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

[Szykneij]

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

On the plus side, even if the op doesn't respond to your points, there are others like myself who appreciate and learn from what you and others have posted.

[Luke]

That's kind of you. The irony of this thread is that I am a huge admirer of certain soundtracks, as I know many here are, but also aware of the complexity of their relationship with 'concert hall' classical music - as Karl has just laid bare pithily and effectively.

[Szykneij]

The title of the thread is "People Obsessed with Categories" and the op appears to be a prime example based on his vigorous support of his position. Most who have posted in this thread have stated their appreciation and enjoyment of recorded soundtracks although they don't believe or don't care if they are classified as classical music. There are others who believe if it isn't classical, it isn't good, or at least have their own hierarchy of musical quality. To each his own. To me, it's all good.

[DavidW]

On the plus side, even if the op doesn't respond to your points, there are others like myself who appreciate and learn from what you and others have posted.

Yes I've read all of Luke's posts but WAM's are just too long for me to bother.  He is like a student trying to hit a word count on their essay!

[Karl Henning]

Yes I've read all of Luke's posts but WAM's are just too long for me to bother.  He is like a student trying to hit a word count on their essay!

To borrow a phrase from PG Wodehouse: fewer and finer words.

[ritter]

I'm tired.

[Karl Henning]

She's pooped!

[W.A. Mozart]

I think we have missed the central point of this discussion in the last pages. It's better to rewind the tape.

Here below you find a video which contains a small part of the documentary about the prooduction of "Star Wars I: The Phantom Menace", focused on the production of the score.

At the minute 01:42 George Lucas says: "In original films I was looking for someone who really understood the CLASSICAL movie scoring and I was talking to Steven Spielberg about it and he told me that John Williams was the man I was looking for".

This proves that George Lucas and Spielberg know exactly what they want, and of course John Williams give them exactly what they want, otherwise they wouldn't be happy about his work.

No, they don't want simply orchestral film scores... they want specifically CLASSICAL movie scores.

I don't know what else should I do at this point to demonstrate that the intent is to create classical music.


Now, I don't know exactly how the last pages of discussion with @Florestan and @Luke are useful to discuss about this.
Perhaps you might explain if your observations have anything to do with the central point of this discussion, and how exactly should I interpret them in relation to the main subject.

[Luke]

I think we have missed the central point of this discussion in the last pages. It's better to rewind the tape.

Uh oh. I think

a) you have missed what the discussion has been about, and the ways in which it relates to your 'central point.' They might be worth considering because they are about an important layer of subtlety that you are ignoring; and

b) you might like to consider making your posts shorter if you are genuinely concerned that we are missing your point. The length of them puts a lot of people off reading them all the way through.

Here below you find a video which contains a small part of the documentary about the prooduction of "Star Wars I: The Phantom Menace", focused about the production of the score.

At the minute 01:42 George Lucas says: "In original films I was looking for someone who really understood the CLASSICAL movie scoring and I was talking to Steven Spielberg about it and he told me that John Williams was the man I was searching for".


This proves that George Lucas and Spielberg know exactly what they want, and of course John Williams give them exactly what they want, otherwise they wouldn't be happy about his work.

No, they don't want simply orchestral film scores... they want specifically CLASSICAL movie scores.

It is you who is drawing a distinction here. I think most of us would say that orchestral scores are either classical scores or scores which want to borrow some of the trappings of classical scores for whatever reason.

Mozart spoke the language of classicism - that's all he ever did, and he, and others, turned it into a supremely flexible and powerful musical idiom. Doyle, however, is fluent in a number of languages and is able to shift from one to another as required by the film; he is even (as I discussed earlier) able to direct his audience's attention on to and away from his music as required, again, by the film. All of this is because his music is in service of the film, rather than the other way round as in opera, where in general the plot and the visual design are secondary to the music. So Lucas wants a 'classical sound' not for its own ends but because it will serve his film best. I'm sure this is obvious, but it's also important, because it gives us a more complex mode of listening.

1) I am going to listen to Mozart. I know what to expect stylistically. I listen to it using my expectations of the classical style. It fulfils them, and pleases me in a straightforward and balanced way.

