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

[Luke]

e.g 1.29-1.36

Firstly, I am talking of the classical period

Second, I am not saying the music is formulaic, I am saying that certain of what Charles Rosen calls formulas are used at certain points. These are passages where the music unspins in conventional ways, in order 

a) to fill up space, to provide the correct proportions, to settle into the key in using conventional figurations - the most obvious example because the most extreme are those enormously long sequences of final tonic chords in a large Beethoven symphony movement, which need to be so long because so much has happened in the movement, but which re not exactly interesting in themselves.

b) to allow an audience to relax into something familiar so that there is a feeling of safe arrival. In this sense they are like the stock 'comforting' phrases we might start or finish a story with - like 'Once upon a time' or 'Happily ever after.' Listen to the last two bars of that movement. They are hardly a work of genius, melodically, are they? But nor should they be. They are providing us something very familiar and easy to round off the piece.


By the way, I was providing examples of formulas in the above, not of contrasting sections. You asked for both, but they're not exactly the the same thing. But the one I give a time code for above is both formula and contrasting, being a figuration that is not used or referred to elsewhere in the movement. 

[W.A. Mozart]

e.g 1.29-1.36

Firstly, I am talking of the classical period

Second, I am not saying the music is formulaic, I am saying that certain of what Charles Rosen calls formulas are used at certain points. These are passages where the music unspins in conventional ways, in order 

a) to fill up space, to provide the correct proportions, to settle into the key in using conventional figurations - the most obvious example because the most extreme are those enormously long sequences of final tonic chords in a large Beethoven symphony movement, which need to be so long because so much has happened in the movement, but which re not exactly interesting in themselves.

b) to allow an audience to relax into something familiar so that there is a feeling of safe arrival. In this sense they are like the stock 'comforting' phrases we might start or finish a story with - like 'Once upon a time' or 'Happily ever after.' Listen to the last two bars of that movement. They are hardly a work of genius, melodically, are they? But nor should they be. They are providing us something very familiar and easy to round off the piece.


By the way, I was providing examples of formulas in the above, not of contrasting sections. You asked for both, but they're not exactly the the same thing. But the one I give a time code for above is both formula and contrasting, being a figuration that is not used or referred to elsewhere in the movement. 

Ok. However the passage you indicated is also melodically beautiful: I've never perceived it as something to fill the space.

Sometimes I have the sensation that the modern music theory doesn't fully understand the mindset of the Classical composers.
For example, they tell us that the exposition is structured as follows: theme 1 - transition - theme 2 - closing material.

Now, this theoretical model makes you think that what is called theme 1 and theme 2 are the main dishes and that the purpose of the rest is only to fill the space.

The reason for which I'm skeptical is that not rarely the transition and the closing material are the most exciting parts of the exposition.

Some examples here below.


Mozart - K. 448 - Sonata for Two Pianos in D Major (1781)

The closing material after 01:20 for me is really the best part of the entire sonata. The theme 2 is bland compared to it.

Mozart - Symphony No. 40 - Movement 1

The theme 1 is really iconic here, but I find the theme 2 quite weak. On the other hand, the transition is really nice, especially in the recapitulation: I consider the part between 05:14 and 05:51 as the climax.

Mozart - Symphony 14

I don't find the theme 2 (01:00 - 01:18) particularily interesting. On the other hand, the theme 1, the transition and the closing material are really nice.

What reinforces my idea is that the development sometimes uses the transition or the closing material of the exposition.

So, when I explain the music theory to people who know nothing about it, I prefer to tell them that the exposition is usually something like this: theme 1 - theme 2 - theme 3 - theme 4.

... and that the theme 2 is used to change the key, since the theme 3 is, by convention, in a different key in respect to the theme 1.



All that said, what I want to say is that the music of the Classical period might appear a bit squared from the point of view of a modern composer/musician, but I doubt that Mozart et al. were intentionally squared. Their mindset was to create beautiful music with a sense of development, and the forms they used simply served the purpose very well.

What was the purpose of the transition of the key in the exposition, if not to create a harmonic development, that gives you a sense of travel?
And why did they resolve the conflict in the recapitulation? Perhaps because they wanted that the recapitulation sounded different in respect to the exposition.



Now, when a man of today writes music in the classical style, he will probably try to convey similar emotions through a similar aesthetic and a similar touch, but does it make sense to be so pedantic in respect to the form?

I mean, perhaps we are focusing too much in details and we are missing the big picture, because at the end what Mozart et al. wanted to do was simply to transmit a certain kind of "galant beauty", a determined aesthetic, and they had standard forms which help them to construct a piece in a rapid way without thinking too much about the problem of the hot water.

