# Do the movie scores have their own merits as a distinct music genre?



## bachader (Feb 21, 2019)

Do the movie scores have their own merits as a distinct music genre or just a derivate of earlier works? Apart from the visual context, would it be unfair to call it a watered down classical music?


----------



## JohnG (Feb 21, 2019)

bachader said:


> would it be unfair to call it a watered down classical music?



Alas, in some cases it _would_ be unfair -- to the classical music.

Film music veers all over. Sometimes it's more song form -- tune with accompaniment, even including song-like bridges and intros. Sometimes it's just floaty sounds, sometimes it's a solo flute or guitar.

I don't think anyone can characterise film music without immediately bumping into exceptions.


----------



## bachader (Feb 21, 2019)

JohnG said:


> Alas, in some cases it _would_ be unfair -- to the classical music.
> 
> Film music veers all over. Sometimes it's more song form -- tune with accompaniment, even including song-like bridges and intros. Sometimes it's just floaty sounds, sometimes it's a solo flute or guitar.
> 
> I don't think anyone can characterise film music without immediately bumping into exceptions.



Sure. Many genres are now used as movie scores. In fact I meant those of John Willams type, Jerry Goldsmith or James Newton Howard style and even yours.


----------



## JohnG (Feb 21, 2019)

bachader said:


> In fact I meant those of John Willams type, Jerry Goldsmith or James Newton Howard style



Well, I guess if you list things that people associate with "classical," they might include:

1. Discernable rhythm and melody, or extended melodic motifs;
2. Relatively limited percussion -- percussion is important but rarely comprises half/most of the sound;
3. Uses modulation from one recognisable key to another. In the Western tradition, modulation is a major technique and key relationships between movements or sections were carefully considered and executed;
4. Size of orchestra varied pretty widely -- from maybe 30 in the olden days to (sometimes) 100 or more by the end of the 19th century, plus choir;
5. Prominent roles for all sections, including woodwinds; and
6. Relatively limited improvisation in what most would consider the "top 100."

So just to pause the list there, you can immediately see/hear that there are some aspects of the orchestra that movie music retains and others that are very different.


----------



## Studio E (Feb 21, 2019)

bachader said:


> Do the movie scores have their own merits as a distinct music genre or just a derivate of earlier works?



Merit: the quality of being particularly good or worthy, especially so as to deserve praise or reward.

Yes.


----------



## bachader (Feb 21, 2019)

Studio E said:


> Merit: the quality of being particularly good or worthy, especially so as to deserve praise or reward.
> 
> Yes.





Studio E said:


> Merit: the quality of being particularly good or worthy, especially so as to deserve praise or reward.
> 
> Yes.



I agree. What about "merit as a distinct genre" ?


----------



## gamma-ut (Feb 21, 2019)

bachader said:


> Do the movie scores have their own merits as a distinct music genre or just a derivate of earlier works? Apart from the visual context, would it be unfair to call it a watered down classical music?



William Walton wasn't keen on his own movie scores - but Henry V and others stand up well.

Prokofiev and Shostakovich both got involved in film scores. And a segment from one of Prokofiev's just about everybody knows well, and using an approach to form that is now pretty much commonplace in movie scoring. Is their work "watered down" do you think?

Or coming from the other direction, you have the work of Bernard Hermann and standout scores like Goldsmith's Planet of the Apes or the minimal synth-based approach of John Carpenter. 

Like any form, there's a lot of filler out there – the medium of writing for picture makes filler inevitable and the selection process tends to reward safety and conservatism. But the idea that's it has to be watered down isn't realistic.


----------



## erica-grace (Feb 21, 2019)

ALL music is just a derivative of earlier works, in some way.

You could call Mozart and Beethoven' music watered down, from whatever their music was* derived* from.


----------



## Studio E (Feb 21, 2019)

bachader said:


> I agree. What about "merit as a distinct genre" ?



Well I do think that it has merit as a distinct genre, as there have been many many scores which, while derivative of other music, are no more than any other genre. At the same time, it has developed and combined elements in a way that other genres really haven't, or at least not to this extent. I just think of the way it moves people emotionally and separately of other genres. That to me, makes it meritorious. 

In the end, I think it's another question of whether or not art is art. To me the answer is almost always "as long as it is to someone, yes".


