"Commercialized" "catered to the masses" is by itself a pretty meaningless statement - the masses will eat up anything that's marketed to them and/or picks up steam in some way, and repeat any opinion given to them by respected idols / authority figures or peers, so "commercialized pap" could literally be anything.Almost all film music today, especially written by the likes of someone like Hans Zimmer (or as I like to call him, Hans Dimmer) is commercialized pap catered to the masses. Being a film composer used to be some kind of prestige,
Huh? There's lots of people who only talk about Hans Dimmer and Bohn Railiams.Again, you keep talking about melodies. What cares! Melodies exist in all kinds of music. Did you not read that part of my reply to you? Classical music being a more fulfilling genre isn't my own opinion, it's a fact. It's the reason why people are still talking about Beethoven or Bach and not aren't talking about the latest Hans Dimmer film score or one of John Williams' scores. There's no question in my mind (and the majority of this forum) that classical music will continue to find an audience for any listener who wants to delve deeper into an emotional/intellectual world that no other music can provide.
Well obscure and unsuccessful music from those times also gets categorized as CM;The problem is with the thread title. It reads "film music," so it's not specific. You can argue 'this piece or filmtrack is really good and should be part of the classics' since the term classical isn't a genre but nothing more than an associative word for popular music of old. The modern composer Saariaho isn't really "classical" since she's not classic, but you can argue that her pieces should be. Just specify what type of tracks you're referring to when you make an argumentation.
I don't think there's a lot of great film or tv show music out there. However the stuff I do love from these outlets, are just as good as classical music. The Vgm genre on the other hand is a goldmine of fine art. I just don't see the point in arguing they should be classic if no one here listens to them. I posted tracks in some "greatest music" threads and received a few likes from smart people.
At least it's not patronaged tbfIt is not classical music. It is employed music.
I adopted him (from a grocery store parking lot)(Johnnie, you like CM? Hear, listen to this Star Wars extravaganza.)
Says who? The film music composers must complete their work to time and to the satisfaction of the director. That's all. Instead of making assertions about a business I suspect you know nothing about (no more do I) why not read a little?
Here's Dario Marianelli of the anxieties of writing film music:
Dario Marianelli - Tips from the Stars - Film Scoring Tips
Or how about this, from Alexandre Desplat:
How Alexandre Desplat creates a film score in three weeks - BBC News
Or this, from Thomas Newman:
A member of a musical dynasty writes a postcard about the past - Los Angeles Times (latimes.com)
And, finally, this from the 'great' Hans Zimmer, on his cue "Journey To The Line", illustrating how the business of film music is a business first and foremost:
How Hans Zimmer's the Thin Red Line score redefined Hollywood, for better or worse | CBC Radio
Since "classical" lacks a clear definition, everyone can just use their own - such as "it's music that's composed without pressure of deadlines, employers/patrons, or fickle audience tastes - just with a free-flowing artist mind" (which would exclude prb almost everything before Beethoven/Romanticism, as well as tons of "canon" after), orThanks to @Forster 's post above, not only is my general position in this thread backed up by J Williams and others about the differences between classical and film music composition (thus accurately defining the genres from a technical standpoint), I now have Thomas Newman in my camp...
Writing the Philharmonic-Kronos piece was freeing compared with composing for film, and involved much experimentation, Newman says.
“You’re not bound to a certain amount of seconds of action or drama,” he says. “You let your mind wander in a much different way.”
....and the resulting music is vastly different to what it might have been within the confines of a film.
Well this particular classification certainly is blurry enough to not be particularly useful - and some others have dissed this thread on the recent pages and have called it pointless etc., so yeah;The differences in approach to creating FM, Opera and CM and the resulting musics really are very self-evident to a composer. The classifications are more the listener's concern and whatever they decide or wish for does not impact nor influence the day to day filling in of manuscripts with the appropriate scrawls.
Yes, "form and aesthetic" is interesting - "wrestling over words" isn't, which is what I said lolNo, you are wrong about this. A discussion about the form and aesthetic is even more interesting. For example, in the last days I was explaining to some users in youtube the difference between the looping, static themes of some videogame soundtracks and the melodies of Mozart, which are essentially many short themes linked between each others. In few words, I was explaining the difference between a static melody and a developing melody. This is an observation about form. When it comes to the aesthetic, some of that looping themes are beatiful and close to the aesthetic of classical music, but what I was explaining in youtube is that many OST of videogames require a rework in order to reach the objective quality of Mozart's music: the composer should write thematic developments.
