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

[DavidW]

And, as I prepare to press save, I ask myself why I have let myself get drawn into this thread again.

[DavidW]

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.

If avant garde isn't classical, nothing is. 

[brewski]

If 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

[Spotted Horses]

If 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.

[steve ridgway]

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.

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

[San Antone]

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.

[W.A. Mozart]

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

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?

and 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.

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.

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.

Performers, 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.

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.

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) 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.

Speaking 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?

and 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.

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.

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.

[W.A. Mozart]

If 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!

[Spotted Horses]

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.

This is what I would have written were I more articulate.

[ritter]

To be honest, classical music is very much an "I know it when I see it" (or rather, "...when I hear it") case.

[Spotted Horses]

To 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?

[DavidW]

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.

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!

[Spotted Horses]

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!

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.

[steve ridgway]

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.

[W.A. Mozart]

To 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.

[W.A. Mozart]

To 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!

[W.A. Mozart]

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!

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...

[Karl Henning]

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.

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.)

[DavidW]

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.)

And Beethoven's Great Fugue.  Taking an old form and re-imagining it in a fresh way may be definitely interesting!

[San Antone]

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.