FSM # 14: Own a classic score just because you “have to”?
- This topic has 31 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 7 hours, 37 minutes ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Now that I try to downsize my collection, faced with an oversaturated market that is more interested in the latest limited release than second hand from little ol’ me, I’ve been struck by a particular aspect of some of the titles, namely the socalled huge, CLASSIC soundtrack albums or scores that are often hailed as cornerstones in film music history. I realize that I actually have bought many of these just because they are what they are, how often they’ve been referenced and because of their overall position – NOT really based on my musical taste!
Roughly speaking, I would separate them in three categories:
1. THE CLASSICS THAT I LOVE TO LISTEN TO – include STAR WARS, THE ROCK, BLADE RUNNER, CONAN THE BARBARIAN, PLANET OF THE APES.
2. THE 50% CLASSICS – I like enough of them to keep playing them, but there’s a whole lot of stuff that I don’t like particularly much. Include JAWS, PSYCHO, CITIZEN KANE, BEN HUR.
3. THE CLASSICS THAT I DON’T LIKE – they’re not without musical value, of course, but overall they don’t really do anything for me and I’ve really just picked them up because they’re labeled classics. Include LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, DR. ZHIVAGO, KING KONG (1933), BATTLE OF BRITAIN, PATTON. Just to specify that all of these are great scores in the film (and deserve their status); they’ve just never done anything for me as a LISTENING EXPERIENCE alone.
It’s mostly that third category I’m talking about here. Anyone else done the same?
I’m surprised (but very pleased) that you refer to Battle of Britain as a classic, I didn’t think it would have been regarded as such. I love both the Goodwin and the Walton, by the way.
You probably know I have a very flaky relationship with Jerry Goldsmith, and the only CD I have of his, although I rarely play it now, is The Satan Bug. I played some of his others to death in the early 2000s – Star Trek, Patton, The Omen, Planet of the Apes, Capricorn One – but the more I was told that I should revere them by some of the people on “the other messageboard”, the more cynical I became about them.
“It’s not you, it’s me” 🙂
Oh yes. That’s a topic.
For example I must confess probably the reason that I own Goldsmith’s Star Trek The Motion Picture or The Wind And The Lion is just because of their cult status and not because I like the music that much.I am a little proud that I managed so far to resist to buy Horner’s Avatar because despite not liking it the album is cheap and easy to get and everyone else seems to like it.
I’m surprised (but very pleased) that you refer to Battle of Britain as a classic, I didn’t think it would have been regarded as such. I love both the Goodwin and the Walton, by the way.
I am sure within the UK it is a classic, maybe just not worldwide.
I primarily buy what I like and want to have. I like most classics becuase they are the classics I grew up with liking film music. Of course there are some I like more or less.
For example I generally love Herrmann but CITIZEN KANE or THE GHOST AND MRS. MUIR many consider top classics belong more to categores 2 or 3 for me. As PATTON was cited this is also not one of my top Goldsmiths, too.
I’m surprised (but very pleased) that you refer to Battle of Britain as a classic, I didn’t think it would have been regarded as such. I love both the Goodwin and the Walton, by the way.
I always thought it were?
Of course, I’d be willing to give it another chance (I had the Rykodisc CD once upon a time, but sold it), as the thread is 16 years old, but I think my opinion would still stand today. It’s just a type of “aggressive” orchestral action score that I don’t gravitate towards anymore. A combination of changed taste and extreme tinnitus.
Speaking of Goldsmith and aerial battles, there’s THE BLUE MAX. The film is not really a classic, true, but the score is considered so, I think – especially within film music circles. But I can’t stand it. Sold the CD years ago, and don’t regret it for a second.
Speaking of Goldsmith and aerial battles, there’s THE BLUE MAX. The film is not really a classic, true, but the score is considered so, I think – especially within film music circles. But I can’t stand it. Sold the CD years ago, and don’t regret it for a second.
I got the Tadlow rerecording and just like Lawrence of Arabia I love it mainly for all the suites from other movies on disc 2.
Apart from John Williams I found that I am at maximum interested in about 60% of the work of any film composer. But when I realized that CDs are particularly becoming rare I did some kind of blind panic buys of scores I never heard before. Sometimes I was lucky and liked it but often enough these scores ended up just filling my shelve and I grant them some kind of collector value.
Apart from John Williams I found that I am at maximum interested in about 60% of the work of any film composer.
