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

[W.A. Mozart]

I believe that our esteemed fellow GMGer has a very limited understanding of what classical music actually is (possibly due to a lack of real exposure to it — at least that is what transpires from his observations).

If you tell me how many new pieces of classical music you listen to each week, I'll tell you the data about me.

This idea (or rather, almost a fixation) that melody is the defining factor leads to sweeping (and blatantly unfounded) conclusions like the one of Mozart vs. Haydn.

Yes, for me the melody is the most important ingredient: in order to give a high rating to a piece, it must contain interesting melodies. So what? Am I not entitled to my preferences?

Several pages ago, the OP agreed with my statement that classical is really an "I know it when I see it" kind of definition. Well, I know that there's no possible way that selection from Men in Black (two posts above) can be regarded as classical, and  I am almost certain it doesn't pretend to be.

Yes, right, we've agreed about this, and I still think that it's the best definition of classical music: if it sounds like classical music, it's classical music.

The difference between me and you is probably that I don't necessarily expect that a piece of contemporary classical music sounds exactly like the classics of the past.

Since innovation is allowed in classical music (otherwise the classical music of today would still sound like Vivaldi), when I have to determine if a contemporary composition is or not classical music I don't ask myself if it sounds exactly like the classics of the past, but if there are at least some elements of classical music.

I ask myself if the composition is an attempt to imitate or modernize classical music.



I've already posted an interesting article about the category "cinematic classical", which must not be confused with the category "classical soundtrack".

Infact, when you compose a classical soundtrack, is not necessarily cinematic classical. You can compose a soundtrack based on Classical music (1750-1820) and in that case the correct classification will be "neoclassical", not "cinematic classical".

Cinematic classical is, specifically, a form of CONTEMPORARY MUSIC which tries to bring innovation to classical music.
It's called "cinematic classical" because it has probably born inside cinema, but the article explains that even a piece of concert music might be categorized as "cinematic classical" if it's in dialogue with this contemporary and innovative musical tradition.


When I say that the score of "Men in Black" is classical music, I think specifically about "cinematic classical". I'm not saying that it's neobaroque, neoclassical, or neoromantic music. It's cinematic classical.
Why? Because I perceive it as an attempt to innovate/modernize classical music, and in the innovative elements I feel those typical elements that are associated with cinematic music.


With this in mind, I try to repeat the question: what are the elements that make you think that "cinematic classical" is not a good label for this piece? If it's not a good label, what is the right label?

Here below I copy the article about cinematic classical: https://rateyourmusic.com/genre/cinematic-classical/


This genre describes the style of orchestral compositions generally associated with soundtracks to modern high-budget films, games, and other non-live media. It has its roots in Western Classical Music, particularly late Romanticism, taking inspiration from the dramatism, large orchestra, use of leitmotif, and emotiveness of the genre. There is also a notable influence from Modern Classical, with its common focus on atmosphere and texture over melody. Additionally, non-classical sources such as Traditional Folk Music, Jazz and modern popular music are often incorporated into the orchestral setting, generally to set the location, themes or time period of the accompanying media. The style is played with a large symphonic orchestra, with additional modern and non-Western instruments included if required by the composer. Whilst this form of music is associated strongly with soundtracks, not every example of it is a soundtrack, and not every orchestral soundtrack fits this style.

The development of synchronised sound allowed full symphony orchestras to accompany films, not bound by the size of a cinema. Most films of the period of the 1930s and 1940s were scored with a combination of Easy Listening and operatic romanticism, particularly influenced by Richard Wagner and Richard Strauss. Some early examples exist of scores beginning to fuse romantic and modern classical for dramatic effect however, such as Wolfgang Zeller's score to the 1932 horror film Vampyr.

The 1950s was the decade where mainstream soundtracks begun to move away from pure romanticism, into the more modern and eclectic approach described by this grouping. In this period, composers such as Miklós Rózsa begun using musicological research to inform their works to create soundtracks that would fit better with a film's setting. Composers who studied with or were influenced by avant-garde modern classical composers also began to emerge. They used new techniques like atonality, unresolved dissonance and even Serialism in their works, though not to the extent that the soundtrack would be inaccessible to the general public. Particularly influential from this time were Bernard Herrmann's works for filmmaker Alfred Hitchcock, including Vertigo and Psycho.

This approach to orchestral music became the standard. For example, Ennio Morricone's soundtrack to Il buono, il brutto, il cattivo [The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly] fuses melodic symphonic orchestral sections with tense, dissonant modernism and non-classical sources that indicate location such as Mexican Folk Music and Western music, creating the widely known sound of Spaghetti Western. John Williams fused the sweeping late period romanticism of 'Golden Age' Hollywood scores with melodic symphonic bombast, sections of 20th century atonality and dissonant cluster chords. The incorporation of some Electronic elements into the orchestral setting became common as synthesizers and digital technology became more widely accessible, for example Wendy Carlos's soundtrack to TRON. Minimalism was another important later influence on the style, with Hans Zimmer's soundtrack to Inception very clearly showing the incorporation of the genre in its repetitive nature under the Epic Music style. Note, however, that not all modern orchestral soundtracks fit this style, such as the score to The Shining which is more purely derived from avant-garde modern classical, and the score to The Age of Innocence which returns to classical romanticism to fit its setting.

