 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Film music as a genre is NEVER going to be brought into the Classical world the way opera and ballet have. It would have happened by now. It's often part of the Pops repertory, it shows up on Classical radio from time to time, but it's not thought of as core Classical repertory. That's not an opinion, that's just the way it is.
Film composers have themselves talked many times of simplifying and distilling their music for film because it is VERY different from ballet, opera, concert music. It's playing UNDER dialogue, sound effects, etc., and can't be too busy or draw attention to itself. Opera IS dialogue. Ballet IS sound effects. Music for film is different. This is just a fact repeated many times by many composers. (I'm not worried about accounting for music written for plays, but if you are, that's ok.)
Examples of established concert composers - Prokofiev, Vaughan Williams, Korngold - are the exceptions. They were brought into film precisely because of their reputations, and therefore had a degree of creative latitude that is NOT typical of film music. What IS typical of film music is someone saying "write music like this composer, or like this album track, or like that film score, or like that jazz number." That's not at all what any of the Classical composers you mention had to deal with in their own work. There is always a level of compromise, but in film, there is no compromise. You give the filmmakers what they want or they toss your music out. This is another fundamental difference.
You can pick a handful of examples here and there, but the VAST majority of music written for film is simply not in this category, however much you may wish it were. We are talking about thousands upon thousands of themes and scores that are not considered in the same category as Classical music - if they were, they would be programmed and recorded like that by Classical ensembles and musicians.
People tend to classify, for good or ill. Going back to my earlier example, John Barry wrote popular songs, not classical music. If you're going to call that classical music, then so are the Beatles, and then there is just no point to any label at all.
What matters about any kind of music is what it is, not what it is not. Film music need not be classical music, nor need it be considered the equal of classical music, to be worth listening to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
May 13, 2015 - 12:51 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
.
(Member)
|
I consider classical music to be live performance music. Film soundtracks are almost invariably no such thing, unless adapted for concert performance like, say, Korngold's Violin Concerto or Prokofiev's Nevsky Cantata etc etc.
Everyone who has ever read anything about film scores will have read the claim by many composers, conductors and directors alike that even the best film scores should go largely unnoticed by the audience apart from the main themes. The audience's mood is suitably affected by all the music (we hope), but when they come out of the cinema, 8 out of 10 will probably say they didn't even notice it apart from the opening titles and a love theme (they probably left well before the end titles had run their course).
That's hardly the case with Tchaikovsky's Swan Lake or The Nutcracker. When has there been a living soul who has sat through a performance of those productions and afterwards said they didn't notice most of the music? Or that most of it was not meant to be noticed? The only way they'd say that is if they fell asleep during the performance, like I usually do at operas. Tchaikovsky's music was composed as an equal partner in the productions, not subservient to some other content. Without Tchaikovsky's music, the rest of the production could not exist in anything like its recognized form. But if even the greatest works by Rozsa, or Goldsmith or Herrmann were absent from a film, what else would change apart from the use of a different composer? Not a lot. The music is almost invariably subservient. An exception like the Nevsky soundtrack is exactly that – an exception. To say the rare film that utilizes music in a particularly prominent way, or choreographs some of its action around a custom score, is indicative of symphonic film music in general being worthy of classical "status" is more than a little way off the mark.
Classical era music was created and performed with no concept of recorded sound. It was NEVER intended or expected that ANY performance would be exactly the same as another. At any time, in any place, it would be impossible to hear an identical performance of a work even with the same conductor and orchestra and venue. An impossibility. This was music in the moment, with every performance never to be recaptured and standing as a one-off presentation of the work with its own nuances and interpretations.
An orchestral film soundtrack is entirely different. It is created from the outset expressly for recording and mass duplication, intended to be heard EXACTLY as it was created, never played live in it's entirety and manipulated alongside unchanging visuals, having been recorded in dozens of pieces, chopped and faded-in and faded-out by a third party and often drowned out by noise wherever the filmmaker desires.
For the vast majority of film music ito be interpreted differently in a classical music sense, surely it needs to be rewritten to make it suitable for concert performance. It then becomes living music with a life of its own, with some leeway to interpret it as the performer/conductor see fit. That's why there are countless concert-goers who buy very little recorded music but attend many concerts. Listening to the same recorded interpretation over and over and over isn't satisfying for them, just as most people don't want to watch the same film over and over again. People conditioned to recorded music laugh at them and say they are classical music snobs because they rarely buy or listen to classical music outside the concert hall, but they are actually much closer to the audience the classical composers were aiming at than those listening to CDs in cars and home stereos and turning their backs on live concerts.
For me, almost all film soundtracks in their original state, even my lifelong favorites, are caricatures of "classical music" but I don't love them less for that. I don't feel the need to validate my hobby by pretending what I listen to is of a higher status than it merits. I'd much rather see a concert of Korngold film music than almost any "classical" music I can think of, but I wouldn't tell people I was going to a classical concert – I'd say I was going to a film music concert.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basil makes a lot of good points, but it's also worth noting that the vast majority of listening to Classical music is on the radio, CDs, etc., and only a smaller minority of that niche attends live performances.
For those interested, the Knight Foundation's work on Classical music audiences and strategies for local orchestras is very informative, starting with their Classical segmentation study from 2002:
http://www.cpanda.org/data/a00056/Study.pdf
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would like to add something to the topic. What do you think of Stanley Kubrick use of classical music as film scores? Does it work? Could he have got something better from a film composer writing a whole original score? He needed Wendy Carlos and Leonard Rosenman to adapt the music, so that is film music instead?
To me his choices were a mixed bag. I've always found his use of The Blue Danube in 2001 trivializes the space station sequence, and that his use of 20th century music often worked better.
Adaptation is generally better, as with the examples you cite, or great examples in Breaking Away, Hopscotch, and Prizzi's Honor, so that you can make the music fit rather than just being dialed up and down.
|
|
|
|
|
|
One more point to work towards a middle ground, maybe even a consensus.
All these distinctions are inherently artificial. Some film composers can and do write "concert" or "serious" or "classical" music, however you want to define it. This kind of music is of course more through-composed, and more about what the composer wants to say vs. what filmmakers want. But it isn't a question of which is better, since the point of film music is not to be just an expression of the composer, or a self-contained musical work.
More important, music, especially these days, crosses lots of boundaries, and film music has been a great way to get a wide range of musical styles in front of people, whether subliminally or in a more forward way. As this trend continues, and as the Classical world continues to evolve, it is certainly possible that these distinctions will become less and less important.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
May 13, 2015 - 12:16 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
.
(Member)
|
it's also worth noting that the vast majority of listening to Classical music is on the radio, CDs, etc., and only a smaller minority of that niche attends live performances.
That's just technology muscling in and people settling for what's convenient. Most people settle for looking at photos of the Sistine Chapel rather than going to visit it, but that's no indication that the Sistine Chapel is valued less than before, or that the relatively tiny number of people who actually visit the real thing are a niche, or that its art is outdated.
In any case, the word "niche" really relates only to sales of recorded music (niche market), not the various music categories. A classical or jazz concert goer isn't described as a "niche" listener. People who listen to film music aren't even a "niche", because millions and millions are listening to it every day. It's only the buyers of soundtrack CDs that are called a "niche". I dislike the way the word "niche" is used as it relates to music. It's a term for salesmen to use, not music lovers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Niche" is indeed the term radio professionals use for listeners to "niche formats." And it is a tiny minority of the population in general that listens to Classical music in any form, thus again the use of the term "niche," denoting a small subset of the population with a preference for a kind of product, service, commodity, what have you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
