In film music, a composer who needs to score 2 minutes here, 3 minutes there, a fanfare here, a polka there etc. just can't reach the same as in a symphony or a string quartet.
Similar arguments used to be made about why other programmatic music (ballet, opera, incidental music for plays) was considered "lesser". But nowadays someone arguing that Mendelssohn's A Midsummer Night's Dream is somehow lesser than a Haydn symphony would not really be taken seriously.
Even John Williams' classical music sounds very different from his film music.
That's an anecdote, not an argument. Korngold's concert hall music sounds like his film music which sounds like his operas. Nino Rota's concert hall music doesn't sound "very different" from his film music either. Prokofiev's film music sounds exactly like his concert hall music (is the Alexander Nevsky Cantata concert hall music or film music, in your view?) Vaughan Williams's film music sounds exactly like his concert hall music (is the 7th symphony, based on his score for Scott of the Antarctic, concert hall music or film music, in your view?)
Copland's film music sounds just like his concert hall music (well, most of it specifically sounds like his Americana concert music and ballets, but Something Wild, his final score, has much in common with some of his more modernist concert hall compositions). Rozsa's work in the "two worlds" also has much in common. More recently, James Horner, James Newton Howard, Danny Elfman, and Cliff Eidelman have all composed "serious" concert works that are certainly in a recognizable sound world from their film music.
Regarding ballet music, and especially with Ravel and Stravinsky, it's a totally different matter since it's not functional music like film or stage music. It's actually the visual presentation and the choregraphy that serve the music, not the contrary.
That may be your opinion but it's not shared by everyone. My wife is a huge ballet fan and in her view the music supports the dance, not the other way around (my view).
Now that John Williams and STAR WARS are regularly played in concert, we face the same problem as with classical music. Always the same music played. I would prefer a program with THE COWBOYS and THE REIVERS, or JANE EYRE, or CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND, or BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY and JFK.
Yes, exactly. Royal's issue was never with the quality of the music in Star Wars (which he often liked very much) but rather that the approach — which was pretty retro when Star Wars came out — became a fad and was applied regardless of whether the movie deserved it or not. As an example, it meant that for some time, there was less experimentation within a genre like science fiction, which had formerly been notable for its experimentation.
Obviously the Star Wars sequels and Indiana Jones movies carried on that style, as did the Superman and Star Trek movies, and things like Silverado, Krull, etc. (though in fairness there was no other way to approach those films). However, there were a number of science fiction scores after Star Wars which had an experimental bent -- Alien, Altered States, Saturn 3, The Thing, Tron, etc. Even Star Trek: The Motion Picture, despite its "Williams-esque" theme, had some fairly experimental passages.
Although some films followed the Romantic symphonic lead of Star Wars, I'd say most movies did not. The post Star Wars years also included Midnight Express, Apocalypse Now, Chariots of Fire, Ghandi, Under Fire, Scarface, Romancing The Stone, 2010, The Killing Fields, Witness, The Emerald Forest, etc. Even John Williams's score for The River was certainly nothing like Star Wars. And of course John Barry's post-1977 style was no different from his pre-1977 style. The 80s also saw a massive rise in "song soundtracks", with little to no dramatic scoring.
Williams' scores for Lucas and Spielberg are among the best-remembered scores from those years, but I wouldn't say that style dominated that era.
In film music, a composer who needs to score 2 minutes here, 3 minutes there, a fanfare here, a polka there etc. just can't reach the same as in a symphony or a string quartet.
Similar arguments used to be made about why other programmatic music (ballet, opera, incidental music for plays) was considered "lesser". But nowadays someone arguing that Mendelssohn's A Midsummer Night's Dream is somehow lesser than a Haydn symphony would not really be taken seriously.
Yes, but nobody would compare Mendelssohn's A Midsummer Night's Dream with his Third Symphony.
What I mean it's that a composer is not free when composing for a film and can't express what he wants, the way he wants.
Even John Williams' classical music sounds very different from his film music.
That's an anecdote, not an argument. Korngold's concert hall music sounds like his film music which sounds like his operas. Nino Rota's concert hall music doesn't sound "very different" from his film music either. Prokofiev's film music sounds exactly like his concert hall music (is the Alexander Nevsky Cantata concert hall music or film music, in your view?) Vaughan Williams's film music sounds exactly like his concert hall music (is the 7th symphony, based on his score for Scott of the Antarctic, concert hall music or film music, in your view?)
What I mean, it's that when John Williams wants to express something more personal and more musicaly articulate he chooses a classical form.
Vaughan Williams and Prokofiev also reworked Scott of the Antarctic and Alexander Nevsky as concert works.
Of course, Vaughan Williams and Prokofiev sound like Vaughan Williams and Prokofiev, whether it's the OST or the reworked concert piece.
As far as music is concerned, the Sinfonia Antarctica and the Alexander Nevsky Cantata are much more coherent works than the OST.
And even John Williams classical works sound like John Williams, although he chooses a more modern idiom to express his feelings.
Copland's film music sounds just like his concert hall music (well, most of it specifically sounds like his Americana concert music and ballets, but Something Wild, his final score, has much in common with some of his more modernist concert hall compositions). Rozsa's work in the "two worlds" also has much in common. More recently, James Horner, James Newton Howard, Danny Elfman, and Cliff Eidelman have all composed "serious" concert works that are certainly in a recognizable sound world from their film music.
Cliff Eidelman's The Tempest is a beautifull and well composed tone poem, but he could have never done it for a film, just considering its length.
The same can be said about Copland's Appalachian's Spring, you could have something close with a bit of here and a bit of there in a film, but not something like the whole work.
Regarding ballet music, and especially with Ravel and Stravinsky, it's a totally different matter since it's not functional music like film or stage music. It's actually the visual presentation and the choregraphy that serve the music, not the contrary.
That may be your opinion but it's not shared by everyone. My wife is a huge ballet fan and in her view the music supports the dance, not the other way around (my view).
It's not really my opinion, it's the way Ravel and Stravinsky worked with Diagilev and Nijinsky.
They were free to compose what they wanted, and the choregraphy was made from the music.
It's aslo why you can have different choregraphies for a same music.
So it's very different than film music, and no director has ever commissioned a music to a composer then make his film to fit the score.
About Ravel's Daphnis et Chloé, it's not the complete ballet, but it's worth watching (the music begins with the Nocturne at 1'33'') :
Many parts of Goldsmith's LEGEND were influenced by Ravel, as everybody knows, including The Dress Waltz scene (and it's thematic material) :
With the images of Daphnis et Chloé and Ravel's second waltz from his Valses nobles et sentimentales, you'll understand what Goldsmith had in mind, and what he probably felt, when he composed the LEGEND Dress Waltz scene.