Whilst mostly associated with films, the style can be found in other media. In television, the style is used mostly in cinematic, fictional series, with examples including Star Trek, Game of Thrones and Lost. Video games were initially bound by their technical limitations, though attempts were made to recreate the style in certain adventure games such as I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream. Later, pre-recorded soundtracks were made possible, which allowed for orchestral soundtracks, with examples of this style being found in games such as Halo 3 and Shadow of the Colossus.

It would appear that the OP is intent in "elevating " film music he enjoys to the status of "classical".

So, does "classical music" means "music of high status" for you? Not "music which follows determined forms and styles"?

For me it's the second, so given my definition (which is also the definition used by the entire society), I don't see why to admit the simple fact that a lot of film music is rooted in forms/styles of classical music would elevate film music to a high status.

I'd like to add that I'm not a great fan of the score of "Men in Black", so if I really wanted to label determined soundtracks as "classical" only because I like them, it would be silly to use "Men in Black" as an example.

If the point is to show the high status of film music, I can simply put on the table the score of "Lord of The Ring" (by Howard Shore), which is one of the highest examples of "great film music". I don't need to give it labels to show how great the music is.

If I tell you that "classical" is a good label for the music of LOTR, it's simply because it's rooted on classical styles/forms. There isn't any qualitative judgement in the label. I express the qualitative judgements when I say that the music is excellent.



That said, if you like strawmen, I'll be happy to use them as well, and I'll say that many people don't admit the classical nature of many film scores only because they don't like them and they think that by denying their genre they put them to a lower status, since they have interiorized the idea that classical music is music of higher status.


I can ensure you that I don't need this silly rhetoric to elevate film music. If I simply wanted to elevate film music, I might simply tell you that film music is as good as classical music.

Infact it doesn't really matter, in that regards, if symphonic film music belongs or not to the classical genre. It's still academic music, which requires a high craftmanship. It even requires a higher craftmanship than classical music in determined areas.

But no, they must be classical, based on arguments that seem not to have convinced one single member of this forum (over 30 pages of completely sterile discussion).

To be honest, why should I convince 5 users in a forum, when the entire society recognizes the simple fact that there is a subset of "classical music" called "classical soundtrack", and/or that there is a genre of contemporary music called "cinematic classical", which is rooted in 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://halloffame.classicfm.com/2023/


Oh, I have to add "Bachtrack" to the list, since it classifies the concerts of John Williams as "classical events".

https://cdn.bachtrack.com/files/350970-Annual%20classical%20music%20statistics%202023.pdf


Do I really need to convince anyone here? No, you are a minority out there.

I opened this thread only for the sake of discussion, and I give voice to people who are frustrated for the direction of the society.

My threads are interesting for the psychologists who study the phenomenomen called "denial".

"Denial or abnegation (German: Verleugnung, Verneinung) is a psychological defense mechanism postulated by psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud, in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial_(Freud)

[ritter]

Wow! Simply...WOW!

I am out of here.

O ciel, che noia!

[W.A. Mozart]

You mean more people want to listen to music from films they love than have an interest in late 20th century classical music .

Film music, effective and accomplished as it may be, looses its raison d'être when separated from the medium it was intended for

I respond to these posts of @ritter and @steve ridgway with the data of a poll I created yesterday in the subreddit "soundtracks".

https://www.reddit.com/r/soundtracks/comments/1by8z1g/do_you_like_soundtracks_of_films_that_you_dont/

The question of the poll: "Do you like soundtracks of films that you don't like or you have never watched?".

The current results:
- 26 votes: Yes, I like soundtracks of films that I don't like
- 13 votes: Yes, I like soundtracks of films that I have never watched
- 33 votes: Yes, both previous options
- 2 votes: No, I only like soundtracks of films that I like
- 4 votes: I don't want to vote, show me the results.

= 78 votes (total)


So, only 2 people, i.e. 2.56% of voters, declare that they only like the music of soundtracks when it's connected to films they like.

Most of them, declare to enjoy the music of films that they have never watched or that they don't like.

I'm among the 33 people who voted "Yes. Both perevious options.".


Infact, my favourite composer of soundtracks is Alan Menken, who composed music for the Disney animated films.
Do you know what is my interest for the Disney animated films? It was quite low when I was a child, now it's even lower.

The only thing that I really like of them is the music of Alan Menken.



Of course soundtracks have been originally composed to accompany moving pictures... it's an undeniable fact.
However, it's also an undeniable fact that the music of ballets was originally composed to accompany a ballet and the music of opera was originally composed to accompany a story, but this doesn't mean that you can't enjoy ballet music without the ballets, or that you can not enjoy an aria of an opera extracted from the original context and presnted as concert music.

The same exact thing it's true for soundtracks: the fact that the music was originally composed to accompany moving pictures doesn't mean that you can not enjoy the music once extracted from the original context.

The data of my poll shows that most fans of soundtracks simply enjoy the music and that they don't need any emotional connection with the film to appreciate it.


So, in conclusion, it's not true that soundtracks lose their "raison d'être" once extracted from their contexts and that people simply listen to soundtracks of films they like.