So, Patrick Doyle did a good job, in my opinion. His piece transmit to the public what is really relevant of the classical period: the "galant beauty", the aesthetic, the emotions. He didn't focus too much in imitating the form because no one thinks that it's what really matters.


In a lesson of music theory it's fine to explain the differences, but if you tell general public that the piece of Doyle is not so good, that it's a bad imitation, because it doesn't imitate the forms of the classical period in a pedantic way, of course you will be taken as a musical nerd and some people will probably tell you: "Relax man! Focus on the galant beauty of this piece".

So, in conclusion, if we want to be really pedantic we can analyze film scores and determine how much Classical, romantic, or whatever... they are.
Probably in many cases you will find out that they are neoclassical, neoromantic, or neowhatever,... i.e. a modern reintepretation of old styles, instead of pure revival of old styles (with high care for technical details).

The point, however, is that neobaroque, neoclassical and neoromantic music can be classified as classical music. Why? Because the definition of the neworldencyclopedia says that the classical music is the music produced it, or ROOTED IN, in the tradition of classical music.

https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Classical_music

... and to be honest, what the encyclopedia says it's simply the fucking common sense.

Neobaroque, neoclassical, and neoromantic music are clearily ROOTED IN the tradition of classical music.

@San Antone wrote that what makes music classical is the intent of writing music in the classical tradition... and this is exactly what many film composers have done.
If you write neobaroque/neoclassical/neoromantic music it means that you are writing music ROOTED IN classical music, and so you are writing music in the classical tradition.


I don't understand this obsession for categories... why is it so difficult to admit that determined music can be classified as "soundtrack" as well as "classical music" and that the humans use words and categories to understand more or less about what they're speaking about and not to obsess over little details.




Finally, I try to repeat the point of this discussion: some people say that Classic FM is a fraud because it promotes determined soundtracks as classical music.

This article is an example.

https://www.theguardian.com/music/musicblog/2008/apr/07/canfilmmusiceverbeclassical

After I created a discussion about this article in TC, it emerged that many people in the world of classical music think the same things, and therefore it's a big cultural phenomenon inside the world of classical music.
So, I also created this new discussion here.

The purpose of these discussions is to respond "No, Classic FM is not a fraud and they simply apply the fucking common sense". If there is someone here who think that Classic FM is a fraud he can argument his position and we can discuss about it.

@Florestan @Roasted Swan @Karl Henning @SimonNZ @71 dB @Maestro267 @Szykneij @Crudblud @hopefullytrusting @Spotted Horses

[Florestan]

when I explain the music theory to people who know nothing about it

When you do what? For God's sake, what credentials do you have that enable you to explain music theory to anybody? Graduation from Google University?

what Mozart et al. wanted to do was simply to transmit a certain kind of "galant beauty"

And you know this, how? Did Mozart et al. tell you what they simply wanted to do?

if you go the general public and you say that the piece of Doyle is not so good, that it's a bad imitation, because it doesn't imitate the forms of the classical period in a pedantic way, of course you will taken as a musical nerd and some people tell probably will tell you: "Relax man and focus on the galant beauty of this piece".

Putting aside the fact that Doyle's music is stylistically much closer to the early Romanticism of Field and Hummel than to the genuine galant style of Galuppi and Johann Christian Bach, the purpose of any film music, not only Doyle's, is to help people focus on the movie itself --- and @Luke  brilliantly demonstrated to you that his deviating from the form is dictated precisely by the action in the movie. But as usual, you ignore whatever doesn't fit your simplistic scheme and keep repeating the same mantra again and again and again, over and over and over, always and always and always, forever and forever and forever, amen and amen and amen.

[Brian]

Ok. However the passage you indicated is also melodically beautiful: I've never perceived it as something to fill the space.

Yes, exactly, this is the point. It is both things. This is one of the reasons why Mozart is such a genius, that he can take a part of music that is "required" and make it sound beautiful. That way you never think it is "just to fill space."

This can be true in all the crafts of course. A statue needs a base, but it can still be an interesting base. A house needs doorways and plumbing and walls, but those can still be done with great craft.

The fact that part of a Mozart piece is "required" by classical structure does not make him less brilliant, it makes him more so for doing that part so well.

[Luke]

Yes exactly. Great analogy Brian.

[DavidW]

When you do what? For God's sake, what credentials do you have that enable you to explain music theory to anybody? Graduation from Google University?

Just let it die.  Starved of oxygen, the fire will go out.

[W.A. Mozart]

When you do what? For God's sake, what credentials do you have that enable you to explain music theory to anybody? Graduation from Google University?

