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

[Karl Henning]

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?

Good call!

[71 dB]

Just because a film composer may imitate a classical composer, e.g. Holst, or Mahler, etc., does not make his score a classical work.

I don't care if music written for movies is called classical music or just movie music. It is all about how we define labels. It doesn't change the music. What I have an issue with is the tone of this sentence of yours which makes it seem composers of film music are nothing but imitators and hacks. That is not true.

[W.A. Mozart]

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.)

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.

First of all: the great composers of Hollywood (and I stress the word "great") are not imitations of the composers of the past. They are contemporary classical composers with their distinct voices. Just because they write tonal music doesn't mean that they are imitation of past composers.

While I was watching the film "Men of Glory", I thought: "The score sounds very much like James Horner". I checked Wikipedia and it was indeed Horner.

No one here is saying that John Williams, James Horner, Ennio Morricone and many others are composers of classical music because they are copies of the composers of the past. What I'm saying is that they are legit CONTEMPORARY composers of classical music who write more accessible music in respect to many other contemporary composers.


The reasons for which they can be considered CONTEMPORARY classical composers are very simple:

1) The genres of music (classical music, jazz, rock,...) are defined by the nature of the music, and a lot of soundtracks composed by Williams, Horner, Morricone have a classical nature.

2) The fact that a piece with a classical nature has been composed for a soundtrack doesn't change the nature, therefore it also doesn't change the musical genre.


That said, the matter of originality has absolutely nothing to do with classification.

You can divide classical composers between the categories "conservative" / "innovative", if you wish, but I don't see why we should create new genres of music for one of the two categories if we can simply create subcategories of classical composers.

So, do you think that John Williams has not brought innovation to classical music and that his music is stuck in the past? Well, if this is what you think you can call him "conservative"... there is no need to expel him from the category of classical composers.


It's quite clear that these strange theories come from fans of avantgarde music who want to delegitimize the more conservative composers. It's also clear that to be called "conservative" you only have to write tonal, melodic and accessible music, which means that Their mission is to eliminate beautiful contemporary music in order to deliver the coup de grâce to the popularity of a genre that is already losing ground among younger generations.


So, to say that something is not classical music because it's conservative it's a nonsense, since you can simply use the subcategory "conservative classical music".

However, if you want, you can say that "conservative classical music" is inferior in respect to "innovative classical music", but you should keep in mind that your personal values are not universal values.


For me, for example, innovation has not a great value.
I think that the quality of classical music is mainly related to the beauty of the tunes and to the epicness of the music: as the beauty of the tunes and the epicness increases, the quality of the music increases.


According to my personal values, I've established that the greatest pieces of classical music ever composed are:
- Mozart: Piano Concerto No. 20, Symphony 25+40+41, Requiem, the first movement of the Great Mass in C minor, Sinfonia Concertante

- Dvorak: Symphony 9

- Beethoven: Moonlight Sonata, Piano Concerto No. 3, Symphony 9

- Mendelssohn: most pieces composed by Mendelssohn are epic music with nice tunes, but the Violin Concerto, all his pieces of sacred music, the String Quartet No. 6, the symphony 4+5, for me are the absolute winners

- Brahms: Symphony 4 + many pieces of chamber music

- Schubert: his sacred music

- Bach: Passacaglia and Fugue in C minor, many other organ pieces and Violin Concerto in A minor

- Roman Kim: Violin Concerto

- Alma Deutscher: Violin Concerto

- James Horner: Braveheart, Apollo 13 and Titanic

- John Williams: Star Wars, Nixon and Home Alone

- Hans Zimmer: Gladiator and The Lion King

- Alan Menken: all of his score composed for the Disney in the nineties are pure gold, but the winners are probably "The Huntchback of Notre Dame" and "Pocahontas"

- David Newman: Anastasia



I wouldn't say that the mentioned composers of soundtracks are copies of the past composers of classical music (each one of them has a distinct voice), but I don't deny that their music is more conservative in respect to the music of many other contemporary composers.
The point is that I dont' care: they write epic music with excellent tunes, so they compose music of high quality.
When I hear the music of some highly original contemporary composers, I have the istinct to kill myself, so for me it's bad music.