You can not see the results of the poll beacuse it's still open. I'll give you a screenshot.




In the comments of the poll

--------

The vast majority of my soundtrack collection is for films I haven't seen.

--------

Star Trek V by Jerry Goldsmith. Terrible movie, incredible score.

[Karl Henning]

My feeling is the whole premise of this overlong thread is flawed.  I don't know any player who is that fussed by categories.  Music is music is music and as long as its at least half-decent and the person conducting is at least half decent the orchestra will do their best.

This, in spades.

[steve ridgway]

The question of the poll: "Do you like soundtracks of films that you don't like or you have never watched?".

The current results:
- 26 votes: Yes, I like soundtracks of films that I don't like
- 13 votes: Yes, I like soundtracks of films that I have never watched
- 33 votes: Yes, both previous options
- 2 votes: No, I only like soundtracks of films that I like
- 4 votes: I don't want to vote, show me the results.

= 78 votes (total)


The data of my poll shows that most fans of soundtracks simply enjoy the music and that they don't need any emotional connection with the film to appreciate it.

Wikipedia List of films by box office admissions - Star Wars - 338,400,000

Your poll - 78

Thank you anyway for helping me reach firm conclusions on soundtrack music, I'll drop off the thread now .

[DavidW]

This, in spades.

Well I mean I think there is only ONE poster here that doesn't agree that music is music, enjoy what you enjoy.

[W.A. Mozart]

Wikipedia List of films by box office admissions - Star Wars - 338,400,000

Your poll - 78

Thank you anyway for helping me reach firm conclusions on soundtrack music, I'll drop off the thread now .

Your data doesn't say that the people who don't like Star Wars also don't like the soundtrack, so I don't see what you want to demonstrate with this data.


My data demonstrates precisely that most fans of soundtracks enjoy music of films that they don't like or that they have never watched, so it's not true that the music of soundtracks is fruitless without the films.
It would be better to admit that you were wrong, instead of trying to fight the reality.

[W.A. Mozart]

All the stuff that has been explained in detail over the past however many pages, but that you ignore. All the complexities that are the only thing that make the subject interesting and revealing, but which you refuse to think about.

The problem is that the definition of classical music is not complex. If it sounds like classical music, it's classical music. If it sounds like jazz, it's jazz, If it sounds like rock, it's rock. If it sounds like rap, it's rap.


To be honest, the only relevant post was the one of @ritter, who wrote that the music of Men in Black doesn't sound like classical music.

It's a shame that he doesn't want to discuss the subject, now that we are finally arrived to the essential point of this discussion.


The subject is: how do we determine if an innovative contemporary composition is classical music or not?
If a contemporary composition had to sound exactly like the classics of the past in order to be considered classical music, evolution wouldn't be allowed in classical music.

However, if a contemporary composition has innovative elements, there is the problem to determine if it can be considered as classical music or not.

So, how do we proceed? Perhaps we should consider as classical music the compositions which have AT LEAST SOME classical elements, combined with modern elements.

How can we consider this as " contemporary classical music" without the required flexibility of classification? Does it sounds like Mozart or Tchaikovsky? No! I bet that if it was a soundtrack, everyone would tell me "this is not classical music!".

Has the piece of Men in Black AT LEAST SOME classical elements? I think yes, and they are not hidden elements, but evident elements.

However, in the OP I wrote.


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

Since the classification is subjective and not objective, determined by our istinct, we might not agree about the classification of one musical work... so what? Is it so important to determine if something is classical music or not?

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


Well, we are here. Apparently, while I feel that there are classical elements in the piece of Men in Black, ritter doesn't feel them.

So what? We can agree to disagree. The only thing I can say about it, is that if most people agree with me, the score of Men in Black will be categorized as classical, while if most people agree with ritter it won't.


I don't even want to convince ritter of my opinion. It's subjective. This is what I wrote in the OP, and I remain faith to what I wrote.

Finally, someone brought a relevant point to this discussion, but apparently he has established that his point of view is the right one and he doesn't want to hear my opinion, i.e. my "classica feelings" about this music.

From my perspective I've tried to think the best and to be patient, but the latest reductive ridiculousness re Haydn (and your own unique and ineffable ability to rank composers as 'melodists') is enough. Even my rudimentary troll sensors are lighting up now.

So, am I not entitled to think that the melody is the most important ingredient? Am I not entitled to think that the melodies of Mozart are in average better than the ones of Haydn?

If someone prefers Mozart more than Haydn, it means that he is a troll?


This discussion is full of hate. I must have opened a great Pandora's box with this discussion. This tells me that in the future soundtracks will be probably regarded as great art, given how much shake up today's society and the beliefs of many people.

[Maestro267]

Ah yes, the 3-4 people who participate regularly in this one thread on one minority-interest discussion via an increasingly-obsolete means of communication = "today's society."

You're not special, mate.

[Luke]

Yes, for me the melody is the most important ingredient: in order to give a high rating to a piece, it must contain interesting melodies. So what? Am I not entitled to my preferences?

