Classical Music Forum banner
221 - 240 of 614 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,956 Posts
I’m simply making a point. A few posters have rejected film music as CM and made it sound like it’s a no-brainer that avante-garde is. You have indicated how these decisions are made and clarified it more to my liking above. It’s interesting to me that a few here read my position as trying to eliminate avante-garde. No, I’m questioning why it gets to stay and film music has to go. (And again, I’m not all that invested in this. I decided to respond when a poster early on, without equivocation, totally rejected film music.)
The biggest obstacle to coming to a reasonable conclusion in all of this is that there is no CONSENSUS as to the scope of the phrase CLASSICAL MUSIC .

Of course, it all overlaps. Classical, avant-garde, experimental, pop, rock.

Is ELEANOR RIGBY "classical". It's a string quartet with solo voice and vocal ensemble.

Is Albrechtsberger Concertos for Jew's Harp, Mandora and Strings "classical"? Is the Jew's Harp a "Classical" instrument?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,963 Posts
Perhaps you should rethink the use of words such as ‘delusional’ and ‘not coherent’. Pretty hard to misunderstand their meaning.
The "delusional" was used in the context of an "if" conditional; and I already corrected you that I did not say "not coherent," I said "not logically coherent." You have a pathological habit of misreading/misunderstanding me and you apparently don't believe in the principle of charity in discussion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,373 Posts
The "delusional" was used in the context of an "if" conditional; and I already corrected you that I did not say "not coherent," I said "not logically coherent." You have a pathological habit of misreading/misunderstanding me and you apparently don't believe in the principle of charity in discussion.
Well no, there is no ‘logically’ below. You’ve placed fast and loose with variations of ‘not coherent’. And just for the record. to say ‘most people do not seem to have a very rationally thorough, coherent..view on the subject’ is to suggest that you are the one who has the rational, coherent view and those who disagree have an irrational, incoherent view.

Eva Yohimbo said:
What I've observed throughout this thread is that most people do not seem to have a very rationally thorough, coherent, and consistent view on this subject that is capable of explaining many (much less most) of all the relevant elements of artistic enjoyment and appreciation. (#442 in the ‘other’ thread)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,963 Posts
Well no, there is no ‘logically’ below. You’ve placed fast and loose with variations of ‘not coherent’. And just for the record. to say ‘most people do not seem to have a very rationally thorough, coherent..view on the subject’ is to suggest that you are the one who has the rational, coherent view and those who disagree have an irrational, incoherent view.
You're absolutely correct, I used "rationally" instead of "logically." Pretty much the same thing (logic is one specific type of rationality). If I actually believed someone was incoherent I would say "I don't understand what you mean by X, can you explain/elaborate on X?" which I have done repeatedly. Yes, I obviously think I have a rationally coherent view and that others do not. If I thought others had a rationally coherent view then I would agree with them. That's how discussion/debate works. If you disagree with me then you must think my view is not rationally coherent... unless you just disagree with me for emotional reasons.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,203 Posts
There is plenty of orchestral avant garde music. It is true that there are specialist ensembles catering for a lot of avant garde music (including quertets) but in Britain at least we do get quite a lot of new orchestral music. MacMillan (not a favourite of mine), Anna Clyne, Birtwistle and others (even Ferneyhough) are played quite often by British orchestras. Many British orchestras also have "composers in residence" writing music specifically for them. Yes, most orchestras programme a lot of meat and gravy music - the same pieces (some of them very great, many of them less great) and selections from the scores of popular film scores are joining this fayre. I've nothing against it or its capacity to generate income but those are not concerts that I have wanted to attend. Most orchestras of repute also programme concerts of less often played music - whether it be a less well known Haydn of Dvorak symphony, some Berlioz, Schmidt or Zemlinsky (all of these are quite rare), or something quite new. Those are the concerts that I (and, I suspect, most members here) might attend. They are also the ones more likely to be conducted by a "name".

I like a lot of music but have little time for music that, no matter how pleasant it might be, does not actually transport me. Of course, that is a matter of my taste.
I think you're using avant garde in a historical sense. I don't know Clyne, but Macmillan, and Birtwistle are basically establishment. They're not cutting edge now. Ferneyhough's new complexity is like forty years old. What is cutting edge is played by specialist ensembles, or smaller ensembles. Going way back to when Boulez started conducting, he said one of his big motivations was because his own music wasn't being played properly. Later on, he founded Ensemble Intercontemporain. This trend started with Schoenberg. Those who knew contemporary music best took it over.

In any case, the people who like warhorses or contemporary classical as played by mainstream orchestras are the same old crowd who have been going to concerts for ages. Orchestras can rely on them to keep coming, but they aren't enough to ensure their viability in the medium to long term.

Classical isn't the only form of entertainment in town, and to survive it has to nourish and grow its audience. The growth, or the money, is coming from the areas orchestras have been moving into - film, video game and television music. In effect, its these new audiences that are subsidising the old warhorse/highbrow contemporary format.

