Classical vs. Film: A New Look Part II

by Filmbuff32

For those who had a chance to read my last article, "Classical vs. Film: A New Look," thanks for taking the time. Several responses were received, and I would like to take the time to respond to them. I hope this clears some things up.

From Alan Andres:

For years there has been a desire on the part of film music fans, and some film composers for that matter, to break down the barrier separating "film music" and "classical concert music." I would compare this to similar attempts to recognize commercial illustration as fine art, science fiction and mysteries as literature or my own desire to have the Swedish Academy recognize film as a suitable medium for the Nobel Prize for Literature (if Dario Fo is applicable, isn't Ingmar Bergman or Akira Kurosawa?). Some of these battles are already being won (for example the Museum of Modern Art just closed an exhibition of Soviet film posters by the Stenberg brothers). The main value of any such arguments is to make people rethink their definitions of "concert music" "fine art" or "literature", however these arguments are just as much motivated by a desire to elevate what is commonly considered a "lesser" art form to respectability, and, accordingly, also elevate those who passionately champion the work, and counteract feelings of exclusion.

(I would contend that a comparison of the music from "Star Wars" and Beethoven is a bit dangerous. To write: "If a concert of Star Wars music is just as aesthetically pleasing as a Beethoven symphony to an audience, then why are they considered as functionally different?" only raises the wrong question.)

While I love film music, there is only a fraction that I think can judged of superior quality when compared to the multitude of concert works composed during the same century.

The comparison between film/classical and sci-fi/literature is definately appropriate, but does society need to consider these 'lesser' art forms? Are they lesser because they are more new or modern? Are they lesser because they don't fit the traditional formats of classical composition or fine literature? Just something to think about. I don't think I would consider film music a lesser art form, except on the grounds of intellectual composition. It takes much more ability to write a complete symphony than to compose a few thinly orchestrated 'catchy' themes. Although, I do think both are valid. And it is also true that some people cannot write things that would appeal to the masses. But, the question of validity cannot be answered unless a change in definition of legitimate 'artistic expression' occurs.

Most film scores do not come close to the quality of a Bach, Mozart, or Beethoven concert work. And they certainly don't stand up to the originality of some of the creative masters of this century such as Arnold Schoenberg, Bela Bartok, Igor Stravinsky, and Krzysztof Penderecki. There are some which can stand alone, I think, but they are few and far between. Most film scores just 'get the job done'! They don't break any new ground or say anything artistically vibrant. How about some artistic integrity!!! Why not make good art?! A good example of this is James Horner's new score to Titanic. This is perhaps the most lousy and over-hyped score I have ever heard. Horner had tons of time to write this and got paid outrageously for it, but I think he really dropped the ball. The result sounded like some new takes on themes from Braveheart and the music of Enya. I don't think that is worth $750K! Where is the art in that? The full orchestra was barely used in this score. With a budget this high, I would expect some quality stuff, but I guess this is too much to ask.

Yes, the Beethoven/Star Wars idea was perhaps a dangerous thing to contrast. I did not want to belittle Beethoven at all, he is one of my favorite composers, in fact. My point really lies in the performance of film music. Functionally, it CAN serve the same purpose as classical music, it just hasn't in the past. Some orchestras have programmed Star Wars suites or other film themes on their concert schedules, but it is not common. I would like to see more composers constructing suites out of their film scores for performance. I know there are many other fans who would absolutely love to hear this music in a live setting! And yes, the Prokofiev cantatas and suites are good examples of this, but they are still looped in with the 'classical' genre. I think to establish more credibility with the critics, film composers should encourage performances of their music. A lot of people just haven't heard the great work they have done.

From Henry Fitzgerald (henry@coombs.anu.edu.au):

Rarely have I found myself so annoyed with an article I basically agreed with. Here's what Filmbuff32 *should* have said:

"Classical music" is a term which strictly applies to a fairly brief period in Western musical history: the period ushered in with C.P.E. Bach and typified by Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven, possibly the greatest three composers ever to live. The term has been stretched to include the ancestors of these men (baroque composers, or even earlier ones) and their descendents (the romantics and post-romantics). Whether someone is a classical composer or not will depend on how well he fits into this old traddition, and whether music is classical or not will depend on whether *it* fits into this traddition. Clearly, some film music does and some doesn't. "Alexander Nevsky" is a clear example of film music that deserves to be called classical; "Superfly" is just as clear an example of music that doesn't. There may be less clear examples. But unfortunately he went on and said more than this, and most of it needs correcting. There is *no* conspiracy on the part of *anyone* to keep Prokofiev's film music out of classical concert halls. "Lieutenant Kije" and "Alexander Nevsky" are ubiquitous. Sure, one is ubiquitous as a concert suite and one as a cantata, but that's the way of things.