2) I am going to listen to Williams. Though should I just be listening, or should I be watching too? If just listening, should I try to unimagine the visuals that are going to play out in my mind and that the music was designed to underscore? If this is a rewritten version of the film score for concert performance these questions remain, only more complex than ever now - do I listen with the source visuals/plot/characters in mind even though the music is now divorced from the screen - because after all the tunes themselves still have all those original associations. Also, I'm not sure what style Williams will be using in this score, because I know he is fluent in many, that he can switch between easily, so how do I react to these changes? Is it wrong if they make me feel uncertain of where I 'am,' as it would do if the central movement of a Mozart concerto was in the style of Portuguese fado and the finale of bebop - which would leave me feeling, 'what was that? where was Mozart?' Where is John Williams in the cantina? He's definitely a different John Williams to that guy on Tatooine. Although on Tatooine I heard something that really reminds me of something else (stay calm, Igor...) - it sounds like plagiarism. Is it? Is it deliberate? (of course it is). What do I make of that?

These are the kind of questions that make sweeping statements about what these soundtracks 'are' more complex than you are making out. To me they make soundtracks more interesting and thought-provoking than the simple questions of style you are asking.

I don't know what else should I do at this point to demonstrate that the intent is to create classical music.

The intent is to create music that reflects classical styles, as part of the 'dressing' for the film. I'm not really bothered if you want to call that classical music or not - that's your concern - but it is important that you understand this point. Lucas called on Spielberg for advice because he wanted a certain style of music for his intended 'space opera,' and Spielberg recommended Williams because he knew that Williams created great music in that style - in that 'dress.'

The question that really, really, interests me is this the last one I asked above - perhaps you can provide some answers:

Williams' concert work is, AFAIK, pretty original stuff. But his film scores, brilliant though they are, are not. Why are some of his blockbuster film scores, including Star Wars, so riddled with what the uncharitable would call plagiarism?

There are a number of possible answers to this, but I think I know what my conclusion is.

possible answer 1) - Williams stole, and hoped we wouldn't notice - I think this wildly improbable. These moments are blindingly obvious

possible answer 2) - it was all accidental appropriation -  I also think this almost impossibly unlikely in someone of Williams' erudition

possible answer 3) - Williams wants us to notice his borrowings (though maybe unconsciously) because he is seeking to have his scores take part in a kind of dialogue with the past, with the great traditions, a dialogue that he also wants us to have in our own heads as we listen. I.e. he's composing not just 'classical style' music, but music which is closely paraphrasing actual chunks of the 'classical repertoire' so that its connection with them is not just aspirational or implied, it is explicit.

I can't really think of another explanation, but this one convinces me. It is also quite revealing for the way it emphasizes the kind of 'meta' or 'post-modern' things that are occuring in many soundtracks, orchestral or otherwise - the Wagner tropes in Herrmann's fabulous score for Vertigo that I mentioned earlier are just one more example; ditto those in Shore's consciously Nibelungian, leitmotif-ridden scores for Jackson's Tolkien movies. These things are always occuring in soundtracks, meaning that they speak to the listener not just directly but also through their very deliberate associations to other music. It's fascinating stuff! It happens in straight concert music too, of course - I'm thinking right now of the way the central movement of John Adams' Harmonielehre skirts with Wagner (Parsifal) and Mahler (#10) and with military bugle call tropes etc. etc. - but it's at the heart of orchestral soundtrack music.

Now, I don't know exactly how the last pages of discussion with @Florestan and @Luke are useful to discuss about this.
Perhaps you might explain if your observations have anything to do with the central point of this discussion, and how exactly should I interpret them in relation to the main subject.

I've said what I want to say!

[SimonNZ]

Also, I'm not sure what style Williams will be using in this score, because I know he is fluent in many, that he can switch between easily, so how do I react to these changes? Is it wrong if they make me feel uncertain of where I 'am,' as it would do if the central movement of a Mozart concerto was in the style of Portuguese fado and the finale of bebop - which would leave me feeling, 'what was that? where was Mozart?' Where is John Williams in the cantina? He's definitely a different John Williams to that guy on Tatooine. Although on Tatooine I heard something that really reminds me of something else (stay calm, Igor...) - it sounds like plagiarism. Is it? Is it deliberate? (of course it is). What do I make of that?