You are entitled to all your preferences. No one is saying anything else, so don't pretend they are, it's a strawman... I think I'll count your strawmen in the two posts of yours i'm replying to here. Let's see how far I get. So that's strawman #1.

What you are not entitled to do is to present your subjective and very personal preferences as objective fact as if they were accepted and agreed on by all. That you are suggesting this is strawman # 2.



Not everyone agrees that the melody is the most important thing in evaluating a piece of music (I don't, for a start). Not everyone agrees that there is a single most important thing in evaluating a piece of music (I don't, either). Not everyone apart from clickbait websites really thinks ranking and categorising is particularly important in something as beautifully mysterious and elusive as music, either (I don't). No one agrees on what makes a good melody (I probably don't).* Heck, some people don't even agree on what a melody is (I think it's pretty hard to define, in the sense that there are always counterexamples). No one has done a like-for-like qualitative comparison of every one of Mozart's melodies v every one of Haydn's, and even if they could be bothered to try, for the reasons above it's both impossible and pointless. Therefore what you prefer (which is completely fine) is also irrelevant. 

Yes, right, we've agreed about this, and I still think that it's the best definition of classical music: if it sounds like classical music, it's classical music.

No. And strawman #3. Many, many days ago I posted, repeatedly, refutation of this simplistic 'fact,' and you ignored it repeatedly because the points I raised complicate your little game of putting things into boxes and showed that things which sound virtually the same can easily and uncontroversially be classified as stylistically different. Here was my example:

...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; they were created at around the same time as each other, using the same techniques, using similar source material, by a master composer and by one of his apprentices, the latter even using the former's studio and equipment to do so. So why is one considered 'classical' and the other not?

{And, by the way, because I know this matters to you, let me check with Allmusic, which tells me that Canaxis is 'Pop/Rock, Avant Garde' and Telemusik is 'Electronic/Computer Music, Classical')

Or let me return to another example I gave you earlier in this thread, also ignored. What style is this?

Context is all. Music is complex. Styles are used referentially. They can say one thing and mean another. They can be placed inside "   "

The difference between me and you is probably that I don't necessarily expect that a piece of contemporary classical music sounds exactly like the classics of the past.

Hello, strawman #4! I can guarantee you that the difference is not this.

Since innovation is allowed in classical music (otherwise the classical music of today would still sound like Vivaldi), when I have to determine if a contemporary composition is or not classical music I don't ask myself if it sounds exactly like the classics of the past, but if there are at least some elements of classical music.

Not sure if that strawman #5 or just strawman #4 closer up...

I ask myself if the composition is an attempt to imitate or modernize classical music.

No, it's #5!
 How is this at all relevant? I'm lost in what all this is trying to say.

I've already posted an interesting article about the category "cinematic classical", which must not be confused with the category "classical soundtrack".

I sense an approaching army of strawmen, so before they reach us, let me just say that this is ridiculous, unless the word classical has different meanings in those two classifications, the two meaning s that I teach the 9 year olds at my school and that they are able to disentangle easily. But you've used it interchangeably in this thread as meaning either of them, and maybe that's what you mean here. As far as I am concerned, in this whole discussion, the word classical has been read by everyone except you as meaning, roughly, music written for the church, the chamber, or the concert hall, or music written in that long-lived tradition. It encompasses everyone from Perotin to Part, and is an enormously varied, wildly proliferating, beautiful thing whose limits are very hard to define. Music composed for films may well form part of that tradition, at times, but, just as with, oh, I don't know, the 'Third Stream' of Gunther Schuller, considering how and to what extent it does so is really interesting because it's not a simple binary in/out situation. That's a beautiful thing, not the problem you seem so intent on imagining. 

In fact, when you compose a classical soundtrack, is not necessarily cinematic classical. You can compose a soundtrack based on Classical music (1750-1820) and in that case the correct classification will be "neoclassical", not "cinematic classical".

Cinematic classical is, specifically, a form of CONTEMPORARY MUSIC which tries to bring innovation to classical music.
It's called "cinematic classical" because it has probably born inside cinema, but the article explains that even a piece of concert music might be categorized as "cinematic classical" if it's in dialogue with this contemporary and innovative musical tradition.


When I say that the score of "Men in Black" is classical music, I think specifically about "cinematic classical". I'm not saying that it's neobaroque, neoclassical, or neoromantic music. It's cinematic classical.
Why? Because I perceive it as an attempt to innovate/modernize classical music, and in the innovative elements I feel those typical elements that are associated with cinematic music.


With this in mind, I try to repeat the question: what are the elements that make you think that "cinematic classical" is not a good label for this piece? If it's not a good label, what is the right label?

Here below I copy the article about cinematic classical: https://rateyourmusic.com/genre/cinematic-classical/


This genre describes the style of orchestral compositions generally associated with soundtracks to modern high-budget films, games, and other non-live media. It has its roots in Western Classical Music, particularly late Romanticism, taking inspiration from the dramatism, large orchestra, use of leitmotif, and emotiveness of the genre. There is also a notable influence from Modern Classical, with its common focus on atmosphere and texture over melody. Additionally, non-classical sources such as Traditional Folk Music, Jazz and modern popular music are often incorporated into the orchestral setting, generally to set the location, themes or time period of the accompanying media. The style is played with a large symphonic orchestra, with additional modern and non-Western instruments included if required by the composer. Whilst this form of music is associated strongly with soundtracks, not every example of it is a soundtrack, and not every orchestral soundtrack fits this style.....[cut]...

