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

[ritter]

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.

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! 

[Karl Henning]

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.

Gotta keep the unengaged rant unengaged!

[Maestro267]

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?

[W.A. Mozart]

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".

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.

This poll in the subreddit soundtracks (a Reddit group for people who love soundtracks) asked: "Do you like classical music outside of soundtracks?".



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/


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.




(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.

[DavidW]

This poll 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.

[W.A. Mozart]

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.

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.

[W.A. Mozart]

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! 

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.

[DavidW]

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.

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!    

[SimonNZ]

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!    

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.

[W.A. Mozart]

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!    

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/

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

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.



(2 + 8 ) / (36 - 3) = 30%


With this new, clearer poll the "yes" answers have even increased, so many thanks for your assist.    

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.

[W.A. Mozart]

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.

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?

[foxandpeng]

Do 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.

[Karl Henning]

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 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.

[W.A. Mozart]

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.

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.

[foxandpeng]

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 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'.

[DavidW]

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/

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

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.

[71 dB]

Were 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.

[W.A. Mozart]

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.

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.

[W.A. Mozart]

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'.

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.

[71 dB]

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

Yes, but this advice comes 30 years late in my case. I have noticed the "classical nature of determined soundtracks" long ago...

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.

I don't know well the music of Disney Star Wars. I'm more of a fan of Lucas Star Wars.