Yes. Very well put.

To use the Ops formula: Lucas asked Williams to make the cantina sound like Benny Goodman (which Lucas did), knew he was the guy who could do it, therefor Williams is a jazz composer, therefor Star Wars is jazz.

(but we can all agree that "Yub Nub" is classical, right?)

possible answer 3) - Williams wants us to notice his borrowings (though maybe unconsciously) because he is seeking to have his scores take part in a kind of dialogue with the past, with the great traditions, a dialogue that he also wants us to have in our own heads as we listen. I.e. he's composing not just 'classical style' music, but music which is closely paraphrasing actual chunks of the 'classical repertoire' so that its connection with them is not just aspirational or implied, it is explicit.

Also very well put.

[Karl Henning]

therefor Williams is a jazz composer, therefor Star Wars is jazz.

The first music of Williams' that I heard was his theme to "Lost in Space," and one might have taken him for a jazz composer:

This is probably the right moment to point out that Williams wrote a darned peachy Jitterbug for Spielberg's 1941.

[SimonNZ]

Dammit...I've had "Jub Nub" stuck in my head for the last two hours.

[Karl Henning]

Dammit...I've had "Jub Nub" stuck in my head for the last two hours.

So sorry!

[Roasted Swan]

The first music of Williams' that I heard was his theme to "Lost in Space," and one might have taken him for a jazz composer:

This is probably the right moment to point out that Williams wrote a darned peachy Jitterbug for Spielberg's 1941.

Williams' score for "Catch me if you can" is a just brilliant evocation of 1960's 'cool' jazz.  Absolutely right witty, slick score for this fun film.  The 20th(!) Spielberg collaboration and seamlessly integrates original cues with exisitng tracks.

[W.A. Mozart]

The title of the thread is "People Obsessed with Categories" and the op appears to be a prime example based on his vigorous support of his position. Most who have posted in this thread have stated their appreciation and enjoyment of recorded soundtracks although they don't believe or don't care if they are classified as classical music. There are others who believe if it isn't classical, it isn't good, or at least have their own hierarchy of musical quality. To each his own. To me, it's all good.

I'm not obsessed with categories. I simply think that they are useful to find music that you like, and they should remain generic, because their purpose is to understand more or less about what we're speaking about, not to obsess over little details.

I've already written that if I look for pieces inside a website of classical music, I expect to also find classical soundtracks. If they are omitted, for me it's censorship.


Does this make me obsessed by categories? I don't think so. If I was obsessed, I'd try to formulate rigid rules to distinguish classical music from non-classical music, and "we can't accept this music in the category because it's a soundtrack" it sounds like a rigid (and also arbitrary) rule to my ears.
I suspect that in most cases it has a lot to do with snobbery, because some people think that classical music is music for the people with high culture, and they are afraid that if the music of Star Wars is included in the category, the myth will be lost.

[Luke]

That's quite insulting, because you've had people take the time to explain their thinking carefully and with subtlety to you and you're trying to reduce this to snobbishness.

The ridiculous thing is that no one here has said (nor have I ever seen anyone say) "we can't accept this music in the category because it's a soundtrack" - the real myth is that anyone would say such a thing.

What people have said is that the simple labelling of this music is a more complex issue than you suppose because of its mixed nature.

[W.A. Mozart]

It is you who is drawing a distinction here. I think most of us would say that orchestral scores are either classical scores or scores which want to borrow some of the trappings of classical scores for whatever reason.

Do you consider the theme of "Catch Me If You Can" as classical music? It's orchestral, but is it classical music?

I agree that in many (most?) cases the orchestra is used because the intent is to compose classical music, but this is not always the case.

If I'd say that orchestral music = classical music, my position would be easily attackable. So, only orchestral scores with clear elements of classical music (one of the many styles of classical music, from medieval to contemporary) should be categorized as "classical".