There *is* at least one obvious difference between even the aims of classical composers even Verdi and Tchaikovsky and those of film composers, which Filmbuff32 failed to mention. Symphonies, operas and ballets are all meant to be heard in performances. They are accoustic arts. In fact, opera allegedly film music's closest cousin is the one which most depends on being heard live. Film music, on the other hand, is heard in its original form *as a recording*. Exactly how important this difference is, I'm not sure; but Filmbuff32 ought to have at least mentioned it, even if he couldn't think of anything to say in response. (I can't think of anything much.)

Filmbuff32 wishes film music to be recognised by the classical fraternity, but it already is. The trouble is that this doesn't mean it will be taken seriously. Ballet music before Delibes and Tchaikovsky isn't taken seriously (and with reason). Incidental stage music (outside Beethoven and Mendelssohn, and perhaps Grieg) tends to be ignored as well. I myself think that this is unfair: and, as incidental stage music really is film music's closest cousin (opera, indeed), I think the comparative neglect of film music also unfair. But not completely unfair. Whatever Filmbuff32's mythical audience may think, music for film and stage just isn't as important a part of the classical traddition, or less face it as *good*, as a Beethoven symphony. And whatever else the classical world is guilty of, it isn't guilty of inconsistency.

As I mentioned earlier, I think film music should aim to be performed, but in terms of 'classical' forms. Yes, this might mean a little re-writing by the composer or transformation into a suite, but the result would definately be worth the effort. Classical music is also a 'recorded' art. There are many people who cannot go to concerts, so the recording fulfills the function instead. To separate them into acoustic and recorded art forms is not accurate. They are both recorded, but film is not generally meant for the concert hall.

No, film music does not 'fit' into the tradition of Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, etc. for the most part, but that doesn't mean it is not a legitimate art form, that was my point. I never said that I wanted 'film music' as a whole to be considered 'classical' because that is just crazy, they are too different. But, they are both legitimate art forms. Some film music can fit into the 'classical tradition' even if not totally. I think it is appropriate at times to blend the two together, and at other times I am glad that film composers don't try to be 'classical' writers.

The Prokofiev pieces, I think are a little controversial. I think that Lietenant Kije definately deserves to be considered 'classical,' but for Alexander Nevsky I hesitate a little. Yes, it is great music, but it is much more fragmented like a traditional film score. Also, I think there are several modern film scores that are BETTER than Alexander Nevsky. For example, Schindler's List by Williams. The format of the two is the same. They both have individual pieces on the CD that last anywhere from 2-6 minutes. I personally like Schindler's List better. Now, why isn't that considered 'classical'? Just because Williams hasn't had the chance, or perhaps desire, to turn it into a concert suite? I don't think that is fair. They are virtually identical in format and function, so why the difference? It is little things like that where the discrepancy gets really apparent. There is no solution, I realize, but I think some film scores should get a little more credit.

I don't think that film music is accepted by the classical world. Some composers, yes (Herrman, Rozsa, Williams, Korngold, etc.), but as a whole no way. As far as film music not being as good as a Beethoven symphony, that is a subjective opinion. Some people may think that his symphonies are just lousy, in fact, I know a composer who doesn't even like Beethoven. I don't know how he can justify this, but the point is that the comparison is based on personal taste. A blanket statement is not appropriate. I, too, think that it is unfair that film music is neglected by much of the artistic world. My hope is that this will change. You are certainly right about the consistency of 'classical' music. Although, this sometimes comes across as arrogant and snobby. The tradition is set though, and if a composer wants to be considered 'classical' there are certain guidelines he or she must follow.

From Craig Byrd, bashuba@worldnet.att.net

If you want to really confuse the argument/discussion about what merits classical music and what is "merely" film music, take a look at Miklos Rozsa's work for Hitchcock's film "Spellbound." After writing the score, it was reworked into a concerto. Seems to me with this example you can have it both ways. Good music is good music. (Don't, however, get me started on Michael Nyman's overblown concerto for his music from "The Piano." That strikes me as arrogance run amok!)

I totally agree about the Nyman Piano Concerto. The music was nice in the film, but as a classical piece, there is absolutely NO WAY it can work. Nyman tried, but there is no continuity. I find his music quite boring anyway. Minimalism is good to a point, but some creativity helps! I hope the film suite/concerto idea catches on, it is certainly the best way for the people to resolve the issue of legitimacy. Thanks for the comments.

***

Well, now that all of that has been said, what is the point? To discuss all of these things makes a difference on the intellectual level to people who are interested in film scores and classical music, but what does that solve? The issue, really, is that the up and coming composers need to be aware of these things and make a difference in the future. I hope some of these barriers can be broken. And above all else, I hope that modern composers and those in the future will begin (or continue) to write with all of the artistic integrity that they can. That is the purpose of art in the first place...to make it as good as possible. I hope this discussion interests several readers, and, perhaps, even benefits some people. I hope the discussion can continue. Please feel free to send comments.