That’s a pretty high percentage, actually, if you consider that an average. There are only a few film composers where I’m interested in more than 60% of their work.
Every now and then you come across these “essential” scores, “classic must haves”… as if there is a canon, a checklist you are supposed to complete, scores that belong into every collection, scores you must have (and definitely must have heard) before you are allowed to call yourself a “film-music person”. What can I say: I love those “essentials”, I love when knowledgeable people have come together and tried to make a “canon”. Because I found these “canons” usually have value. Such “canons” have enabled me to explore works I might otherwise have overlooked and find composers I otherwise might not have paid much attention to.
When it comes to music, and film music, I tend to be very composer oriented. I don’t listen to film scores so much as I listen to certain composers. Either a composer speaks to me, or they don’t. There isn’t a single composer where I love 60% of their output and hate (or dislike) 40% of their output. It’s usually closer to 0% or 100%, with the occasional outlier of course where I only warm to a small corner of their catalogue, other maybe I don’t like some of their work. That does not mean I like all of their work the same, that also does not mean I have to own all of their scores, but it usually means that if I find a composer worthwhile, I tend to find all or most of their output worthwhile. (There is exactly one Jerry Goldsmith score I really don’t like and have listened to only once(!) but I do like all the other ones. Of course the one I don’t like is nevertheless still in my collection.)
So these “canons” have helped me immensely over the years to broaden my scope. When I first started to “seriously” investigate classical music, I was somewhat at a loss… where to start? What to listen to? I knew that I liked certain composers and had some works (like Beethoven Symphonies, some Richard Strauss or Bartók, Wagner, etc.), I wasn’t a total newbie, but there was so much… what would I like, how should I listen? I came across Aaron Copland’s Book “What to listen to for in Music” when I was 20 or 21, and that book helped me to really discover, appreciate and unlock a lot of works I was previously unfamiliar with.
When I encounter a film score (or a piece of classical music) that is widely appraised and regarded as “great” and I don’t connect with it right away, my first instinct isn’t to dismiss it. I tend to assume the flaw is mine. Not in a self‑flagellating way, but in the sense that the piece clearly works for a lot of people, often times people who seem more erudite and knowledgeable about the subject than I am, so maybe it was the wrong time for me to hear the piece, or my sensibilities are at the time differently oriented. More often than not, the door eventually opens. When I started and in my early years, I did not gravitate towards composers such as Bach, now I can’t get enough Goldberg Variations and have easily over a dozen different recordings.
So no, to get back to the original question: I never listen to anything because I “have to”, and I have no film score in my collection because I “have to”. Music is a passion of mine, and I keep it free from homework and duty. But I’ve learned that many of the pieces that history has elevated to “masterpiece” status actually earned that position for a reason. Sometimes you just need the right angle of entry.
I still have my battered copy of Gramophone’s Film Music Good CD Guide; it came out in 1995, with an “Editor’s Top 40” list. That list nudged me toward composers I had ignored seek out film scores I otherwise might not have. I was film musically more or less, somewhat loosely “locked in” to a certain set of composer, so that book back then helped me open up and discover many film scores and composers I previously ignored. Some of those scores (and composers) have became favorites. So the exercise of listening to the scores I “should” listen to was valuable: it widened the map.
Just this month, I did a “pie chart” on the fly for the FSM board in a thread, a “visual” representation of my music collection… was somewhat revealing to me… considering how “big” Bach has become, yet it was a composer who didn’t do much for me in my younger years.
So do I own classic film scores because I “have to”? No. I own them because I’m curious. These canonical “great” scores, they were reference points for me that helped me navigate the alien landscapes of previously unexplored musical territory. I don’t even think in term of just “liking” or “not liking” them when I first approach such a work, because sometimes a door doesn’t open on the first try, but simply as markers and reference points of territory on the “musical map”. Because I knew very early on that often a movie, a symphony or a film score you once shrugged at may suddenly reveals its inner logic, and you realize such “canons” (ha, a musical pun) aren’t a burden at all, they are an invitation.
I prefer Walton’s Battle Of Britain Suite (that on Chandos) over Goodwin’s because it is not that “marchy”. That Ryko CD I had once from thte library, too…
I like the Blue Max and even have the old Sony and the Tadlow re-recording. I like it but it not on my top Goldsmith list, too.
I got the Tadlow rerecording and just like Lawrence of Arabia I love it mainly for all the suites from other movies on disc 2.