So Lucas wants a 'classical sound' not for its own ends but because it will serve his film best. I'm sure this is obvious, but it's also important, because it gives us a more complex mode of listening.

Actually, George Lucas is fan of classical music (from what I read), and this might be an other reason for which he wants classical music for his films. The music sounds right to his ears.

Where is John Williams in the cantina? He's definitely a different John Williams to that guy on Tatooine.

The music of the cantina is diegetic music, so it serves a different purpose in respect to the score. The score is entirely rooted in classical music, but to play classical music in a cantina would be out of place.

These are the kind of questions that make sweeping statements about what these soundtracks 'are' more complex than you are making out. To me they make soundtracks more interesting and thought-provoking than the simple questions of style you are asking.

The point is that genres are classified according to styles, so the style is the only relevant thing when it comes to respond to the question of this discussion.

Once we agree that the music of John Williams and Mozart is classical, we can discuss the differences between a piano concerto and a classical film score. Of course there are differences between different SUBcategories.

There also differences between a symphony and a sonata, or between a symphony and an opera. Basically, classical music is a catch-all category and some people are telling us that classical film scores are not allowed in this catch-all category.
I don't see what's the point of trying to define rigid parameters for a catch-all category.

If you like rigid parameters, you should at least start to put symphonies and operas in different musical genres. If you put both things in the same category (classical music), the category becomes clearily a catch-all category and there is no reason to not also place classical film scores inside it.

I'm not really bothered if you want to call that classical music or not - that's your concern - but it is important that you understand this point.

Would you insert classical film scores in your database, if you had a website to search pieces of classical music?

If you became the director of Classic FM, would you go on with the promotion of classical film scores? Would you insert them in the Classic FM Hall Of Fame?

If you were a conductor, would you program classical film music?


The subject would become relevant for you if you had to take decisions of management in societies/institutions of classical music.

Williams' concert work is, AFAIK, pretty original stuff. But his film scores, brilliant though they are, are not. Why are some of his blockbuster film scores, including Star Wars, so riddled with what the uncharitable would call plagiarism?

If I understood your question correctly, you are asking why the melodies of his film scores sometimes sound like melodies of already existing classical pieces.
You are not saying that his film music is unoriginal because it's stylistically romantic, right?


Now, the answer to your question is easy: it's not true that all melodies of John Williams are unoriginal, and in the cases where they are not original it might be that the director asked him to copy an other piece.
It's a bit like to give a picture of a house to your architect to explain what is the house of your dreams.

Sometimes the film composers receive temp tracks because the director knows exactly what he wants. In these cases you might note similarities with an other piece of classical music, because that piece was the temp track.

In other cases, the film composer has a blank paper and he can write what he wants. In this case, you will have a completely original melody.


Until you won't demonstrate that the melody of the Imperial March, of the Duel of the Fates, of the Battle of the Heroes (some of the most praised pieces of John Williams) are unoriginal, I'll consider John Williams as a valid and melodically prolific composer.


That said, the so called "plagiarism" is often artistic.

An example of artistic plagiarism is the score of The Lion King. If Hans Zimmer had copied the melodies of Mozart note by note it would be plagiarism, but since he only quoted the themes of Mozart inside his own original melodies, the score is an artistic tribute to Mozart, not pure plagiarism.

If the plagiarism of John Williams is something similar (in the cases in which it occurs), I consider it as an artistic tribute, not as a true plagiarism.

The great classical composers also used to create artistic tributes to other composers, and I don't see why the case of Hans Zimmer shouldn't also be considered as an artistic tribute.


All that said, I've responded to your question, but I think that we are missing the central point of this discussion an other time.
One thing is to discuss if the music of John Williams is classical or not. An other one is to discuss how much melodic originality contains his classical music.

[Luke]

I'm only going to answer the following, and  as briefly as I can. I have much more important things to be doing. That's why I resent being misread.