----------



## BabyGiraffe (Feb 21, 2019)

erica-grace said:


> ALL music is just a derivative of earlier works, in some way.
> 
> You could call Mozart and Beethoven' music watered down, from whatever their music was* derived* from.


You really don't know what you are talking about - Mozart basically created the most complex music in a light styles defined by many cliches (90 % of his music is overused patterns and he still makes them interesting and complex). Beethoven was the first great romantic composer and basically everyone in the period was under his influence (imitating or trying not to sound like him)


----------



## JohnG (Feb 21, 2019)

I used to go to the opera all the time; less now but anyway, there are reams -- REAMS -- of very forgettable operas, operettas, oratorios, and other works that once upon a time were popular. At least popular enough to generate another commission for the same composer(s) in the same genre.

Very little of those thousands (tens of thousands I guess?) of works are produced today, even some of the allegedly "great works of the past" that were penned by allegedly "great composers." Some that I've seen (many more than once) are dramatically stilted, full of clichés (and misogyny or other unfortunate attributes) and even -- shock! -- just boring. Dramatically and musically.

The stories are ludicrously improbable as well, though you have to give them something; at least they don't ALL feature a leading character who's a "former special forces / Navy Seal / psy-ops" dude.


----------



## erica-grace (Feb 21, 2019)

BabyGiraffe said:


> You really don't know what you are talking about - Mozart basically created the most complex music in a light styles defined by many cliches (90 % of his music is overused patterns and he still makes them interesting and complex). Beethoven was the first great romantic composer and basically everyone in the period was under his influence (imitating or trying not to sound like him)









So, Mozart invented the music he wrote from complete and total scratch? The music he wrote wasn't derived from somewhere?

It's not ME who doesn't know what they are talking about.


----------



## BabyGiraffe (Feb 22, 2019)

erica-grace said:


> So, Mozart invented the music he wrote from complete and total scratch? The music he wrote wasn't derived from somewhere?
> 
> It's not ME who doesn't know what they are talking about.



Did you missed this: "90 % of his music is overused patterns and he still makes them interesting and complex".
Can you say this about any modern film composer?
I can recommend you some books on Mozart and styles around his time, if you are interested in learning something...


----------



## Parsifal666 (Feb 22, 2019)

erica-grace said:


> So, Mozart invented the music he wrote from complete and total scratch? The music he wrote wasn't derived from somewhere?
> 
> It's not ME who doesn't know what they are talking about.



I agree. Mozart was a total sycophant of Haydn (the latter of whom basically invented the forms Mozart steadfastly adhered to throughout his career). He even dedicated a whole set of quartets to Haydn. Later he borrowed from both Bach and Handel. All music graduates know this btw, we also know Mozart wasn't a "complex" composer like Bach or Beethoven, he was only complex when stood up next to his Classical contemporaries (and even then, Haydn was his main competitition, easily).

I should mention, however, that it's quite possible Mozart was the greatest melodicist who ever lived, and (though I favor Bach, Wagner, and Mahler above his music) was an indubitably great composer, despite not being particularly groundbreaking like Beethoven...or Stravinsky for that matter.

I've studied those composers my whole life and wrote my master's thesis on Beethoven's early influence by Mozart.

BG, you're kind of new here and leaving a bad impression, my friend. No offense, just observing.


----------



## Parsifal666 (Feb 22, 2019)

JohnG said:


> Alas, in some cases it _would_ be unfair -- to the classical music.
> 
> Film music veers all over. Sometimes it's more song form -- tune with accompaniment, even including song-like bridges and intros. Sometimes it's just floaty sounds, sometimes it's a solo flute or guitar.
> 
> I don't think anyone can characterise film music without immediately bumping into exceptions.



I wouldn't call Ben Hur, Islands in the Stream, or Ghost and Mrs. Muir watered down Classical music. I took a few months and studied those scores inside and out a couple of years ago. I mean, they don't stand up with the best of the other art music composers here, however they are particularly excellent pieces of music in their own right. I could be wrong.


----------



## re-peat (Feb 22, 2019)

erica-grace said:


> It's not ME who doesn't know what they are talking about.