Honestly, what "most members here" think about an issue like this has no bearing on what's happening in reality. Its the forces on the ground which are shaping the future of culture, including music. You might not be happy with what you call dumbing down, but the reality is that if they ignored this area of new growth, orchestras would be giving up a big part of their revenue. In the USA, the situation is already dire (but the causes there have little to do with repertoire). In other places like the UK, where the situation is better, it pays not to be complacent. What's being done now will have impact in decades to come.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,469 Posts
By TODAY'S definition, yes, "Pluto was never a planet".

But it was the definition that changed, not Pluto. Years ago Pluto was a planet, by definition.

Pluto was discovered on February 18th, 1930

Pluto was reclassified from a planet to a "dwarf planet" in 2006. You can safely refer to it as a "former planet".

[The more I write the word "planet" the stranger the word looks.]

From 1930 when it was discovered up until 2006, Pluto was also considered the ninth planet of the solar system. It used to be considered a planet.
The reason I thought it might be a helpful analogy is that Pluto being called a planet here would obviously not be called a planet in another solar system. And this finding if it's confirmed - who knows what how it will help the progress of science. The point is, we put Pluto in a strict category constrained by such details as, the influence of the Sun in its formation and its size among the its traveling companions. 1400 miles diameter would almost fit into the Amaerican Midwest, much smaller than our Moon.
If we have strict categories in music (if we strive for them) it's all likewise universally applicable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,373 Posts
You're absolutely correct, I used "rationally" instead of "logically." Pretty much the same thing (logic is one specific type of rationality). If I actually believed someone was incoherent I would say "I don't understand what you mean by X, can you explain/elaborate on X?" which I have done repeatedly. Yes, I obviously think I have a rationally coherent view and that others do not. If I thought others had a rationally coherent view then I would agree with them. That's how discussion/debate works. If you disagree with me then you must think my view is not rationally coherent... unless you just disagree with me for emotional reasons.
You can double-speak all you want, but you’re mistaken if you think you can say people don’t have a rationally coherent view and think that it is not taken as a personal insult. But then, maybe you’re in the habit of telling your friends you don’t agree with that they are not rationally coherent and this is just your everyday form of communication.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,963 Posts
You can double-speak all you want, but you’re mistaken if you think you can say people don’t have a rationally coherent view and think that it is not taken as a personal insult. But then, maybe you’re in the habit of telling your friends you don’t agree with that they are not rationally coherent and this is just your everyday form of communication.
There's no "double-speak," there's just you assuming what I mean without consulting me first and then running with your misunderstanding. Hell, the quote YOU provided showed that I added the "rationally" qualifier, which you did not.

Also, I'm not concerned about your pearl-clutching over insults given your frequent passive-aggressive insulting of myself. I have no problem telling friends they're being rationally incoherent if I feel they are, though if they're friends I might do it in a nicer way. I'm less concerned about civility after being accused of "armchair philosophizing" and being a "wandering mind" and being an "oxygen-eating subjectivist" (and I could quote more examples if I waded through 50+ pages).
 

·
Registered
Mahler
Joined
·
3,907 Posts
There are members who believe that film music can be a form of classical music.
There are some who do not.
After all of this hot air I seriously doubt if anyone has changed his mind.
So what if Johnson does not believe film can be classical. That is his problem not mine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chibi Ubu

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,142 Posts
I think you're using avant garde in a historical sense. I don't know Clyne, but Macmillan, and Birtwistle are basically establishment. They're not cutting edge now. Ferneyhough's new complexity is like forty years old. What is cutting edge is played by specialist ensembles, or smaller ensembles. Going way back to when Boulez started conducting, he said one of his big motivations was because his own music wasn't being played properly. Later on, he founded Ensemble Intercontemporain. This trend started with Schoenberg. Those who knew contemporary music best took it over.
I agree. They are yesterday's demons. No doubt today's demons will also slide into the acceptable repertoire category in time.

In any case, the people who like warhorses or contemporary classical as played by mainstream orchestras are the same old crowd who have been going to concerts for ages. Orchestras can rely on them to keep coming, but they aren't enough to ensure their viability in the medium to long term.
I'm not sure why you are saying this as if you are arguing against my position. Orchestras need financial support to survive.

Classical isn't the only form of entertainment in town, and to survive it has to nourish and grow its audience. The growth, or the money, is coming from the areas orchestras have been moving into - film, video game and television music. In effect, its these new audiences that are subsidising the old warhorse/highbrow contemporary format.
I think orchestras were making more money from films 50 years ago than they are now. Certainly, their players were.

Honestly, what "most members here" think about an issue like this has no bearing on what's happening in reality. Its the forces on the ground which are shaping the future of culture, including music. You might not be happy with what you call dumbing down, but the reality is that if they ignored this area of new growth, orchestras would be giving up a big part of their revenue. In the USA, the situation is already dire (but the causes there have little to do with repertoire). In other places like the UK, where the situation is better, it pays not to be complacent. What's being done now will have impact in decades to come.
"Most members here" represents a group of people with experience and knowledge of classical music. It may be a reality that they are a minority - I have said as much repeatedly - but do you really think that what we do here is just identify the reality? We can't suggest that changes are needed or recognise that some suggestions for changes might bring negative results? What I have been saying (in case you missed it) is that it is time for states to recognise that the arts are precious and that enriching the cultural lives of their populations has no down side. Of course, such a view is heresy in USA and is fast becoming so in Britain, which is politically in thrall to the US.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,203 Posts
I didn't miss anything you said.