[San Antone]

I don't care if music written for movies is called classical music or just movie music. It is all about how we define labels. It doesn't change the music. What I have an issue with is the tone of this sentence of yours which makes it seem composers of film music are nothing but imitators and hacks. That is not true.

Nothing in what I wrote there (and more importantly what I have posted previously) would indicate that I thought that "composers of film music are nothing but imitators and hacks".  But it is true that often a film composer will write in a "classical music stye." In fact that what this entire thread is about.

I have posted before that I think that film composers have written very fine music for their film scores.  It is just not classical music.

[W.A. Mozart]

I don't care if music written for movies is called classical music or just movie music. It is all about how we define labels. It doesn't change the music. What I have an issue with is the tone of this sentence of yours which makes it seem composers of film music are nothing but imitators and hacks. That is not true.

Why do you think they want to remove music that is clearly of a classical nature from the category of classical music? Because they have biases against film composers and think that by removing it from classical music they make it of inferior quality. Too bad it's not true, because then I can still say that the quality of film music is just as high as that of classical music (and this is exactly what I think).

[DavidW]

I don't care if music written for movies is called classical music or just movie music. It is all about how we define labels. It doesn't change the music. What I have an issue with is the tone of this sentence of yours which makes it seem composers of film music are nothing but imitators and hacks. That is not true.

You have no grounds to take issue, SA used the word MAY.  You misinterpreted what you read.

[Brian]

According to my personal values, I've established that the greatest pieces of classical music ever composed are:
- Mozart: Piano Concerto No. 20, Symphony 25+40+41, Requiem, the first movement of the Great Mass in C minor, Sinfonia Concertante
- Dvorak: Symphony 9
- Beethoven: Moonlight Sonata, Piano Concerto No. 3, Symphony 9
- Mendelssohn: most pieces composed by Mendelssohn are epic music with nice tunes, but the Violin Concerto, all his pieces of sacred music, the String Quartet No. 6, the symphony 4+5, for me are the absolute winners
- Brahms: Symphony 4 + many pieces of chamber music
- Schubert: his sacred music
- Bach: Passacaglia and Fugue in C minor, many other organ pieces and Violin Concerto in A minor
- Roman Kim: Violin Concerto
- Alma Deutscher: Violin Concerto
- James Horner: Braveheart, Apollo 13 and Titanic
- John Williams: Star Wars, Nixon and Home Alone
- Hans Zimmer: Gladiator and The Lion King
- Alan Menken: all of his score composed for the Disney in the nineties are pure gold, but the winners are probably "The Huntchback of Notre Dame" and "Pocahontas"
- David Newman: Anastasia

I am curious, do you have a points system or some other means of measurement? For example, what personal value do you hold that establishes that Dvorak's Symphony No. 9 is superior to No. 8 or 7? Or Mozart Piano Concerto No. 20 but not 24? Do the other works fall short in some specific fashion?

[Karl Henning]

I don't care if music written for movies is called classical music or just movie music.

then you, like most of us, do not (as against the thread title) obsess about categories.

[Karl Henning]

I have posted before that I think that film composers have written very fine music for their film scores.  It is just not classical music.

A sound and powerfully defensible thesis.

[Karl Henning]

James Horner: Braveheart, Apollo 13 and Titanic

John Williams: Star Wars, Nixon and Home Alone

Hans Zimmer: Gladiator and The Lion King

Alan Menken: all of his score composed for the Disney in the nineties are pure gold, but the winners are probably "The Huntchback of Notre Dame" and "Pocahontas"

It has long been clear that you are the titular person obsessed by categories, and that specifically, the bee in your bonnet is that film music must be considered "classical." It is equally clear that you are deaf to any remark that does not feed your preferred narrative. That is all. I'm not posing you any question, since you'll just trot out more of your boilerplate, which grew tiresome six pages ago.

[San Antone]

LIke others, I don't "obsess" about categories; but I do value them for reasons of organization.

