Readers React: Classical vs. Film

Compiled by Lukas Kendall

If you're wondering about the Oscar contents, we actually prepare these FSD articles a day or two ahead of time, so see our message board where, hopefully by now, we've posted the winners. And see yesterday's column by Jeff Eldridge on some statistical anomalies behind the Oscars. Although, despite the silliness of the contents, Jeff Bond and I have learned one thing while being here in Los Angeles: why are the Oscars taken so seriously? Because people assume that other people take them seriously!

I want to thank everyone who sent in their thoughts about "what makes you buy a soundtrack?" from last week's This News Friday. The results were plentiful and fascinating. I'll compile them asap and upload them--I also hope to have very soon news on some developments which I was interested in this impromptu "market research"!

The following reactions we received to Steve Halfyard's article last week discussing film and classical music, a topic we've thrashed about quite a bit. I'm zonked so I'll let the comments speak for themselves:

From: "John " <JNSAHARA@classic.msn.com>

Most poignantly said. I couldn't agree more. I like your point about trying to fit Film Music into the Classical "mold" making it somehow lesser in its own right. By stressing its own place in musical history, Film Music can be seen for what it is... it becomes its own mold. Thanks for a very enjoyable article.

From: Josh Gizelt <AM0QC@qcvaxa.acc.qc.edu>

Mr. Halfyard's article, posted on Tuesday, is very important; in fact (no offense to anyone else) I think it is one of the best film-music related articles that I've read in a very long time.

Mr. Halfyard's points are well taken, and as I stated in my article not so long ago, if it is not fair to compare Bob Marley and Vaughan Williams, then it is not fair to compare Bernard Herrmann to Richard Wagner (or something like that).

I think the problem with the comparison is that since so much film music (or at least, famous film music) is written for an orchestral group, people confuse the idioms. No such confusion occurs when discussing show music, and there are no problems accepting George Gershwin as both a Broadway composer as well as an "Art Music" composer. The differences between how the orchestra is utilized in a show and in the concert hall is quite clear. It is not so clear in films, where the idiom sounds like it is much closer to the 19th century romantic style.

I like Christopher Young and Neil Young, I like Elliot Goldenthal and the Rolling Stones, I like John Williams and Ralph Vaughan Williams, I like Patrick Doyle and the Allman Brother's Band, and, damn it, I like Bob Marley, Bernard Herrmann and Richard Wagner. I don't feel the need to justify this, but if I was to discuss why I like a particular cue or song, I will draw from other examples in the same or related idioms, rather than comparing "You Can't Always Get What You Want" by the Stones to "Symphony #1: The Sea" by Vaughan Williams.

Vaughan Williams, Sergei Prokofiev, Bernard Herrman and Aaron Copeland all arranged music from their film scores to a different medium, the concert hall. There is nothing wrong with that, but it in no way detracts from the work as it appears in the film.

It's kind of like orchestrating a piano score into a work for a quartet, or even an orchestra; THEY SERVE DIFFERENT PURPOSES. Let's not forget, even on our beloved soundtrack albums, the music is often presented in such a way as so to make it more palatable as a pure listening experience. Anyone with a problem with Rhino's "North by Northwest" (other than the dropouts in sound during the fandango cues) can E-mail the hell out of me. Go ahead. I'm serious.

From: Miguel Rosario <mrosario@imail.valpo.k12.in.us>

I thought that Mr. Halfyard's article was a well written essay on his opinion about the much talked issue of film music vs. concert music. He presented the his ideas in a well behaved manner and supported his arguments with well thought debate. The reason that I am responding to him is to make a correction to one of his remarks. He mentions that there are not symphonic works written with 17 movements between 1 minute to 5 minutes in length. I would ask Mr. Halfyard to please review the symphonic poems works of Richard Strauss (1864-1949). Many of his works are composed as single movement symphonic works but with several subtitles to take the listener to a specific point in the music. Take for example his "A Hero's Life" which is a self portrayal of his life put into music and is composed of six different section lasting from 4 minutes to 14 minutes in lenght. Strauss' most impressive symphonic poem (this is open for debate of course) that has multiple movements interconnected into a single work is his monumental "An Alpine Symphony" which has 21 movements ranging from 14 seconds to 7 minutes in lenght. In addition to the amount of movements written written for it the works was written to depict the climbing of the alps and the majesty that it is when engaged in that kind of adventure. A great amount of film music is inspired by the works of Richard Strauss due to the way he uses orchestral colors and melodic lines combined with powerful orchestrations and technical demands on the part of orchestral players. I invite everyone to listen to this work if you have not done so. It is about 45-50 minutes long but full of a great listening experience. Thank you for your time in reading this response and I welcome any suggestions.