So, are you saying that if someone is not a doctor, he can't explain that the smoke causes cancer?

Putting aside the fact that Doyle's music is stylistically much closer to the early Romanticism of Field and Hummel than to the genuine galant style of Galuppi and Johann Christian Bach

For me, the style is the one of the period 1750-1820.

I was specifically speaking about the galant style because the woman says that the piece was her dead father's favourite, which means that the piece must be quite old. Not written in the late classical period (where the film is set), but more in the first part of the classical period.

Furthermore, my reference point is not J.C. Bach, but Mozart, because I haven't listened to many pieces of the first one.

The style for me is simply similar to the one of the slow movements of the piano concertos of Mozart... from PC1 to PC27.


In regards to Hummel, first of all you have to define the end of the classical period.
Different sources indicate different dates, but I'm subscribed to the version: 1750-1820. Why? Because I think that at the beginning of the 19th Century, most pieces still sound classical.

Only later, after 1820, it becomes clear that a new style has emerged.


If someone asked my how it sounds romantic music, I wouldn't give him a piece of the 1805. I'd select a piece written after 1820-1830.

Given this premise, I consder the first pieces of Hummel as "Classical music", not as "romantic music".

the purpose of any film music, not only Doyle's, is to help people focus on the movie itself --- and @Luke  brilliantly demonstrated to you that his deviating from the form is dictated precisely by the action in the movie.

If the film composers simply have to compose muzak, how do you explain the intricate texture of some pieces of John Williams, as for example these ones?

Although it's true that during the film not even a refined analyst of music would be able to catch all details in the music, it doesn't look like the directors ask the great film composers to write muzak.

The mindset looks more like "Great films need great music", and not "Great films need muzak".


There are many people (including me) that watch films to hear the soundtracks in their context, after they have listened to them outside of the film.

I'm sure that Lucas, Spielberg et al. (the great directors) know that great music can attract people towards film, and this is the reason for which they don't want someone who compose muzak, but someone with the necessary skills to write music that it's good in itself.

[W.A. Mozart]

Yes, exactly, this is the point. It is both things. This is one of the reasons why Mozart is such a genius, that he can take a part of music that is "required" and make it sound beautiful. That way you never think it is "just to fill space."

This can be true in all the crafts of course. A statue needs a base, but it can still be an interesting base. A house needs doorways and plumbing and walls, but those can still be done with great craft.

The fact that part of a Mozart piece is "required" by classical structure does not make him less brilliant, it makes him more so for doing that part so well.

The piano concertos 1-4 of Mozart are arrangements of pieces of other composers, not original compisitions of Mozart.

However, the authorship of the second movement of the PC1 is not known. Someone has suggested that it might been haven written by Mozart, but considering that the other movements have been written by other composers I suspect that even the second movement is not an original composition of Mozart.

[Florestan]

if someone is not a doctor, he can't explain that the smoke causes cancer?

QED.

A doctor would firstly state that smoking might cause cancer and secondly would explain what chemical, physical, biological and genetic mechanisms and processes are involved.

What you explain to other people is not music theory but your own theory about music theory.

For me, the style is the one of the period 1750-1820.

I was specifically speaking about the galant style because the woman says that the piece was her dead father's favourite, which means that the piece must be quite old. Not written in the late classical period (where the film is set), but more in the first part of the classical period.

Furthermore, my reference point is not J.C. Bach, but Mozart, because I haven't listened to many pieces of the first one.

The style for me is simply similar to the one of the slow movements of the piano concertos of Mozart... from PC1 to PC27.


In regards to Hummel, first of all you have to define the end of the classical period.
Different sources indicate different dates, but I'm subscribed to the version: 1750-1820. Why? Because I think that at the beginning of the 19th Century, most pieces still sound classical.

Only later, after 1820, it becomes clear that a new style has emerged.


If someone asked my how it sounds romantic music, I wouldn't give him a piece of the 1805. I'd select a piece written after 1820-1830.

Given this premise, I consder the first pieces of Hummel as "Classical music", not as "romantic music".

Further incontrovertible evidence, if any at all was still necessary, that you badly need a Music History 101.

If the film composers simply have to compose muzak, how do you explain

Putting words in the mouth of your opponents is among your favorite argumentation tools but far from advancing your cause, it only makes it worse.

[Florestan]

Just let it die.  Starved of oxygen, the fire will go out.

Wisdom. I'm out of here.

[W.A. Mozart]

A doctor would firstly state that smoking might cause cancer and secondly would explain what chemical, physical, biological and genetic mechanisms and processes are involved.

Yes, and if I've studied the subject I can explain it even if I'm not a doctor.