This morning I was listening to music by Sigur Rós and one of his albums is a series of untitled tracks.



I thought this is a bit unsatisfying, sort of like thinking of music without any genres.  For one thing I couldn't attach something to the music (if I enjoyed it) to find it again.  Also, the tracks would blur into one another without my thinking of them as distinct works.

So, for me categories, genres, are helpful if for no other reason to manage the huge amount of musical information stored in my brain.

[Karl Henning]

LIke others, I don't "obsess" about categories; but I do value them for reasons of organization.

This morning I was listening to music by Sigur Rós and one of his albums is a series of untitled tracks.



I thought this is a bit unsatisfying, sort of like thinking of music without any genres.  For one thing I couldn't attach something to the music (if I enjoyed it) to find it again.  Also, the tracks would blur into one another without my thinking of them as distinct works.

So, for me categories, genres, are helpful if for no other reason to manage the huge amount of musical information stored in my brain.

Exactly. Finding categories/genres of use is not "obsession." I mean, why is a clam not a "fish?"

[71 dB]

then you, like most of us, do not (as against the thread title) obsess about categories.

Categories can be useful, but I don't obsess about them.

[71 dB]

Nothing in what I wrote there (and more importantly what I have posted previously) would indicate that I thought that "composers of film music are nothing but imitators and hacks".  But it is true that often a film composer will write in a "classical music stye." In fact that what this entire thread is about.

I have posted before that I think that film composers have written very fine music for their film scores.  It is just not classical music.

Is it wrong to say Beethoven wrote music in a "classical music style?" Just turning this upside down. Are we granting Beethoven he wrote classical music, because that was the only music he could write. There was no demand for movie music in his days.

[71 dB]

You have no grounds to take issue, SA used the word MAY.  You misinterpreted what you read.

I had no grounds, but I extrapolated from what he wrote.

[San Antone]

Is it wrong to say Beethoven wrote music in a "classical music style?" Just turning this upside down. Are we granting Beethoven he wrote classical music, because that was the only music he could write. There was no demand for movie music in his days.

There is a 1500 year tradition of the music we call "classical."  There are many different styles, Machaut wrote in a different style than Beethoven, who wrote in a different style than Debussy. But we call it all classical music because of the intention of the composer, the purpose of the music, and the kind of audience and venue that has programed this kind of music, for hundreds of years.

Two things:

1. Because some music is called "classical music" does not necessarily mean it is of higher quality than some music called "film music."

2. The intention of the composer, i.e. if he considers himself part of that 1500 year classical music tradition, is important and is what defines him as a classical composer.  A film composer is also part of a tradition, a different tradition, and a composer who writes for film knows he is continuing the film music tradition.

Classical music and film music might share some superficial stylistic aspects.  But the relative traditions the composer identifies with and the specific purpose the composer is fulfilling with his work, are more important and definitive considerations.

[Luke]

I've been reading but not commenting ever since the OP repeatedly told me what I was really thinking in response to some of my earlier posts.  I found that quite annoying, as I wasn't thinking those things and object to having words put into my mouth. But two thoughts raised from the last page or so:

1) The OP's recent insistence that film composers are classical composers with their own styles had the opposite effect on me than intended, perhaps. Previously not hugely averse to thinking of e.g. John Williams as a composer of classical music, the OP has made me consider this matter of personal style more closely, and I think I may now be inclined to disagree more forcefully. In his concert works, sure, Williams allows his own voice through. No problem in accepting them as classical. But in his (massively skilful and hugely enjoyable) film scores that personal style is adulterated by other mannerisms and appropriations - other styles, in fact. He is not being fully himself (And nor should he be - that's part of his job). Same goes for other film composers. Just pointing it out.

2) As some recent posts have also suggested, I do actually find pondering on categories really useful, interesting and illuminating. I don't really go in for the superficially attractive notion of dismissing the boxes we put music into, if only because the choice of those boxes can be so revealing and thought provoking.