I have no words. What is all this trying to prove? That lots of music for films and games is influenced by and uses techniques of earlier composers? No way! But none of this makes it a single separate style, even though the above is an attempt to classify it as such. It makes it a way of writing film music, simply a way of creating functional music that uses other styles as signifiers to help to perform its function. That's great. There's nothing wrong with it. Some of the music created is fantastic. It's composers are often incredibly skillful. None of this is in dispute.

What is in dispute is your inability to see that the function of music, the way it is created, and then the way it is listened to, whether in the cinema or extracted from context and heard at the concert hall, is part of our experience of it and affects how we classify it. I don't think anyone is even arguing that a piece of film music couldn't be heard as a piece of classical music in principle. There are many pieces of film music I happily listen to because they bring me huge pleasure. It's just that there are so many other filters in the way that make it hard to hear as a piece of music in their own right.

When this point has been raised before you have previously replied with the suggestion that e.g. opera or ballet are in some way the same thing, being connected to narratives and visuals of their own. But opera and ballet are different for two reasons.

1) opera and ballet are generally the vision of the composer. What we see is fitted to work with what we hear, not the other way around. We talk of Stravinsky's Rite of Spring (with design by Nicholas Roerich and choreography by Nijinsky) because IS was the originator and the moving force. But we don't talk of Howard Shore's Lord of the Rings (with visuals by Peter Jackson) because HS's wonderful work was not the prime mover.

2) more important: the 'visuals' of opera and ballet are not fixed. They change from performance to performance and production to production. Shore's music for The Lord of the Rings will always be afixed to Elijah Wood's Frodo, Ian McKellen's Gandalf and Andy Serkis's Golllum, to that particular Rivendell, those particular Mines of Moria. All of those images form part of it, inextricably, even when the music is torn away from film and turned into a supposedly separate 'Lord of the Rings Symphony' (which exists, of course). Whereas in Johan de Meij's Lord of the Rings Symphony (for wind band) there are no single set of fixed visuals for it to be attached too, despite its programmatic roots.

So, does "classical music" means "music of high status" for you? Not "music which follows determined forms and styles"?

It doesn't mean either. It's a strawman (#6?) to suggest that it can only mean one of those things

My own definition of classical music, btw, explains all the issues in this thread, and in this kind of discussion in general. It is neither of your options. It is nothing to do with status, and nothing to do with style.

For me it's the second, so given my definition (which is also the definition used by the entire society)

#7

Is it? Really? That's not a definition I've ever heard anyone give it, not least because it could apply to pretty much all music, from every time and place.

I don't see why to admit the simple fact that a lot of film music is rooted in forms/styles of classical music would elevate film music to a high status.

huh? Who said it would? #8 has arrived. Enough for a party! 

I'd like to add that I'm not a great fan of the score of "Men in Black", so if I really wanted to label determined soundtracks as "classical" only because I like them, it would be silly to use "Men in Black" as an example.

If the point is to show the high status of film music, I can simply put on the table the score of "Lord of The Ring" (by Howard Shore), which is one of the highest examples of "great film music". I don't need to give it labels to show how great the music is.

If I tell you that "classical" is a good label for the music of LOTR, it's simply because it's rooted on classical styles/forms. There isn't any qualitative judgement in the label. I express the qualitative judgements when I say that the music is excellent.

Shore's music for LOTR goes beyond excellent, it is some of the finest film scoring I've ever heard. It relies massively on Wagner, a debt Shore is very conscious of and which he acknowledges beautifully and graciously at the very, very, very end of the score for the final film, at the end of the credits when almost everyone has left the cinema: the final bars of his score are a clear reference to the final bars of Walkure. A fabulous gesture, a wink for those 'in the know.' But there we go - like John William's appropriation of Stravinsky, Holst and all the others, Shore's last second shout out to Wagner is a way to tell us that he recognises that there's another tradition to which he also relates beyond Middle Earth. But for the reasons I mentioned above, Shore's music will always associate not just with Tolkien's stories but with the very particular, precise and immutable version of those stories put down by Peter Jackson. And thus, if we wish to listen to it as classical, we do so only by allowing it to bring all of those particularities into the concert hall with it. Fine - but just be aware of what's happening. That's all I'm saying.

That said, if you like strawmen, I'll be happy to use them as well,

Oh, this is bliss...

and I'll say that many people don't admit the classical nature of many film scores only because they don't like them and they think that by denying their genre they put them to a lower status, since they have interiorized the idea that classical music is music of higher status.

At least you recognised that this one is a strawman too (#9 I think). I like a lot of film scores, my issue with everything you have been saying is just your inability to recognise that there are complex questions of reception - how we hear music -  that come into play when we hear a soundtrack in a concert hall. It's nothing to do with musical style, or with any nonsense about status.

I can ensure you that I don't need this silly rhetoric to elevate film music. If I simply wanted to elevate film music, I might simply tell you that film music is as good as classical music.