Actually, it is. If you had said "all music _builds on_ the musical achievements of previous generations", you would have excited less remark. But describing, as you do, the process of musical evolution as a constant "watering down" of what came before, is just wrong. Silly. Ignorant. Potty.
What also doesn't help is that, for reasons best known to yourself, you fail to be specific about what it is that the music of Mozart and Beethoven is supposed to be a watered-down version of. By lazily calling it 'whatever', your statement understandably triggers the suspicion that you may indeed be a bit short on knowing what you're talking about.

And don't say "Haydn", like the previous poster does, cause that's ignorant on an idiotic scale.

Which brings me nicely to expressing my complete disagreement with the previous two Parsifal posts too. If perhaps not with every single statement they contain (though with most of them), than certainly with its all too familiar Parsifal trademark: that pretentious, condescending and self-righteous tone.
And to accuse a new fellow member of leaving a bad impression, especially when one oneself reigns supreme in the leaving-a-bad-impression discipline with every blasé pontification one posts, is terribly unkind. As every graduate of friendly human nature knows.

_


----------



## Parsifal666 (Feb 22, 2019)

re-peat said:


> Actually, it is. If you had said "all music _builds on_ the musical achievements of previous generations", you would have excited less remark. But describing, as you do, the process of musical evolution as a constant "watering down" of what came before, is just wrong. Silly. Ignorant. Potty.
> What also doesn't help is that, for reasons best known to yourself, you fail to be specific about what it is that the music of Mozart and Beethoven is supposed to be a watered-down version of. By lazily calling it 'whatever', your statement understandably triggers the suspicion that you may indeed be a bit short on knowing what you're talking about.
> 
> And don't say "Haydn", like the previous poster does, cause that's ignorant on an idiotic scale.
> ...




Congratulations on being a graduate of friendly human nature (which is so perfectly boneheaded I probably don't even need to go on...but this level of willful ignorance cannot go without redaction, otherwise young people here might get the idea this repeat person knows what the hell he's talking about.)​Soooo....are you going to go in detail why what I wrote is idiotic? I don't think anyone here quite got the reason for that bit of unfriendly human nature. Judging by your past record, I won't hold my breath. At least the OP seems to have done some homework, something which is entirely missing in your redaction.

You also didn't give us adequate reasons why you are in complete disagreement with the majority of my post; you end up sounding both dismissive and blindly ad hominem...the signatures of a person whom came too a battle of wits both unarmed and possibly Über-caffeinated. Silly boy. Ignorant. Potty.

Missing also is an explanation of how I leave a bad impression here. According to who, you? (that is, a person obviously incapable of backing his accusations and slander up).

Seems to me also that I generally don't leave a bad impression here. Check my track record, son.

Maybe you should have thought out both what I wrote and what you were going to write before you wrote that.

Or better yet, maybe you should have taken a nap first.
.


----------



## Parsifal666 (Feb 22, 2019)

poetd said:


> Thank you @Parsifal666 for sorting those font sizes.



I try, I try lol!




poetd said:


> A lot of classical music was written for Ballet, or Opera or similar (Fireworks displays! etc)
> In some ways the movies of their day.
> Does that mean "Le Sacre du printemps" can be compared to "Let it go" ?
> 
> Sure, why not. We jumped the shark a long time ago, lets keep going.



Cracking up! You rule, dude.​


----------



## re-peat (Feb 22, 2019)

Okay, let's go over some of your points, Pars.

_"Mozart was a total sycophant of Haydn (the latter of whom basically invented the forms Mozart steadfastly adhered to throughout his career)."_

That's wrong from the first syllable to the last. First of all, Mozart was no sycophant of anyone, except perhaps his father (be that less for strictly musical reasons), and he had at least as much influence on Haydn as the other way round. That is amply documented.
Secondly, Haydn didn't 'invent' any forms. At most (and even that I find debatable), he standardized and codified what was handed to him by previous generations of composers. I agree however that Haydn was certainly among the first to show the world the full potential of some of these forms. But sonata form (which is, I suspect, what you're thinking of) is not something that Haydn single-handedly arrived at, in some sort creative vacuum all of his own. It's the result of a very long evolution — going back at least to the early baroque — at the end of which the sonata emerged as what most composers considered the most satisfying and what certainly became the most popular form or framework for instrumental music during the next century or two (dance music and a few other categories excepted). The form, at least the embryonic shape of it, existed already when Haydn was not even a glint in the milkman's eye. (I maintain, by the way, that C.P.E. Bach was, in this context, every bit as important as Haydn.)
And thirdly, Mozart didn't adhere steadfastly to any type of form throughout his career. It is in fact Mozart's maverick playfulness with form — making it subservient to his ideas rather than the other way round, which is what lesser composers did and do — that is so timelessly appealing and one of the main characteristics which sets much of his music apart and above that of his contemporaries.

