Classical vs. Film: A New Look

by Filmbuff32

In a world of vast musical possibilities, it is hard for one to judge what is legitimate or invalid as a form of musical expression. Some would argue that film music is not a legitimate art form, while others suggest that the genre of rap music is not music at all.

When it comes to a comparison between classical music and another genre, it is, perhaps, unfair to judge which is better or more artistic. The focus should be on the composer and his or her purpose in writing music in the first place. The job of a composer, whether in film or in the classical genre, is to create music which fulfills its function and which does not compromise in artistic integrity. This can be seen by comparing composers in the past and present, by comparing classical and film compositions, and by observing the areas where the two genres overlap.

The basic functions of the two genres do vary. Classical is traditionally for the concert stage, listening, and for analysis. Film music is usually seen functioning as an enhancement to the picture and for providing entertainment. But, in reality, these functions can be and have been synonymous and interchangeable. So, at this point, examining some particular composers and works may shed more light on the similarities and differences.

When examining some particular classical composers, one can see differences in functionality of pieces, yet these composers kept their artistic integrity. For example, Dmitri Shostakovich, the great Russian composer of the 20th century, wrote many traditional stage works including symphonies, string quartets, and piano works. But, in addition, he composed some music for the screen. His scores for King Lear, Hamlet, and the Gadfly include some creative music that can stand alone for good listening. Also, Sergei Prokofiev wrote music spanning several genres such as piano concertos, symphonies, ballet music, and a film score that is, perhaps, one of the most famous of all time, Alexander Nevsky.

Now, what makes these compositions individually legitimate? Function and artistic integrity do. When Prokofiev wrote his ballet music for Romeo and Juliet, he could not have developed the themes and progressions like a symphony because it would not make sense with what is going on with the dancers on the stage. So, he had to write from a functional point of view. So what differentiates this from a film score? The music had to fit actions and visual images just like in a film. So why is Romeo and Juliet considered a "classical" piece while Alexander Nevsky is considered by most just a film score. They are both reflective of actions and visual pictures seen by an audience, so functionally they are the same. Is it because in the past only "classical" composers supplied music for ballets that Romeo and Juliet is classical? Or is it because the genre of ballet is considered "classical"? If it is because Prokofiev, the "classical" composer, wrote it, then Alexander Nevsky should be considered "classical" as well. But, the bottom line is that both Shostakovich and Prokofiev wrote music that was functional and that had integrity according to their artistic visions, so all of this music must be considered legitimate.

When considering film composers there are many similarities also. Take John Williams, for a modern example. Many people are familiar with his film scores, yet few have heard his violin concerto or his recent bassoon concerto, The Five Sacred Trees. So, why is Star Wars different than the basson concerto? In a lot of ways they are not. Each of them has programmatic references; Star Wars, a leit motif for each character; and the basson concerto, a movement for each type of tree. Does the context determine the genre or do the building blocks of the music themselves make the difference? Yes, the bassoon concerto is developed in a more traditional, "classical" sense using traditional forms, but Star Wars incorporates much theme and variation. These are both "classical" techniques, so why the difference?

Also, another film composer of today, Elliot Goldenthal, has written several different types of music. His work for theater, Juan Darien, and his Vietnam oratorio, Fire Water Paper, are considered "classical" works. Again, why are these theater and programmatic works so different from his score to Batman Forever? As stated before, they are functionally the same. And as for the artistic integrity, the music speaks for itself. The difference is an unnecessary fabrication by those who thrive on finding variations in the smallest aspect of a composer's work or classification. After this comparison it will be necessary to examine where the classical and film worlds really overlap.

The building blocks of the music are essentially the same for classical works and film scores. They both incorporate the use of the orchestra. Recently, the sythesizer and other technological instruments have appeared in both genres. The development differs slightly between the two because of the variance in length of pieces and performance contexts, yet techniques like leit motif, theme and variation, and programmatic references are used frequently in both. When an overlap of these two genres occurs, that just emphasizes the point. 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? Music is music, regardless of its context, and the constant attempt to break these two categories up is useless. Richard Wagner used leit motif, and so did John Williams. Beethoven used theme and variation, and so do most film composers today. So the building blocks and functions are generally the same. Athough they may be used in different contexts, that doesn't mean that they should necessarily be classified as two totally separate genres, one legitimate, and the other illegitimate. Artistic integrity in film scores does suffer because of all of the technological demands and time restraints, but if a composer remains true to the voice of the music, this should not be a huge issue, and he or she will be able to transcend these small obstacles.

In conclusion, film composers and classical composers are not all that different after all. They use the same musical building blocks, they develop the music in essentially the same way, and they write for the same kinds of functional purposes. There must be consistency in the way these two genres are criticized. If Shostakovich's films scores are considered legitimate "classical" works, then so must those written by John Williams. Granted, the former is a film composer first, but that should not make a difference. A composer is a composer, no matter what he or she writes, and if he or she remains true to the music and applies it functionally to the correct context, then it should not matter whether or not it is a film score or a classical piece. They are both valid and legitimate works of musical art. If the focus is taken away from the labels society places on everything, then, perhaps, the similarities will be easier to see. But until that day, there will continue to be a vast difference between the world of film scoring and the world of classical music.

***

A few notes by Lukas:

I am always glad when people take the care and thought to write a piece such as this. I had a few "devil's advocate" (not the Keanu Reeves movie, or as we would refer to it, the James Newton Howard movie) responses. For one thing, film music is often different from classical music in that the necessities of film violate certain formal structures inherent in classical music.

Christopher makes the argument that ballet scores, too, often violate formal structures, and the one thing people have always cited as most similar to film scores are operas. However, I must disagree. There are many film scores that are "operatic" in that the narrative is tied closely to the music, like Star Wars or Conan the Barbarian--the case with ballet scores and opera scores, they tell a story. However, there are many other fine scores which are clearly subservient to a narrative, but which bear little trace of that narrative apart from the picture. For example, atmospheric scores, or rock, jazz or pop ones. Not only do these lack formal structures of classical music, but taken apart from the movies they lack the formal structures of storytelling.

The thing is, they're pretty darn good film scores. I think that ultimately some people will never accept film music as a form of classical music, but they will accept film music as a part of film, and hence, a form of art. That's what I want.

Have any ideas? Send them! MailBag@filmscoremonthly.com