Now, the answer to your question is easy: it's not true that all melodies of John Williams are unoriginal,

...I don't remember saying that they were, in fact I said it's an issue only in some of his music, and AFAIK in none of his concert music...

and in the cases where they are not original it might be that the director asked him to copy an other piece.
It's a bit like to give a picture of a house to your achitect to explain what is the house of your dreams.
Sometimes the film composers receive temp tracks because the director knows exactly what he wants. In these cases you might not similarities with an other piece of classical music, because that piece was the temp track.

I mean all this is true, but it only amplifies my case that a) film scores take place in a complex dialogue with past models, and b) film score authorship and intention are complex things.

In general I think you are reading me as accusing Williams of being a plagiarist etc, but on the contrary, I'm saying that film scoring is a fascinating, complex thing, and that Williams is an interesting composer to think about.

In other cases, the film composer has a blank paper and he can writes what he wants. In this case, you will have a completely original melody.

Maybe, maybe not.
 

Untill you won't demonostrate that the melody of the Imperial March, of the Duel of the Fates, of the Battle of the Heroes (some of the most praised pieces of John Williams) are unoriginal, I'll consider John Williams as a valid and melodically prolific composer.

You're knocking on an open door, I never said he wasn't...

That said, the so called "plagiarism" is often artistic.

An example of artistic plagiarism is the score of The Lion King. If Hans Zimmer copied the melodies of Mozart note by note it would be plagiarism, but since he only quotes themes of Mozart inside his own original melodies, the score is an artistic tribute to Mozart, not plagiarism.

If the plagiarism of John Williams is something similar (in the cases in which it occurs), I consider it as an artistic tribute, not as a true plagiarism.

That's really saying what I've been saying. I never accused JW of plagiarism, I said that could be a conclusion people might draw but that I didn't agree with it. Please read what I write, not what you think I write.

Where I differ with what you just said is that I think that in closely copying e.g.Holst or Stravinsky JW is not so much paying homage as trying to root his scores very audibly and consciously into this dialogue with the repertoire

[Karl Henning]

I haven't seen many bad-faith participants in debate here on GMG worse than the OP. And apart from his lack of interest in actually learning about music, he appears incapable of learning why that behavior does not encourage our participation.

[W.A. Mozart]

@Luke @Karl Henning

Williams' concert work is, AFAIK, pretty original stuff. But his film scores, brilliant though they are, are not.

This text doesn't say "some pieces in the scores of John Williams are not original" but it says "his film scores are not original". So, the interpretation "all/most pieces in the scores of John Williams are unoriginal" is perfectly possible. It's not that I misread texts. It's that the texts are open to interpretation.

In a debate is perfectly normal that when you write X, someone can interpret X in a determined way, and if his interpretation is not what you really wanted to say, you should explain X with more precise words instead of accusing your interlocutor of being in bad faith, otherwise the debate becomes personal.


Now, the important point for this debate is that some pieces of John Williams are original, other ones are unoriginal. The ones which are original are surely artistic, the ones which are unoriginal can still be considered artistic if they can be seen as artistic tributes and not as brutal plagiarism.


However, everything we write here should have a logical conclusion which brings a clear argument to the debate "can some film music be considered classical or not?".

In relation to the main subject of this discussion, I'll say that in all genres of music (including classical music) you can write pieces for pure artistic purposes (to please yourself) or to satisfy a commercial order.

You can write a rap song for yourself and you can write a rap song to satisfy a commercial order.

You can write a rock song for yourself and you can write a rock song to satisfy a commercial order.

This is also true for jazz, for pop, and for every existing genre, including classical music.



So, what are the exact conclusions of the observations regarding the film music of John Williams?

Do you want to drive me to the conclusion that classical film music is music written to satisfy a commercial order? Yes, I already know this.

Classical music, as any other existing genres, can have commercial purposes. Let's explain this simple fact to the people who think that classical music is a special thing in respect to all other musical genres.
It's not, from this point of view. A lot of classical music was/is written or played to satisfy a commercial order.

This is also true for the classical music of the gold era. Although someone might say that the music was not business-oriented like in the modern world, there is still the fact that Beethoven had to write a new version of String Quartet No. 13 because the publisher didn't like the Grosse Fugue.
Beethoven obeyed because, like John Williams, he had to pay the bills.