I do agree, if you only would have said it, that describing the peculiar sophistication of Mozart's music as 'complexity', is both musically and semantically wrong. But I certainly don't agree with the suggestion that the exterior, superficial simplicity of much of his work is where our understanding and enjoyment of his music should stop. Underneath that skin, there is musical machinery at work easily as complex as that of any composer before or since. (Mozart, like Beethoven, was after all a tireless student of counterpoint and ended up being first-rate practitioner of it.)
Furthermore, Mozart's music, particularly his opera and religious music, has an additional sphere of complexity all of its own — the result of Mozart's exceptional psychological observational powers — that also can't be found in the music of any of his contemporaries, predecessors or immediate followers.

And let's be serious, if you consider complexity in itself a valid musical parameter — I don't — then music history might just as well have stopped after Bach, the final word in abstract musical complexity-turned-beauty (which is something entirely different from mere complexity).

Was Mozart a ground-breaking composer? In a sense: no. But I say 'yes'.

Mozart's musical style is that of his time and reflects as such the heritage of previous times in many of its aspects, yes. He didn't invent his musical language from scratch. True. But style and language is not what defines Mozart or sets him apart from his contemporaries. What does define him is what he did with that language. The things he achieved within that established style (both adhering to it and deviating from it) and, above all, the quality of his invention and ideas, are entirely and uniquely his, and therefore: new. And often perplexingly so. The newness of every great composer exists not in the language or style they adopt — which can, in some famous cases, even be very old-fashioned — but in what it is they do with that language.

Put differently, the singular quality and identity of Mozart's music is not derived from anything that came before (or, as with Haydn, occured simultaneously), even if that quality and identity are presented to us in music which looks as much back as it looks forwards. Besides, it is precisely the care for his lineage — Mozart being fully aware of and devoting much study to the great music of previous ages — that contributes in no small measure to him being able to be as new and, in my view, ground-breaking, as he was.

As for Beethoven: yes, no dispute there. He is an even more brutal and shocking example of someone doing bold and totally new things with (and in his early years: within) an existing idiom. So bold, adventurous and new in fact, that the idiom itself got profoundly upset and rattled in the process.

_


----------



## erica-grace (Feb 22, 2019)

re-peat said:


> Actually, it is. If you had said "all music _builds on_ the musical achievements of previous generations", you would have excited less remark. But describing, as you do, the process of musical evolution as a constant "watering down" of what came before, is just wrong. Silly. Ignorant. Potty.
> What also doesn't help is that, for reasons best known to yourself, you fail to be specific about what it is that the music of Mozart and Beethoven is supposed to be a watered-down version of. By lazily calling it 'whatever', your statement understandably triggers the suspicion that you may indeed be a bit short on knowing what you're talking about.
> 
> And don't say "Haydn", like the previous poster does, cause that's ignorant on an idiotic scale.
> ...



Well, that was a bit unnecessary.

You say I dont know what I am talking about, and call me silly, ignorant, potty? That's just rude. You cant find a more friendly and nicer way to disagree with me? Wow.

_If you had said "all music builds on the musical achievements of previous generations"_

That IS what I said. Just in different words - my own words. Apologies if that's not the best way to put it, but just because you didn't understand me is no reason to act i n the negative fashion like you did.

Have a good day.


----------



## re-peat (Feb 22, 2019)

erica-grace said:


> That IS what I said.


No, it isn't, Erica. 'Watering down' implies a thinning out, a reduction of sorts, whereas 'building on' suggests addition and expansion. They are in fact _the complete opposite_ of one another rather than the same. If you meant the latter, than why did you use the former? And how was I to know?

_


----------



## Parsifal666 (Feb 22, 2019)

re-peat said:


> pretentious, condescending and self-righteous tone.
> _



I needed some self-reflection on this and you know what, @re-peat? I really am a pontificating, condescending, self-righteous boob! Good call.


----------