I like it but indeed the suites on all the Jarre Tadlows are great and even often rarities.
Apart from Rozsa or Korngold, I think many Golden Age scores work best in suites. For example Waxman’s PRINCE VALIANT is much more fun as the Gerhardt than the FSM edition is (the partly a little rough sound on the FSM may help). Waxman’s TARAS BULBA is another example. I have the Tadlow but the “Ride to Dubno” is all you need from that score.
There are only a few film composers where I’m interested in more than 60% of their work.
There indeed only are a few like Williams, Goldsmith or Schifrin where I am deeply interested in rare, early or obscure works. But even with them I don’t need to have everything.
Have to add: When I started wiht film scores and discovered what actually is out there end of the 80s/early 90s, I thought I had to have some classics. Back then it was basically the only way to listen to them at least once is to have them.
I don’t part with CDs anymore as I regretted doing it in the past a little. Unless I have a duplicated like 2nd CD of a new editions contains the old edition I already have.Just this month, I did a “pie chart” on the fly for the FSM board in a thread, a “visual” representation of my music collection… was somewhat revealing to me… considering how “big” Bach has become, yet it was a composer who didn’t do much for me in my younger years.
Have to check out that “Compilation” guy I never heard of before 😉 But seriously ineresting chart. If I recall right you have often several recordings of the same classical work? I guess that explains the huge number of some classical composers (besides that Bach like Mozart wrote insanely many).
I still have my battered copy of Gramophone’s Film Music Good CD Guide; it came out in 1997, with an “Editor’s Top 40” list. That list nudged me toward composers I had ignored seek out film scores I otherwise might not have.
Yeah, I have the second edition of that, which is maybe the same you have. Was very useful for me at the time, when I was still in that exploration phase.
I’m very glad I sought out most, if not all of the ‘classics’ out there. Even owned many of them. Knowledge and experience are always a good thing. But whereas I was a little stressed out in those early days that I didn’t like a classic as much as I “should have”, I have a far more easygoing relationship to it these days. I’m not embarassed to say I don’t like this or that classic score, even if I can respect them and what they add to a film, and why they’ve attained the status they have.
Have to check out that “Compilation” guy I never heard of before 😉 But seriously ineresting chart. If I recall right you have often several recordings of the same classical work? I guess that explains the huge number of some classical composers (besides that Bach like Mozart wrote insanely many).
Yes, multiple recordings are one reason (like several Beethoven symphony sets, several sets of the complete piano ponatas, etc.) but it’s not only that, as I said, I did this on the fly, and the easiest way to quickly make a pie chart (for an FSM thread) was by disc space (where every “album artist” has its own folder) rather than export numbers from iTunes. So I just used the disc-space data I had, put it in Excel, and voila. That means, however, that definitely some classical composers are “overrepresented” because I have more “high-res” recordings (like 24bit/96kHz etc.) of their work (digital downloads from Qobuz, Hyperion, Berlin Philharmonic, etc.) in my collection, whereas most film scores come from ripped CDs, which are all 16bit/44.1kHz (no MP3 or otherwise lossy rips).
There are a number of ways to get a “pie chart”, but most would be “skewed” in some way. If I were to go by “album count”, for example, many classical composers would be totally “underrepresented” (as, for example, an album as the Shostakovich Andris Nelson Cycle, which contains all Symphonies, all concertos etc. counts as “1” album in my collection, yet it’s 20 hours of music). Track count could also be misleading, since composers like Mahler write symphonies with “tracks” of the length of an entire Varèse Sarabande film score album.
Perhaps the most “accurate” way for such a pie chart would be to export the actual “length of music” each composer has in the collection (that “compilation guy” obviously contains some more music from various film composers, as stuff like the 6 AMAZING STORIES CDs are under “compilation”), but I couldn’t do that on the fly, and disc space was the fastest I could do when somebody started “pie charting” his collection on FSM. Maybe one day when I feel like it; I found it quite fun to get a visual representation of the proportional values of artists in my music collection.Perhaps the most “accurate” way for such a pie chart would be to export the actual “length of music” each composer has in the collection
Sounds indeed that would be most accurate. Disc space is misleading I think for reasons you mentioned. But the chart is fun of course.
(that “compilation guy” obviously contains some more music from various film composers, as stuff like the 6 AMAZING STORIES CDs are under “compilation”)
Of course! I often just can’t resist to make a quick joke 😉
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.