On the other hand, some videogames OST can theoretically meet the canon of classical music without any rework and many OST of film music don't require a rework because there is already a sufficient quality in the original work. Yes, you can write a symphony based on the melodic material of the OST, if you want, but we already have good orchestral suites in film music.
Idk if I can relate to any of thatAccording to research, we're at the mercy of luck and happenstances during our years of adolescent brain development, explains a little about the complicated process going on, about 13 years for girls and 14 years for boys. If we don't get a love of serious music in those years, we might develop a love later but it will be different and probably less intense, because the brain chemicals have already done their developmental work. It’s over (the blank slate of youth) for that person..
The amygdala is responsible for immediate reactions including fear and flight-or-fight behavior (apparently this is important so young - for survival). This region develops early, but the frontal cortex develops later. And this part of the brain, which does the logical thinking before we act, is still changing and maturing well into adulthood.
Also, during adolescence a rapid increase in the connections between the brain cells and making the pathways more effective enhances every sensory experience. The myelin continues to fill in to become an insulating layer that helps cells communicate.
All these changes give us a more vibrant experience when experiencing music in those years, and then it gets all mixed up with identity, sexuality, approval from our peers etc.
Pictures of the brain in action show that adolescents' brains work differently than adults when they make decisions or solve problems.
So apparently as we're latching on to our favorite types of music, it's not a thinking process, but it's more akin to a developing instinct, like apprehension at the sound of a rattlesnake or a lion roaring.
Yes there are superficial similarities, direct cribs and even some freedoms but overall, film music is under a creatively restrictive kosh compared to concert/opera music in several key compositional aspects that impact totally on any expression a composer might use for a concert work. Namely harmonic language restrictions, phrase lengths, dramatic arc, any expressiveness is subjugated and determined by the screen and director, orchestration/timbral limits are curtailed and are often meddled with in the final dubb anyway (for the benefit dialogue and sfx). In the worst cases a dictatorial aesthetic from the director who may even change notes here and there or insisting on the composer having to copy temp tracks as near as damn it. Any final music is literally the result of a creative committee which is fine for utility, not so much for absolute music imo. It should be obvious that a good composer will make musical sense of awkward timings, sync points and other restrictions, that's not what the discussion is about.
For opera, seeing that some seem to think this equates to film scoring in some way, I would add that the composer is their own free agent and apart from having to compose and score for singers, has no such restrictions re language, timings (other than sensible for the dramatic arc), phrase lengths, orchestration and so on. It's therefore a false analogy to equate opera and film from a compositional point of view in my experience. One is seriously impeded and utterly dictated to by non musical events (and even people), the other not so much.
Well replace the "for utility" with "for complementing and working together with the screen", and... yeah? It isn't absolute music.Any final music is literally the result of a creative committee which is fine for utility, not so much for absolute music imo.
No, unless he Wagners everything himself, he's bound by the script / collaboration with the librettist, and which of them has the pants on isn't inherently determined by the music theater form.For opera, seeing that some seem to think this equates to film scoring in some way, I would add that the composer is their own free agent
Huh? The composer has no restrictions on language if he's the one also writing the lyrics.and apart from having to compose and score for singers, has no such restrictions re language,
Why "equate"? Film - once shot and edited, that is - can't be stretched and squeezed the way an opera/musical composer can bend and stretch the phrases and the spaces between them (and that's just the 1:1 conversational kind of opera e.g. Wagner - doubly so if phrase repetition, choir / backing singers and whole songs built around a few sentences is all on the table lol).timings (other than sensible for the dramatic arc), phrase lengths, orchestration and so on. It's therefore a false analogy to equate opera and film from a compositional point of view in my experience.
well "not so much" is the key here - in the literal sense:One is seriously impeded and utterly dictated to by non musical events (and even people), the other not so much.
