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

[SimonNZ]

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.

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.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

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.

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?"
 

[Karl Henning]

I doubt one can reason with someone who mistakes "I don't like the answer" for "the answer isn't reasonable."

[Spotted Horses]

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.

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.

[Florestan]

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?"
 

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. 

And now that I think of it, the answer to this question:

Are 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? 

[W.A. Mozart]

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.

[steve ridgway]

Are 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?

[Florestan]

I 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.

[Karl Henning]

You mean like on Classic FM where they play Vivaldi's One Season and Holst's The Planet Mars?

(* chortle *)

[SimonNZ]

I 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.

[W.A. Mozart]

You 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.

[W.A. Mozart]

I 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.

[W.A. Mozart]

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.

However, this is an 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.

[W.A. Mozart]

Where 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

-------------

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.

If 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.

[W.A. Mozart]

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.

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

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.

[Florestan]

@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!

[W.A. Mozart]

In this PDF published by Bachtrack, 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".

[Spotted Horses]

In this PDF published by Bachtrack, 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.

[DavidW]

I'm going to merge these two threads.

[Karl Henning]

I'm going to merge these two threads.

Two unengaged rants for the price of one!