You're not elevating film music. In fact in ignoring the subtle, terrific and difficult job it does and just trying to reduce everything down to coarse questions of style, you are underestimating it.

Infact it doesn't really matter, in that regards, if symphonic film music belongs or not to the classical genre. It's still academic music, which requires a high craftmanship. It even requires a higher craftmanship than classical music in determined areas.

I can agree with this Hooray!

To be honest, why should I convince 5 users in a forum, when the entire society recognizes the simple fact that there is a subset of "classical music" called "classical soundtrack", and/or that there is a genre of contemporary music called "cinematic classical", which is rooted in classical music?

Makes #10! Which entire society is this? What you have on this board is '5 users' (and the others) who think that questions of musical aesthetic and reception, how and why we hear music, in what context, are interesting things to consider and one who says 'this sounds a bit like Haydn so let's say it's the same thing only maybe better because of its melodies'

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://halloffame.classicfm.com/2023/


Oh, I have to add "Bachtrack" to the list, since it classifies the concerts of John Williams as "classical events".

https://cdn.bachtrack.com/files/350970-Annual%20classical%20music%20statistics%202023.pdf

Because this is proof, yes, because the internet is always right, yes? because all questions on musical aesthetic can be answered with recourse to gross simplifications and misunderstandings, yes?

Do I really need to convince anyone here? No, you are a minority out there.

It's all in the questions you ask, isn't it, and the strawmen in those questions.

If you ask 'should classical soundtracks be considered as classical music?' then I'm sure lots of people will readily agree.

But if you ask 'should film scores which refer to the styles of Mozart and Haydn be consider the same as Mozart and Haydn?' then I'm sure most people will say no. You need to stop relying on Reddit polls and so on as much as you do, because (as we in my country know only too well *Brexit*) referenda are only as good as the question asked and the information given.

I opened this thread only for the sake of discussion, and I give voice to people who are frustrated for the direction of the society.

This is the kind of stuff populist leaders trot out.

My threads are interesting for the psychologists who study the phenomenomen called "denial".

Yes, they are, but perhaps not for the reason you imagine.

The problem is that the definition of classical music is not complex. If it sounds like classical music, it's classical music. If it sounds like jazz, it's jazz, If it sounds like rock, it's rock. If it sounds like rap, it's rap.

No. See my above examples.

To be honest, the only relevant post was the one of @ritter, who wrote that the music of Men in Black doesn't sound like classical music.

It's a shame that he doesn't want to discuss the subject, now that we are finally arrived to the essential point of this discussion.

The subject is:

how do we determine if an innovative contemporary composition is classical music or not?

...is it? when did that happen? I thought this was about film music...

If a contemporary composition had to sound exactly like the classics of the past in order to be considered classical music, evolution wouldn't be allowed in classical music.

However, if a contemporary composition has innovative elements, there is the problem to determine if it can be considered as classical music or not.

No there isn't.

So, how do we proceed? Perhaps we should consider as classical music the compositions who have AT LEAST SOME classical elements, combined with modern elements.

Not necessarily. That's not what classical music is.

How can we consider this as " contemporary classical music" without the required flexibility of classification? Does it sounds like MOzart or Tchaikovsky? No!

Has the piece of Men in Black AT LEAST SOME classical elements? I think yes, and they are not hidden elements, but evident elements.

However, in the OP I wrote.


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

Since the classification is subjective and not objective, determined by our istinct, we might not agree about the classification of one musical work... so what? Is it so important to determine if something is classical music or not?

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


Well, we are here. Apparently, while I feel that there are classical elements in the piece of Men in Black, ritter doesn't feel them.

So what? We can agree to disagree. The only thing I can say about it, is that if most people agree with me, the score of Men in Black will be categorized as classical, while if most people agree with ritter it won't.


I don't even want to convince ritter of my opinion. It's subjective. This is what I wrote in the OP, and remain faith to what I wrote.

Finally, someone brought a relevant point to this discussion, but apparently he has established that his point of view is the right one and hes doesn't want to hear my opinion, i.e. my "classica feelings" about this music.

I'm not really sure what the point of all that was.

So, am I not entitled to think that the melody is the most important ingredient? Am I not entitled to think that the melodies of Mozart are in average better than the ones of Haydn?

If someone prefers Mozart more than Haydn, it means that he is a troll?

I think I covered that. Short recap: you are entitled to prefer what you want, but it doesn't make it an evidentiary fact that proves anything.

This discussion is full of hate. I must have opened a great Pandora's box with this discussion. This tells me that in the future soundtracks will be probably regarded as great art, given how much shake up today's society and the beliefs of many people.

Don[t worry, I'm sure there's no hate here. None whatsoever. I am amused, and, yes, sometimes a little offended when you seem to (deliberately) put words into my mouth, and the mouths of others here. And I find that a bit upsetting. But I don't think you hate us!

