  Yes.  But worth it?  Definitely.

[W.A. Mozart]

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.

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.

[W.A. Mozart]

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.

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.

[W.A. Mozart]

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!!!"

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.

[W.A. Mozart]

If 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?

[W.A. Mozart]

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?

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.

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?

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"?

[Karl Henning]

Rinse and repeat:

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.

Your classic move of claiming that an assertion is de facto truth.

You've taken your asinine act to the next level.

[ritter]

Rinse 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!

[Luke]

What 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

[Luke]

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) 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.

[Karl Henning]

What 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?

[Maestro267]

This thread needs to be left alone in a quiet dark corner to shrivel and fade......

Thanks for trying.

[SimonNZ]

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.

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".

[steve ridgway]

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.

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.

[SimonNZ]

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.

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"?

[steve ridgway]

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  .

[Roasted Swan]

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"?

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.