What you explain to other people is not music theory but your own theory about music theory.

Aren't you the one who wrote that the term "sonata-form" didn't exist at the times where it was the normal practice?

How do you know that Mozart would agree about the modern music theory and that he wouldn't agree with me about the fact that the transition and the closing material can be considered themes, since they can have a strong melodic function and they are sometimes the best parts of the melody?


Not only the modern experts put words in the mouth of Mozart et al. in regards to music theory, but there are also other things that might be interesting for this discussion.

In the discussion in TC, someone wrote that the music of John Wlliams is popular music, not classical, because he writes music to please the current audience, while the music of Mozart is classical because he was writing music for the long term and not only to please the audience of his time.

Hammeredklavier responded with a citation inside a book which basically said that there is abosolutely no proof about the fact that Mozart was aware that his music would have been listened by people 200 years later and his efforts were clearily focused on being applauded by the people of his time.

So, the music of Mozart has survived to this day simply because it was very good, not because Mozart was thinking about the audiance of our time, and the same thing might happen with the music of John Williams, if the people think that his music is really good.


Not to mention that Mozart was also not aware that he was composing classical music. @San Antone wrote that something is classical music if the intent of the composer is to write classical music, and by this definition the music of Mozart is not classical.
Would Mozart agree about our idea that John Cage belongs to his same musical tradition? How do we know that Mozart wouldn't recognize John Williams as his legacy but not John Cage?

Do you see how many things the modern people (including musician, the one you call "experts") put in the mouth of this poor man, who has lost his freedom of expression more than 200 years ago and so he can not reply to the mountains of poop that the modern people produce?

Further incontrovertible evidence, if any at all was still necessary, that you badly need a Music History 101.

This is the first source I find when I search "periods of classical music" with BING: https://www.musicnotes.com/blog/musical-periods-the-history-of-classical-music/

The periods, according to this website:
- Medieval (1150 – 1400)
- Renaissance (1400 – 1600)
- Baroque (1600 – 1750)
- Classical (1750 – 1820)
- Romantic (1820 – 1900)
- Impressionist: 1890 – 1925
- Expressionist: 1908 – 1950
- Modern: 1890 – 1975
- Postmodern: 1930 – present
- Contemporary: 1945 – present


Can someone explain the difference between "modern" and "expressionist"?

Putting words in the mouth of your opponents is among your favorite argumentation tools but far from advancing your cause, it only makes it worse.

The differences in regards to the compositional process/perspective between soundtracks and concert music are relevant only if:

- They produce different styles of music, i.e. the soundtracks can not be classical because the process of creation of soundtracks doesn't allow to write (pure) classical music or because the directors dictate the style and (pure) classical music is not accepted by them

OR

- They produce music of a different quality, i.e. the quality of the music of soundtracks is lower in the concert hall. In this case the music of some soundtracks might be considered classical, but it would be an inferior form of classical music.



In regards to the first point: can a film dictate the style of the music? Definitely yes!

It's not suprising, for example, that a large part of the score of the film "Havana" is hispanic music: one thing that both you and @Luke forget is that the score is not necessarily written to follow an action, but it's very often used to set the location.

The score of the film Havana is a good example, and an other good example is the Imperial March of Star Wars: it doesn't follow any particular action, it only sets the location.

In these cases (which are really frequent), the music is not required to be written in forms subservient to the actions on the screen. The only things that are relevant are the style (which must be hispanic in Havana) and the mood (which must be dark for Darth Vader and the Empire).

That said, can a scene require classical music? Yes, and and the film Havana is a good example.

Since hispanic music is not good for dramatic purposes, Dave Grusin had to change the style of the music for the scene "Cuba Libre". Since romantic/neoromantic music works very well for dramatic purposes, it was the right choice for this scene.

So, in conclusion, yes: the film can dicatate the style, and often classical music can be the right choice, and this is why the films are full of it.



In regards to the second point, I don't know if it makes any sense to start a debate about a subjective thing like "quality", but I'll write my opinion about the subject.

Now, if the soundtracks would be repurposed in the albums and in the concert hall in the original form (the one you hear in the films) there would be probably a good point in favour of the inferior quality of soundtracks as concert music, but what many people don't realize is that in the album you already get concert versions of the soundtracks and that, therefore, when we listen to soundtracks outside of films we are already listening to a product which is thought to be LISTENED.


Can you see the difference between the Imperial March in the album and the one you hear in the scene above?

It's easy: the lenght of this one is 3 minutes, while the length of the scene above is 1 minute and 36 seconds, which means that it can not contain the version released with the album.