For instance, take the following two works:



Composed by Stockhausen in 1966 Telemusik is characterised by the use of field recordings of 'world music,' electronically treated and brought into juxtaposition with each other




Composed by a Stockhausen pupil in 1969, using techniques learnt from Stockhausen and Stockhausen's own studio/equipment, Canaxis is characterised by the use of field recordings of 'world music,' and of 'early music' electronically treated and brought into juxtaposition with each other.

At times Canaxis and Telemusik sound almost indistinguishable from each other. So why is one considered 'classical' and the other not? I'm not trying to be provocative: there is actually something that distinguishes the two; we can all feel it. But what is it, when they are in every concrete way similar? I find the consideration of this question really revealing. This is why I wouldn't be without categories.

[W.A. Mozart]

A sound and powerfully defensible thesis.

How exactly?

If someone composed a symphony and wrote this for the third movement, would it be classical music or not?

If the same person composed this piece as a standalone scherzo, and not as a part of a symphony, and called it "scherzo for orchestra", would it be classical music or not?


Finally, if the answer to the first two questions is "yes", can you explain how exactly would be a sensible anwser to reply "No" to this last question: "If the same composer wrote this piece for a film and called it 'scherzo for motorcycle and orchestra', would it be classical music or not?".


You will probably tell me that it's because the category "soundtrack" is useful. Yes, it's useful, as well as the categories "symphony", "opera", "string quartet", "incidental music" and so on... but they are all additional information in respect to the category "classical music", not categories that replace "classical music".

Categorization is multidimensional, not monodimensional, and if we accept that something can be


classical music + symphony

classical music + opera

classical music + string quartet

classical music + incidental music


I don't see what's the problem with


classical music + soundtrack (which is nothing else than a subcategory of incidental music)


Could you please explain why in the case of the category "soundtrack" do you think it's sensible to think that the category "soundtrack" is not an additional information but a category that replace "classical music"?

Exactly. Finding categories/genres of use is not "obsession." I mean, why is a clam not a "fish?"

This is exactly the point. Categories are useful, and if a website to find pieces of classical music omit classical soundtracks it's censorship. It's a disservice!

Can you explain what is the logic of omitting classical soundtracks in a database of classical music?


A person obsessed by categories is not someone who thinks that categories are useful but knows that the function of them is to know, more or less, about we're speaking about.

A person obsessed by categories is someone who thinks it's possible to trace well defined boundaries and says we're all doing the wrong thing if we consider determined soundtracks as classical music.

Unless you are not able to demonstrate that there is a logic in excluding classical soundtracks from the category of classical music, the day I'll create a database for classical music I'll include classical soundtracks.

To differentiate the different kind of works I'll use the categories "opera", "symphony", "string quartet", "soundtrack",... so, if someone want to find all classical music except for soundtracks he will be able to create a filter.
I don't see, however, why a fan of classical music who doesn't discriminate the category "soundtrack" doesn't have the right to find the soundtracks too.

Perhaps even @San Antone might want to explain why the fans of classical music like me who don't discriminate soundtracks don't have the right to find the music.

[W.A. Mozart]

There is a 1500 year tradition of the music we call "classical."  There are many different styles, Machaut wrote in a different style than Beethoven, who wrote in a different style than Debussy. But we call it all classical music because of the intention of the composer, the purpose of the music, and the kind of audience and venue that has programed this kind of music, for hundreds of years.

It's called "stylistic evolution". The style changes with the time, it's perfectly natural: it happens in every genre of music. The rock of the 2200 will be not the same style of the rock of the eighties!

Classical music is older than many other genres so we can already see a great stylistic evolution.


If the category "classical music" had nothing to do with style, then it wouldn't be possible to tell the style of a classical music composition of the 1780, but it is!

It's clear that the purpose of the category "classical" is to trace the evolution of a determine style of music through different centuries. It's the only consistent definition, unless you can show the consistency of other definitions.

[steve ridgway]

It's clear that the purpose of the category "classical" is to trace the evolution of a determine style of music through different centuries. It's the only consistent definition, unless you can show the consistency of other definitions.

Was it perhaps "professional" music that was taught academically, as opposed to "amateur" folk music?