....I know, I'm being obtuse, it's annoying isn't it, having your words used like that? You're saying that we, the 'enemy,' are full of hate. But it's not hate. I don't hate you at all, and my rhetorical tactics (e.g. in this message, the pictorial reference to strawmen wherever I see them) are just to make a point. It's not hate. It's frustration at you insisting on arguing against the biggest strawman of all: that we are all elitist snobs who hate film music and won't let it into our precious gilded classical castle, despite all the popular opinion outside the gates that says we should. None of us think that, as far as I can see. Williams, Shore et al are extremely skilled composers who write music that fits nicely into the classical traditions they reference. But we would just like some recognition from you that, doing what they do for the prime purpose of soundtracking a film, and performing those stylistic references for that same purpose, i.e. not for artistic merit but because the director wants them, and in general being secondary creators at the whim of those directors - all this complicates things a bit. It isn't as simple as you like to think. 

* I was intrigued so I went to the greater Authorities of the Internet's infalible rating systems. Apparently this melody



...which repeats itself and then moves up to repeat itself a minor third higher (that's 13 Es, one F# and 8 Gs), comes from Beethoven's 7th best piece (udiscovermusic.com), or perhaps 8the best (classical-music.com), or 4th most famous (on vocal.medias authoritative list of 10 most famous Beethoven songs (I've forgotten the vocal movement, clearly)) or the 13th 'Best Beethoven Song' on the so-aptly named thetoptens.com. Meanwhile Google (I mistyped it as Goofle just then, appropriately) has it in Beethoven's top 9 most popular 'songs'. So it must be a very good melody even though it's a very bad melody. The  entire top 9 on Goofgle, by the way are:

1 Fur Elise
2 Piano Concerto no 4 (but as conducted by Bernstein)
3 Piano Concerto no 4 (but as played by Brendel)
4 Bagatelle no 25 in A minor (which is Fur Elise, but who's counting)
5 Symphony no 5
6 The Pathetique Sonata (as payed by Paul Mauriat)
7 The movement under discussion from the 7th (but only as played by the Berlin Phil)
8 First movement of the Moonlight
9 First movement of the Pathetique (whoever plays it)

So now you know. Thank goodness for internet polls!

[SimonNZ]

The problem is that the definition of classical music is not complex. If it sounds like classical music, it's classical music. If it sounds like jazz, it's jazz, If it sounds like rock, it's rock. If it sounds like rap, it's rap.

I'm reminded of Baldrick rewriting Samuel Johnson's Dictionary


And did I miss a page somewhere? At the start we we're being chastised for liking all the innovative modern classical which the OP sweeping dismissed as "avant-garde" saying we should be more like "real" people who like Mozart callbacks, but now apparently its we who dislike innovation and its we who require everything to sound like Mozart. When did we turn this corner?

[Luke]

I think it's when - and I only realised he was actually, genuinely doing this after writing that marathon last post of mine (I had a free afternoon..) - he decided it suited his argument to being to portray us all in periwigs aghast at what we see as the disrespectful innovatory hi-jinks of Hans Zimmer et al.

[SimonNZ]

I think it's when - and I only realised he was actually, genuinely doing this after writing that marathon last post of mine (I had a free afternoon..) - he decided it suited his argument to being to portray us all in periwigs aghast at what we see as the disrespectful innovatory hi-jinks of Hans Zimmer et al.

The irony is that there are innovative soundtracks being made and some of those situated in contemporary classical and where the composers were given a lot of room to create their sound world, but they're not something the OP would ever accept or like or promote.

[Luke]

Mica Levi springs to mind

[W.A. Mozart]

@Luke


1) Basically, you are scolding me because I forgot to put "In my opinion,..." before "... the music of Mozart is a better version of the music of Haydn".

I wonder why no one gets angry for the fact that @SimonNZ forget to put "In my opinion..." before his considerations about the inferiority of film music in respect to concert music, and his considerations about the imaginary world in which the players leave their orchestra because they have to play film music, while in reality many of them are where they are because they felt in love with one or more orchestral soundtracks when they were younger.

While I have never tried to project my personal preferences for Mozart over Haydn to all people, SimonNZ was projecting his personal interests to the entire world, and no one is angry for this.


This is why I wrote that this discussion is full of hate towards me. Any excuse is good to lash out fiercely at me, but I don't care. I know that when you compare soundtracks to classical music in places dedicated to classical music you open the Pandora's box, and I'm happy to be the one who opens it.



All that said, even if I admit that I was speaking about my personal preference (are you happy now?), there is still the fact that Mozart is the most perfomed composer and Haydn is not even in the TOP 10.

I've already posted the statistics of Bachtrack for the year 2023.

Perhaps it's not ONLY my personal preference, but of course it's still a subjective thing, since someone has the right to think that Haydn was as great as Mozart, if not even better.



2) The very simple fact regarding Telemusik and Canaxis is that they are both "experimental electronic music". They have nothing to do with classical music, with pop, with rock, or whatever... "experimental electronic music", or "ambiental electronic music", is the best descriptor for both works.

When it comes to experimental music the classification is confusionary and unreliable, because the lack of categories to classificate this kind of music lead people to classificate the music according to the background of the musician.

So, if The Beatles compose experimental music, it must be pop because they are known as a pop group. If it's an experimental work of Metallica, it must be metal. If it's an experimental work of a classical musician, it must be classical, even if it has absolutely nothing to do with the musical tradition.