The point was that "the F example doesn't look less convincing than the opera example", and the "crib" was merely pointed out in order to further illustrate this point - it wasn't just a "look there's a crib, therefore theyre the same lol"?Yes there are superficial similarities, direct cribs and even some freedoms but overall,
Those 2 are not to be conflated! One is absolute music (as long as not program), the other is not - and the degree to which opera works in concert varies from case to case, from segment to segment.film music is under a creatively restrictive kosh compared to concert/opera music in several key compositional aspects that impact totally on any expression a composer might use for a concert work.
W- w- wait, now the conflations really are starting to shoot past the orbit aren't they? How is film a restriction on harmony?Namely harmonic language restrictions,
Way too much of a case-by-case issue for making generalized statements like that - there are cases where the soundtrack can't be lush enough, why curtail it then?orchestration/timbral limits are curtailed and are often meddled with in the final dubb anyway (for the benefit dialogue and sfx)
Another often repeated conflation here:phrase lengths, dramatic arc, any expressiveness is subjugated and determined by the screen and director,
[...]
. In the worst cases a dictatorial aesthetic from the director who may even change notes here and there or insisting on the composer having to copy temp tracks as near as damn it. Any final music is literally the result of a creative committee which is fine for utility,
Creating magic out of restrictions is a rather common occurrence, so maybe it is part of the discussion?It should be obvious that a good composer will make musical sense of awkward timings, sync points and other restrictions, that's not what the discussion is about.
Is "musical theatre" a particular genre though - as opposed to just anything that isn't called an opera instead? How'd they call a musical done in a full-blown jazz style?I'm reminded of the stage musical City of Angels (for which I musical directed many years ago at a high end amateur theatre), which is designed as a 1940s-ish film noir tribute, so much so that half the show is designed to be in black & white.
The score is mostly Big Band sounding, but curiously is not SCORED as a Big Band score . . . it's a musical theatre score arranged to SOUND like a Big Band.
Although my knowledge of jazz composition is limited, we had some musicians in the orchestra who were very familiar with Big Band, and were amused at how the score was arranged to sound like Big Band, yet was playable by typical pit musicians.
Real jazz musicians can tell the difference. I can "fake" playing jazz, but real jazz players can instantly recognize that my chord voicings are NOT jazz voicings, even though untrained listeners might be fooled.
The loop in the 1st obviously consists of 2 segments - the 2nd one continuing from the same opening phrase but then going a different (and arguably somewhat more complex) route.Not necessarily ostinato.
See the difference between this track...
and this other one.
The second track exposes the theme of the first track at the beginning, and then after 1:27 there is a development based on the initial theme. At the end, after 2:28, the initial theme is still reprised.
In the first track there is only the basic theme. If the second track would simply orchestrate the melody of the first track, maybe Classic FM wouldn't have accepted it in the Classic FM Hall of Fame.
Well this is a very short loop of course, the bit that gets looped is like 1 minute and wouldn't really work as a singular beginning-to-end "piece" (works great in a loop though), or feel complete enough;The looping of a track is still a different thing. Of course in a videogame the track must loop, but to loop a track of Mozart is a different thing in respect to loop a static theme.
Well there's a lot of rejoinders to pick through here. What's clear from the somewhat sardonic micro-surgery is that you are not a composer Yusufe, or if you are, you have no film/media/utility music experience. So, from a composer's perspective, not a listeners......(with apologies to the veterans of this thread for any repetition).
Sure, "working together with the screen" is an excellent phrase but there's nothing amiss in calling film music utility music because that is what most of it is. The art of scoring is different to the art of composing for oneself. My point about the "committee" as you eventually surmised, was meant to imply that symphonies and concert work are not created that way.
I wasn't inferring anything about program and theatre music btw but as you've mentioned them, it's clear to me that program music leaves many more compositional parameters free from external influence for the composer than film music does, resulting in a more personal expression. Yes there is a literary structure, but that's about it and even that has no timing restrictions down to the second or frame. The creative freedom for interpretation has all of the major compositional parameters freely workable for the composer. I do believe that Theatre music is technically closer to film music however, as many more parameters have expectations and requirements that need to be met.