Seriously, I've answered you as directly as I could, and now you're giving me reductio ad absurdum (its obvious I wasn't talking about orchestra members earning pocket money by recording film soundtracks) and slippery slope (as I said, music can be mere entertainment for some people, while for others it can be more than that).

I am here to talk, not to do the tired internet routine of throwing potshots, making smokescreens and trading logical fallacies. I think that would be an insult for both of us. Let's put this conversation to bed, we've talked enough about this anyway.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,142 Posts
I wonder if anyone can think of any films where the music is as popular as the actual film or more so? I know of one - Louis Malle's Ascenseur Pour L'echafaud - a film that drew attention because of its Miles Davis soundtrack. There must be others but for the Hollywood films the quality of the score is mostly judged by its effectiveness in following or underlining the action.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
296 Posts
I wonder if anyone can think of any films where the music is as popular as the actual film or more so? I know of one - Louis Malle's Ascenseur Pour L'echafaud - a film that drew attention because of its Miles Davis soundtrack. There must be others but for the Hollywood films the quality of the score is mostly judged by its effectiveness in following or underlining the action.
One needs an excellent score written for a bad or fair-for-its-day but by now very dated film. Hence it only reliably applies to the scores by Shostakovich, Prokofiev, and Korngold... with Jerry Goldsmith it might be about even, it's hard to guess whether there are more fans of trashy B-movies of the 1960s-1990s or of his music.

Composers writing for films have little chance to exceed the popularity of the film with their work because of the order of magnitude of difference between the number of enthusiasts of cinema and of classical music. One should also consider that music bound to a film by copyright has a hard time becoming widespread through other media or platforms.

A good way out of that are concerts. I knew nothing of The Godfather when I heard the music at a concert, and the only programmatic aid were short excerpts from Mario Puzo's book read between the pieces. I have never got to like the film.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,142 Posts
One needs an excellent score written for a bad or fair-for-its-day but by now very dated film. Hence it only reliably applies to the scores by Shostakovich, Prokofiev, and Korngold... with Jerry Goldsmith it might be about even, it's hard to guess whether there are more fans of trashy B-movies of the 1960s-1990s or of his music.

Composers writing for films have little chance to exceed the popularity of the film with their work because of the order of magnitude of difference between the number of enthusiasts of cinema and of classical music. One should also consider that music bound to a film by copyright has a hard time becoming widespread through other media or platforms.

A good way out of that are concerts. I knew nothing of The Godfather when I heard the music at a concert, and the only programmatic aid were short excerpts from Mario Puzo's book read between the pieces. I have never got to like the film.
Prokofiev's film music was written for truly great films and we know his music because he prepared suites from his film music. As for The Godfather: it just might be the greatest Hollywood film ever! But I am not necessarily asking for music that is more popular than the film it was written for - that would indeed be a test - but merely films where the music attracted as much interest among people with some interest in music as the film did among film lovers. There must be some but I can't think of them. It is interesting to compare this with operas and ballets which are loved at least as much for their music as for the drama.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
392 Posts
Discussion Starter · #238 · (Edited)
Prokofiev's film music was written for truly great films and we know his music because he prepared suites from his film music. As for The Godfather: it just might be the greatest Hollywood film ever! But I am not necessarily asking for music that is more popular than the film it was written for - that would indeed be a test - but merely films where the music attracted as much interest among people with some interest in music as the film did among film lovers. There must be some but I can't think of them. It is interesting to compare this with operas and ballets which are loved at least as much for their music as for the drama.
I can't speak for all people, but my favourite part of the Lion King is the score and I recently watched the film only because I wanted to hear the music inside the context.

You can't expect that the score is more popular than the film, because people today listen to rap, trap and pop music. Look at the statistics!
The famous films are created to stay within the market trend, while their music doesn't. Hans Zimmer, John Williams and so on... wouldn't be able to have a good revenue for their work if they were not paid by film producers. Their music is out of market. They are not able to compete with rappers, trappers and pop singers.
 

·
Read Only
Joined
·
2,024 Posts
Prokofiev's film music was written for truly great films and we know his music because he prepared suites from his film music. As for The Godfather: it just might be the greatest Hollywood film ever! But I am not necessarily asking for music that is more popular than the film it was written for - that would indeed be a test - but merely films where the music attracted as much interest among people with some interest in music as the film did among film lovers. There must be some but I can't think of them. It is interesting to compare this with operas and ballets which are loved at least as much for their music as for the drama.
Well this might be one case where your "blockbuster" observation might apply. The Godfather score is inextricably linked to the movie, and I don't think it's very interesting at all apart from that context, whether it's "classical" or not. YMMV
 
221 - 240 of 614 Posts
Top