Again, another issue in the ‘classical / not’ issue?
Question by petr b: Again, another issue in the ‘classical / not’ issue?
A very recent question on Lux Aeterna (the asker truly thinking of the Clint Mansell Movie Theme ) catalyzed another ‘discussion.’ and revealed a viewpoint I found a bit ‘alarming’
Here is that work:
Cliff Mansell’s requiem for a dream, as re-orchestrated (to include choir, orchestra) by Simone Benyacar, Daniel Nielsen, and Veigar Margeirsson, renamed ‘Requiem for the tower’ for use in The Lord Of The Rings.
My comment on it in the earlier thread:
It is typical (cliché cliché) sensational and obvious movie fare, having taken one musician’s light idea and a collaboration of three (count’em THREE) arrangers to perform life-saving and cosmetic surgery on what amounts to a very brief ‘lick,’ in order to bring us a bit of very light pseudo-classical music using every known melodramatic vaudevillian like shtick trick in the book – it is ‘original’ music but a completely unoriginal pastiche. None of that, including my opinion in either direction, will ever qualify this as contemporary classical music.
[This is from a classical musician with decades of training and decades of experience. My ‘opinion’ would be echoed again and again by many another, within and outside of academe.]
Comparing the Mansell to classical works, some of which it seems to have been patently derived:
Prokofiev ~ Alexander Nevsky; Battle on the ice. (If you want to cut to the chase, Start @ 2’ 00’’)
Stravinsky ~ Oedipus Rex, scene one (music starts @ 1’ 38’’
Another great classical choral-orchestral work
Bartok ~ Cantata Profana
To measure classical / non criteria, from more recently, John Adams, Harmonium, III ~ Wild Nights
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpJKsF4JJ8U&feature=related
Well, to me there is just no real comparison. The Mansell is short in every department of criteria, little or no musical material, tons of arranger executed surgery and botox to fluff it up to give an inflated illusion of ‘importance,’ hanging on a stick figure of little or no harmonic interest, its vocabulary having been far exceeded by classical composers as early as 1913, and having none of the desired musical procedures of the craft to engage the intellect in any way whatsoever.
What alarmed me, a contributor’s comment, I believe utterly genuine, which makes me question if there is any way to convince anyone with ears that there is a vast and extremely distinct difference between classical and fare such as the Mansell + three professional arrangers…
“Mansell’s version (of Lux Aeterna) is quite epic. At the very least, it is “classically-minded” and therefore, belongs in this forum.”
By all the above criteria, which I’m not making up, BTW, the Mansell score is decent (barely passable) movie music, or pop orchestral music. What context or thinking could lead anyone to say because it is ‘classically minded’ that it has a place in the classical category?
I ignored the puerile potty mouth in that otherwise intelligent and somewhat accurately provocative question, and was going to answer it – and by the time I looked for it, it was gone. It did not take very long at all, it seems, for several people to find it offensive. The party could reign that speech in, being otherwise clearly perceptive and able to write well enough. Pity.
Because it is so in place, it never occurred to me to state the most obvious:
Classical music is called classical by multitudes of classical musicians and musicologists with years of experience. I’m sure that wouldn’t ‘go down’ any better with the younger and less experienced – though it means there is no ‘cabal’ of diabolical power-mongering taste arbiters in control of Y/A or any ‘establishment conspiricy’ to exclude featherweight film score composers.
A hypohetical: If the composer of said film score is not lobbying for their work to be categorized as classical, why are the fans of the same said score so badly wanting it to be included in the classical arena?
Best answer:
Answer by fierydog
I understand your point. My question is why did the other question that said that semantics were the new aphrodisiac get removed?
Give your answer to this question below!