My argument stems from the way music has to be written for film and the potentially resulting artistic compromise that yields very different music compared to a concert hall approach. The composer who writes in both genres will tackle each with a different technical and aesthetic mindset. That compromise for the sake of popular immediacy, external drama and circumstances is deleterious to the form, depth of expression,musical narrative /development one might expect from say a symphony - hence the different compostional paradigms or 'hats' the composer will wear. The resulting musics are very different and its that difference that casts a doubt on the concert hall validity of some film music for me because I equate the term 'concert hall' with untrammelled masterful composition. YMMV.
Debussy was under no restrictions and wrote what he wanted - the music is valid as personal expression for me, in comparison to the more necessarily diluted form of expression a composer may have to employ for composing FM. Our definitions of 'absolute' quite understandably are very different. Mine is to the letter and technique, music for music's sake.
The assumption that FM is weaker than CHM (concert hall music) is actually a considered judgement that only occurs for me when they are directly compared in every aspect because then I have issues. These issues obviously stem from my experiences in media and musical and insider know-how - perhaps thats my burden but I'm happy with its conclusions. Perhaps FM and CM should not be compared at all as they are created for different purposes and with very different outcomes. I like lots of film music (have even written some myself) and have already stated earlier in the thread that I believe the best of it has a place in the concert hall.
The language restriction refers mostly to harmony and line. In the context of the OP title, this is a big deal. I can do no better with explanation than urge you to listen to 10 minutes of J Williams' First Violin Concerto. In that work you hear Williams without external restrictions and the resulting music is more profound in expressive and musical intent. It is also in a different language to the 'Star Wars' main theme. The differences are so marked that one would be hard pressed to say they where the same composer. Everything about that work and others by him, from the long expansive, free-ranging linear lines and development, through to the harmonic basis and expressionist tone are at odds with his popular tunes and the duties they need to fulfill.
Film music is very restrictive in its timings for musical phrasing and general narrative, this is patently obvious. From sync points to scene durations (with hit points along the way if needed within the one cue), to emotional arcs and instant shifts in mood. It's a given for a composer to have to make these durational happenings and events seem musically inevitable - thats just being professional. Non- musical requirements and expectations have no say in creating CHM unless the composer wants them and even then, they are subjugated to his/hers imagination and timings. FM is only stifling to a composer who also writes for the concert hall in that the composer will not use the full technical arsenal available to him. This is how it should be and actually is, it is not a put down of FM itself. It does become an issue for me when compared to master works in the canon though.
That's far too simplistic from a composer's pov. The composer of opera has many more freedoms technically than the composer of film music. It's the varying degrees of technical and expressive freedom that matter and their resulting impact on the end music. Some freedoms are curtailed more, some less so between differing genres. The less there are the better, but none other than what the composer enforces is best of all.
Because the film composer has to write in an immediately comprehensible w
ay which precludes the more complex harmony/language they might wish to use in CHM. There are exceptions of course but generally speaking a film composer will gravitate to the tonal by default and for good reason. That's not an issue for me, however I don't expect a composer's CHM to be as handicapped. There is no conflation, it's just simply as it is.
Well you seem pretty sure about this and yet the above is one of the reasons I know you don't know much about the other side, at the filmscore coalface which is quite understandable. It's not uncommon for the composer to deliver to the dubbing studio what's known as 'stems' - a breakdown of the music into a selection of similar tracks rather than a single full mix file. The collaboration of SFX and music you mention can be made more effective when the dubbing engineer has more micro-control over all audio. To save me typing, scroll down from here below to 'Music Scoring for Film and TV Productions'.
Stems In Music Production - Everything You Need To Know | Production Expert
The opposite being that I was once told that the engineer who dubbed a lot of Goldsmith's scores, used to have such faith in his work that he would literally set the level for the full mix of music and hardly touch it during the dubb. These days, stems are more prevalent in the dubbing theatre and yes, re-mixing occurs.
Well that's all a little OTT if you don't mind me saying so, tetchy even. Money making and producers, well who'd have thought..LOL. The collaboration between director and composer has to be congnizant not only of artistic success.
Couldn't agree more with the proviso that any restrictions are best self-imposed if the music is intended for the concert hall. As always YMMV.