Now, if you ask me, the pure experimental music is a separate thing in respect to all other genres and if I was a creator of similar music I'de be offended by the fact that the people put my music in an existing musical tradition, since my goal would be to create innovative music that refuses to be a product of already existing music.


The grouping of musical works is meaningful until it's possible to find common denominators between pieces inside a group, and there are common denominators only when the composers create works that are inspired to already existing works.
This is why I think that it doesn't make sense to try to classificate experimental musical compositions as classical, as rock, as pop, as jazz, or whatever...


Note, please, that I'm not saying that revolutionary music which is clearily rooted in the classical tradition shouldn't be considered classical and that what I'm saying has nothing do with my personal preferences.

For example, I don't like the Symphony 5 of Joly Braga Santos (his fourth symphony is the last good symphony for me), but I also think that it's classical music.
It's simply a style of classical music that I don't like, but it's still classical music, with innovative elements that I don't like in respect to the previous symphonies of the same composer which are more traditional.

What I was trying to say regarding the so called "cinematic classical" is that the composers of that genre try to innovate classical music, but in a different way in respect to many composers of concert music of the 20th century.

Basically, their innovation is less controversial, because they try to produce innovative but catchy forms of music rooted in the classical tradition.


The point is that if you don't want to recognize that the innovative works of the genre "cinematic classical" are rooted in the tradition of classical music (and that they are, therefore, a part of contemporary classical music), then it's easy to also exclude most contemporary works of concert music, because most of them are not trying to create music that sounds exactly like the music of the great composers of the past.

They are trying to produce innovative music in the classical tradition like Danny Elfman in Men in Black, with the difference perhaps that many contemporary composers of concert works are less worried about catchyness.



3) Although I agree about the fact that IF (IF!) you have watched the film that contains a determined soundtrack, to hear the soundtrack in the concert hall will always bring the images of the film to your mind, this is also true for an aria of the Don Giovanni.

If you have watched the entire opera (and I did), when you will hear the final and dark part of the opera without the stage you will always inevitably see the Don Giovanni on fire inside your head.


So, although I agree with your observation that when I listen to "Duel of the Fates" I can not avoid to think about the final battle between Darth Maul and Kenoby/Qui-Gon, I don't see the point of what you are saying, because I can say the same exact thing about an aria of an opera I have watched.



Your observation would be relevant only if it was true that the music of the Don Giovanni worked well even without the stage while the music of LOTR without the film didn't, but I absolutely don't agree with this: the music of LOTR is really powerful even without the images (I can say this because I listened to the soundtrack before I watched the film). As many other soundtracks, it's simply beautiful music that it's strongly evocative in itself.

This is why most fans of soundtracks (see my poll) declare that they like music of films they have never watched or that they don't like, and I am one of them, so I know what I'm speaking about.

[W.A. Mozart]

An other input for this discussion.


The craftmanship of creating music for images is something that has been strongly cultivated inside classical music.

Vivaldi infact has been one of the greatest composers of "soundtracks" of the history of music, and every fan of soundtracks who doesn't admit this fact can not be taken seriously.


Yes, because the "Four Seasons" are the soundtrack of a group of sonnets (each movement has a corresponding sonnet, see: https://baroquemusic.org/vivaldiseasons.html


Now, take for example Summer Presto:

"Alas, his worst fears were justified, as the heavens roar and great hailstones beat down upon the proudly standing corn"


Basically, Vivaldi composed a soundtrack for a similar scene.

Note that his music is simply perfect as a soundtrack for this scene, and this is why I wrote that he has been one of the greatest composer of soundtracks.

The difference is that the contemporary composers of soundtracks have to compose music for concrete material, while Vivaldi had to imagine his own film in his head to write the correct music.
You will never fully understand the genius of Vivaldi if you are not aware about what there was in his mind while he was composing his music.

We can say that the art of Vivaldi required even a greater craftmanship in respect to composing real soundtracks, because it requires imagination.


The point, however, is that it's absurd to try to separate classical music from narrative, when historically the two things have been strongly connected.

We might say that, in large part, classical music tried to pair music with literature/narrative. Basically, it's what cinema is doing today.

It's not suprising that in cinema a lot of music is rooted in classical music: it makes perfectly sense, once you are aware of the history of classical music, once you know that the Four Seasons are "soundtracks" of sonnets", and so on...

[SimonNZ]

This is a cry for help.

[Luke]

You missed my point re this particular part of the discussion (to be fair there was quite a lot of ground covered)

Your mental picture of Don Giovanni is not mine. Your mental picture of Vivaldi's Summer is not mine. The music retains its independence because these associations are not fixed.

But your mental image of Gandalf on the bridge of Khazad Dum in Jackson's film is identical to mine. The music is tied to a precise image; it is not fully independent.

[DaveF]

the "Four Seasons" are the soundtrack of a group of sonnets (each movement has a corresponding sonnet, see: https://baroquemusic.org/vivaldiseasons.html

That would be a reasonable argument if it were known for certain that the concerti were written to illustrate the sonnets.  However, since the words and music were published together, nobody knows which came first - i.e. Vivaldi (if he were also the poet) may have written the sonnets as a description of his own music.

[Roasted Swan]

To paraphrase Alien (great soundtrack btw);

In this thread no-one can hear you scream