From: "Mark Bagby" <bagby@calcot.com>

In Steve Halfyard's otherwise excellent essay, I take exception to the following statement...

>...in classical ballet, it is the other way round - the libretto may come first, but the music is composed before the steps are created and the choreography fits itself to the music. It is surely a mistake to think that this difference in the order in which the various components of the finished product are created (with one adapting itself to the other) will have no impact on the nature of the second component. The choreography of Romeo and Juliet interprets Prokofiev's music just as film music interprets the visual images of a film. <

Having spent some time as a dancer and a technician around ballet, frequently the choreography is done first, especially if a composer is creating an original score (such as, say, Copland's and Agnes de Mille's Rodeo. Some of de Mille's excellent books on her life and work detail the relationship between the choreographer and composer, and it's not uncommon for the choreographer to change their work to fit the music, and vice versa. "I need two more bars here to do this..." is not unusual. There is a far more collaborative relationship than Mr. Halfyard implies.

Now obviously, a finished work in the standard repertoire...Tchaikovsky's Nutcracker or something else...clearly the music is not subject to much change, unless you have someone doing an adaptation, or (God forbid!) a new arrangement. Then clearly, the choreographer is inspired-guided by the completed work.

>The second reason that Alexander Nevsky is a bad example is that it is atypical of the usual relationship between music and image in that Eisenstein actually did cut certain sections of his film to fit Prokofiev's score, which I think most film composers accustomed to having their music hacked around in the editing would agree is an unusual occurrence.<

Yes, but...that has as much to do with the composer's stature and trust as it does the filmmaker. Wasn't Williams' score for E.T., the climactic sequence, wasn't that finally recorded and wild and footage trimmed and extended to fit it to the music? Whereas Jerome Moross' fabulous The Big Country was just slashed to ribbons by William Wyler, who also performed butchery upon Copland's work for The Heiress... but, for whatever reason, left almost all of Rozsa's work alone on Ben-Hur...

Sadly, there is not enough collaboration in the scoring process. Which is odd, because there's more than enough collaboration in the filmaking process, which is why so many movies are just out and out bad...music being the nebulous thing it is, most directors really don't understand it and won't trust the composer's instincts enough to let him or her have free rein. 'Tis pity, 'tis true.

Finally, for my last two cents' worth, film music is not art. Neither is photography, nor sculpture, nor ballet. These are mediums. Art, according to my dictionary, is "skill acquired by experience, study, or observation...an occupation requiring knowledge or skill...the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects."

Thus, the medium of film music may or may not be art. Everything by Herrmann, and almost everything by Goldsmith and Bernstein are art. Almost nothing by Horner is...though you could make a strong argument about the "study or observation" part...

From: Ron Novinson <ETVIDEO1@aol.com>

Most of what you say makes sense. However (there has to be a however or why would I write this), I find that I often put images in my mind when listening to classical music that propably were not in the mind of the composer. There's a part of Copelands 3rd symphony that make me thing of charging nights in armour.

Some film music makes me think of images that were not in the movie for which they were writen. Elephants, from THE ROOTS OF HEAVEN, makes me think of Zepelins in formation. People at concerts might not just be watching the musicians, but playing their own movies in there minds.

I know that Mannheim Steamroller is not classical music, but when I went to a concert of their music, they had pictures on a screen while they were playing. I guess they want you to see what they were thinking.

Music is too individual to generalize. It's like painting, I may not know art, but I know what I like.

From: CsinoSkunk <CsinoSkunk@aol.com>

Filmbuff32 is probably just pissed off, because he studied classical music his whole life, and has come to the conclussion that it isn't as fun or exciting as film score. As much as i love classical music, i find myself wandering after a half hour. I feel that people get affraid that things are going to get too popular, so they shoot down competitors before they can reach maximun popularity. Such is the case with popular film composers. Danny Elfman, from what I hear, is not appreciated much by his peers. He was self taught, and did not spend years studying music. Yet, his music has gained him great popularity. And in doing so, many fans of Elfman, have come to notice other composers. As long as you have guys out there like Elfman, Arnold, Zimmer , etc. who are bringing in youthful listeners, everyone else should be thankful for the popularity they gain from these "rookies."

Thanks for reading. See you tomorrow!