What exactly do you mean by "complex" vs. "tonal"?Because the film composer has to write in an immediately comprehensible way which precludes the more complex harmony/language they might wish to use in CHM. There are exceptions of course but generally speaking a film composer will gravitate to the tonal by default and for good reason. That's not an issue for me, however I don't expect a composer's CHM to be as handicapped. There is no conflation, it's just simply as it is.
The language restriction refers mostly to harmony and line. In the context of the OP title, this is a big deal. I can do no better with explanation than urge you to listen to 10 minutes of J Williams' First Violin Concerto. In that work you hear Williams without external restrictions and the resulting music is more profound in expressive and musical intent. It is also in a different language to the 'Star Wars' main theme. The differences are so marked that one would be hard pressed to say they where the same composer. Everything about that work and others by him, from the long expansive, free-ranging linear lines and development, through to the harmonic basis and expressionist tone are at odds with his popular tunes and the duties they need to fulfill.
I'll check out both of these in a short while.Well you seem pretty sure about this and yet the above is one of the reasons I know you don't know much about the other side, at the filmscore coalface which is quite understandable. It's not uncommon for the composer to deliver to the dubbing studio what's known as 'stems' - a breakdown of the music into a selection of similar tracks rather than a single full mix file. The collaboration of SFX and music you mention can be made more effective when the dubbing engineer has more micro-control over all audio. To save me typing, scroll down from here below to 'Music Scoring for Film and TV Productions'.
Stems In Music Production - Everything You Need To Know | Production Expert
The opposite being that I was once told that the engineer who dubbed a lot of Goldsmith's scores, used to have such faith in his work that he would literally set the level for the full mix of music and hardly touch it during the dubb. These days, stems are more prevalent in the dubbing theatre and yes, re-mixing occurs.
htt ps://ww w.youtube.com/watch?v=VwVtPlIO5L8&t=82m36sFilm music is very restrictive in its timings for musical phrasing and general narrative, this is patently obvious. From sync points to scene durations (with hit points along the way if needed within the one cue), to emotional arcs and instant shifts in mood. It's a given for a composer to have to make these durational happenings and events seem musically inevitable - thats just being professional. Non- musical requirements and expectations have no say in creating CHM unless the composer wants them and even then, they are subjugated to his/hers imagination and timings. FM is only stifling to a composer who also writes for the concert hall in that the composer will not use the full technical arsenal available to him. This is how it should be and actually is, it is not a put down of FM itself. It does become an issue for me when compared to master works in the canon though.
]quote[
That's far too simplistic from a composer's pov. The composer of opera has many more freedoms technically than the composer of film music. It's the varying degrees of technical and expressive freedom that matter and their resulting impact on the end music. Some freedoms are curtailed more, some less so between differing genres. The less there are the better, but none other than what the composer enforces is best of all.
Theoretically, the term CM can be narrowed and stretched anywhere from only the most complex, long, and/or autonomously written stuff from Renaissance to early 20th century, to including pretty much anything that isn't full-blown folk played by rurals;Maybe you question should be broadened to include musicals. Why don't we consider
Broadway Musicals as classical music?
That sounds quite plausible, however rn I'm struggling to think of such a concrete example (esp. within 1 movie), so can't really comment atm.Thanks.
Can I add that film music is also written for the end credits, so it's not always restricted from the editing? Can I also add that not always the best music is found in the end credits and that the music written for scenes can be better as standalone music?
My impression's that it's going pretty strong and doesn't need relaunching, but idk don't have the whole picture on this.I simply wrote that atonal music and pastiches of Mozart's music, or continously reproposing old music, won't work. If you want to relaunch classical music,
You mean romanticism and post?you have to copy film music. It's the future.
It's interesting that in that discussion you read a specific attack towards modernist music, since I also wrote that you can't relaunch classical music with old music or with pastiches of old music. Since I like the music of Mozart, it's clear that the above observation is not an attack towards Mozart's music. I just take note of reality: the music of Mozart doesn't connect with new generations.
A bit more precisely (though not immediately relevant to the topic at hand), I think 00:56 is called the 2nd (or 2ndary?) theme, while 0:28 is the transition (modulation / un-modulation, respectively) into the 2nd theme, and 1:15 the conclusion of the exposition - forgot the precise terms.