The reworking of soundtracks for the album release (which is also evident in the case of "My Father's Favourite" of Patrick Doyle, see the added orchestrations in the album version) is one of the main reasons for which the argument "soundtracks are inferior because they are not thought to be listened in the concert hall" is not valid.

To this very important note, I'll add that not all pieces need to be reworked for the album.



All that said, my personal opinion is that the AVERAGE quality of the music of soundtracks (I'm speaking about the reworked versions of the album) is lower in respect to the one of concert music, but AVERAGE doesn't mean ALWAYS.
There are soundtracks whose quality is extremely high, and deserve to be played in the concert hall together with the classics of concert music.


For The Love Of A Princess of James Horner is a good example: it's very powerful in the concert hall!

Furthermore, I'm comparing soundtracks with the concert music of the past, but when it comes to the comparision between soundtracks and concert music of today I think that the average quality of soundtracks is higher.



Now, it might be that the intention of Luke and you was not to say that the differences in the compositional process/perspective between soundtracks and concert music are really relevant when it comes to discuss the two essential points of this discussion (style and quality) and that, if you are wise men as I think, you are even aware about the fact that the interference of external factors in the compositional process is an element that must be considered even in the case of opera, ballets and incidental music.


For example, the highly dramatic music at the end of the "Don Giovanni" is functional to the story. It's not that Mozart was simply in the mood of writing dramatic music. We can say this for his PC 20: it was a free choice to write dramatic music in that case, but in his operas the music had to be adequate for the libretto.
A good composers of soundtracks writes music that is adequate for the film and a good composer of operas writes music that it's adequate for the libretto.


Since opera is not generally considered inferior in respect to symphonies, I also refuse the idea that soundtracks are (automatically) inferior.

[W.A. Mozart]

I'm going to push back on this a little. Because isn't there a trolling element to this thread? Isn't the insanity in the OPs asking for discussion then only reiterating what he has already said?

"Stop posting hoping for something different" would be true only if we were also just reiterating what we've already said, but the people replying have be constantly trying new approaches, not a single one of which has got a "that's a good point, I hadn't considered that", which again suggests trolling.

Not only you define as trolls people who don't agree with your arguments, but you even want to silence them.

Is anyone here able to explain why should I write "this is a good point" if I think that the counterarguments provided are not good?

In reality, what happened both here and in TC is that my opponents even helped me, since they openly admitted that many soundtracks are written in classical style.

If the game is to say that people who write things with wich you don't agree are trolls, then I'll say that if someone tells me that determined music is classical-style music but it's not classical music he's trolling, since there is no difference between classical-style music and classical music (classical-style music IS classical music).
Moderators, please, cancel these posts: they are clearily trolls!

[Florestan]

Aren't you the one who wrote that the term "sonata-form" didn't exist at the times where it was the normal practice?

It didn't. Nor did terms like Baroque or Classical.

- Baroque (1600 – 1750)
- Classical (1750 – 1820)
- Romantic (1820 – 1900)

Yeah, right. Music stopped being Baroque on December 31, 1749 and began being Classical on January 1, 1750 --- and kept on being Classical until December 31, 1819. From January 1, 1820 it became Romantic.

Nonsense on stilts.

[Luke]

I'm tired.

[Florestan]

I'm tired.

I'm sorry, couldn't resist. The points being made were too silly. 

But yeah, it's getting extremely tiresome. My word of honor, this is going to be my very last post in this thread, so help me God!

[Luke]

I'm sorry, couldn't resist. The points being made were too silly. 

Oh I agree. I was tempted to respond. But...nah. What's the point when what I write will be ignored or misrepresented. E.g

one thing that both you and @Luke forget is that the score is not necessarily written to follow an action, but it's very often used to set the location.

Did I/we forget that? Really? No, it just wasn't relevant to the discussion of that piece

WAM points out that soundtrack music is often changed for the concert hall. This is true. It is true of 'My father's favourite' too, which in its concert version has the noodly note-spinning oversized 'development' section as used in the film shortened, changed and more relevant. Thereby completely supporting my point: that in the film it doesn't fully function as well-balanced music in its own right, for the understandable reasons I gave, and that to be suitable for the concert hall it needed the rewriting which Doyle - a fine composer- gave it.

[Karl Henning]

WAM points out that soundtrack music is often changed for the concert hall.

Yet, with no awareness of the distinction (difference of category) which that implies ....

[Luke]

Exactly. And that's the point.

[Karl Henning]

Exactly. And that's the point.

Verily. And the inverse: how a discrete piece of the literature is modified when it is commandeered for soundtrack duty.

[Luke]

I repeat my last post - this is also spot on.