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?
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.
In fact I meant those of John Willams type, Jerry Goldsmith or James Newton Howard style
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.
Merit: the quality of being particularly good or worthy, especially so as to deserve praise or reward.
Yes.
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?
I agree. What about "merit as a distinct genre" ?
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)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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
_
Thank you @Parsifal666 for sorting those font sizes.
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.
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.
_