- 00:00 - 00:28: First theme
- 00:28 - 00:56: Second theme
- 00:56 - 01:15 Third theme
- 01:15 - 01:35 Fourth theme
Well who respects whom is a whole other question, however I'm quite sure if I did that and then added a short simple middle section (in the tripartite sense, or similar) that wouldn't make everyone go from not respecting me at all, to a lot lolAs the definition of classical music is vague, it's not that you can not orchestrate a static theme and say that it's classical music, but to join the domain of the RESPECTED classical music composers is an other thing. If you orchestrate static themes, the folks will compare your piece with the ones of the 15 years old Mozart and will say that there is not enough creativity in your works.
The ones who're famous now, yeah I think so; whether all their contemporary colleagues as well, don't know right now;I think that a lied or song is not meant to be sophisticate as an instrumental piece, but remember that the great composers have all composed symphonies/concertos/sonatas/masses/opera.
Curious about a few more aspects here:I'll assume that your question is serious.
Well, we can't even decide where to draw the line when it comes to dividing Classical from non-Classical.
But the Broadway Musical genre is occasionally operatic in nature, but more than often, it ISN'T.
To really understand it's place in the Musical Spectrum, one must go all the way back to Oratorio, the development of Opera, then the offshoots of Comic Opera and Operetta, AND how they led to a somewhat linear development that branched off to Stage Musicals.
But there's almost a direct line from the Gilbert & Sullivan operettas, to their new lives in the United States in the works of Reginald De Koven (Robin Hood, 1890), John Philip Sousa (El Capitan, 1896), Victor Herbert (Babes in Toyland, 1903), and Sigmund Romberg (The Student Prince, 1924; The Desert Song, 1926), etc..
After that were the rise of semi-operatic musicals developed by Oscar Hammerstein II, Jerome Kern, Lorenz Hart, Richard Rodgers, then to the likes of Sondheim, Lucy Simon, and Andrew Lloyd Webber.
The problem with including Broadway Musicals as "Classical Music" is similar to the question of whether "Film Music" is Classical.
Musicals can be Classical (West Side Story), and many have Classical elements, whether it's the singing style (Oklahoma) or the composing style (Sweeney Todd). The problem is that so many musicals are pointing NOT Classical (Gypsy, Oliver!, Annie, Nunsense, Spamalot, Falsettos, Beauty and the Beast, Finian's Rainbow, The King & I, etc.).
Yeah I was obviously talking about a prolonged period and not an exact date lolThere is no clear point at which the "branching" occurred. It was a gradual transition. It was already happening with Gilbert & Sullivan in the 1880s, where they would incorporate oddball elements such as a "Minstrel Show".
One cannot point to a year and definitively say that's when Classical changed into Romantic either.
Um, what?
Hm couldn't find anything about "Olios" (except the spider genus that is).Theatre would have songs, although it was likely to occur between scenes ("Olios"), and might have nothing to do with the plot of the show. If a song were inserted into the action, it was likely a popular song that a director put in a song that made sense.
There were also "Revue" shows that were very popular, and Vaudeville (and it's black sheep sister Burlesque).
In my previous reply I neglected to mention Jacques Offenbach who was writing operettas from the 1850s to the 1870s, and was certainly an influence on the very early development of Musical Theatre.
But it really comes down to Gilbert and Sullivan's profound influence on later musical theatre, creating examples of how to "integrate" musicals so that the lyrics and dialogue were designed to advance a coherent story.
If I had to make an offhand determination as to points that changed things, it would be
1. Gilbert and Sullivan's HMS Pinafore (1878), and its follow-up The Pirates of Penzance (1879)
2. Victor Herbert's Naughty Marietta (1910)
3. Jerome Kern and Oscar Hammerstein's Showboat (1927)
4. The Gershwin Brothers' Porgy and Bess (1935)
5. Rodgers and Hammerstein's Oklahoma (1943)
To clarify, the score of Dune composed by Hans Zimmer for example has nothing to do with classical music, at least not with classical music of the common pratice period.
Other film scores, like for example the ones of The Age Of Innocence or "Sense and sensibility", are 100% classical, until proven otherwise. If you think that the sky is not blue, prove it!
Sense and sensibility (@Aries, an other recommended score of the nineties)
Age of Innocence
