Inclusion of video game soundtracks in Classic FM Hall of Fame

[harristhenerd]

We got a symphony and recorded it, people like it = music.
We got a symphony and recorded it, people like it, it was for a video game =/= music.

I don't understand how music works

I think you unintentionally hit the nail here. Alot of people equate film- and as an extent of that, game music to the classical (or most likely the romantic) reportoire. And while most modern film and game music is rooted in the late romantic era, courtesey of John Williams, there is a vital difference: You have nowhere the depth and processing of the themes, thought-through instrumentation and so on in film and game music. It's pretty often structured the same way as a pop song, with 3-5 minutes of a cool theme, some dynamic progress, maybe even a secondary theme, if you're lucky. Take the skyrim theme, for example. I don't know if it was skyrim or some other referred to in the OP, but all TES themes are small variations on the same theme for 1.5 to 3 minutes.

I definitely wouldn't call film and game soundtracks 'late romantic' - they've definitely moved into a genre of their own, in my opinion. The differences in structure etc that you mentioned are partly to do with trying to fit their medium, but also, I think, to do with representing what your average modern-day listener wants to hear. You can debate the reasons for it, and whether or not it's a good thing, but people prefer their music to be shorter these days. And this is the same reason for music developing from Baroque to Classical (with a capital C) to Romantic and beyond - reflecting changes in wider culture and changes in how people think.

That still doesn't answer whether or not it is classical (with a small c) though, but based on what you've said about video game soundtracks, you should also be ruling out a lot of the other music that's in the charts; minimalism from the likes of Einaudi, Glass, film sountracks, of which there are 8 in the top 100, and a whole load of other, more modern, classical music - Jenkins, Rutter, etc. So where do you draw the line?

 

[harristhenerd]

I myself voted, and will let you know that it wasn't only Elder Scrolls and Final Fantasy. I voted for Elder Scrolls, Fallout and Mass Effect soundtracks, which evidently didn't win.
To people saying that these are just as legitimate as classical music for inclusion... Well, Classical FM is for classical music, hence the name. I don't consider soundtrack music classical, as classical is a specific genre, and thus has features that are included, that aren't in the soundtrack. Also, classical is not the same as romantic or baroque.

There are actually two meanings of 'classical' relating to music - we usually differentiate between them by using a capital C for one and not the other. There's Classical music, which, you're quite right, is separate from Baroque and Romantic; the Classical period is from about 1730-1810, give or take about 20 years either side. On the other hand, classical music is just anything that isn't popular music. The debate about whether soundtracks should be called classical or popular is what this is really about.

 

[harristhenerd]

I can see where they're coming from. By including game music on a list like that, it's bound to get a lot of votes from people who likely do not know a lot about classical music, but only vote because they know the song from some game.

This may be true, but at the same time, it means that people who otherwise wouldn't listen to any classical music actually become engaged with it enough to want to vote in this chart. And maybe they'll become more interested in classical music generally. It certainly doesn't hurt the chances of that happening...

The problem is with that argument is that its just a vote on website, you don't have to listen to anything. I don't listen to Classic FM because its a bit middle of the road for me but I can tell my Haydn from my Handle. I doubt many of those voting for the game soundtracks can. I'm not sure that the average visitor to the escapist would be that happy about two zynga games being in the top 10 games of the year.

I guess you're right, but you can't deny that now there is a lot more debate about classical music, and a lot more people involved in that debate, than there otherwise would be. Which can only be a good thing. (Right?)

 

[harristhenerd]

These people need to be reminded that most of the great overtures and operas are nothing more than commissioned soundtracks themselves.

Of course they can argue about that all they want, but a hundred years doesn't change that they fill the exact same spot in culture that the Dragonborn's Song occupies now, the century or two of intervening time just lets them pretend it doesn't and be incredibly snobbish about it.

Also, having heard an orchestra abruptly break into Green Hill Zone and the reactions of utter glee from people who both did and didn't know what it was, I think soundtrack music has as much a place in the Halls of Classical Fame as anything else.

I think that's a really good point - I've seen a lot of people saying thing like "If Bach/Mozart/[insert classical composer here] were alive today, they'd compose game soundtracks," and I think they're absolutely right. I think it's important to view classical music as still very much a dynamic and evolving thing that is still going to move in new directions, although many people, I'm sure, would just want to hang on to what's there and ignore everything composed since about 1890...

 

[e033x]

I definitely wouldn't call film and game soundtracks 'late romantic' - they've definitely moved into a genre of their own, in my opinion. The differences in structure etc that you mentioned are partly to do with trying to fit their medium, but also, I think, to do with representing what your average modern-day listener wants to hear. You can debate the reasons for it, and whether or not it's a good thing, but people prefer their music to be shorter these days. And this is the same reason for music developing from Baroque to Classical (with a capital C) to Romantic and beyond - reflecting changes in wider culture and changes in how people think.

That still doesn't answer whether or not it is classical (with a small c) though, but based on what you've said about video game soundtracks, you should also be ruling out a lot of the other music that's in the charts; minimalism from the likes of Einaudi, Glass, film sountracks, of which there are 8 in the top 100, and a whole load of other, more modern, classical music - Jenkins, Rutter, etc. So where do you draw the line?

Soundtracs may not be late romantic, but it is certainly rooted there. Both share a very similar aesthetic ideal, and John Williams, who started the epic orchestral trend in film music, is thoroughly based in the late romantic era. I should also add that romanticism, especially national romanticism was still alive and kicking when JW wrote the Star Wars theme. One might even suggest that that particular style of film music is a continuation of romanticism.

And to compare film music to the evolution from baroque to romantic, i dont agree with. While all the previous musical eras built upon the last, evolving new contrasting elements, and generally being more complex than the last, contemporary film music is basically a simplified version of old ideals, namely romanticism.

The question of where "classical" ends is an intersting one, but given the multitude of styles associated with classical music in the 1900's and 2000's, it has more to do with just who it is appealing to, or what its trying to be. Art music is an expression more suited perhaps. Minimalism, for example, distinguishes itself from other rythm-based music with its spesific ideal and its complexity. You wouldnt compare John Adams or Thomas Ades, both of whom draw inspiration from alot of contemporary rythmic music with say, techno or hip-hop, allthough they share alot of elements.

To adress Jenkins and people like him, he fits more into a genre which actually is quite old. "Light classics" or somehting has been around for about a century, with composers like Hayden Wood, and it is basically orchestral pop. Since contemporary "classical" music has diverged so much from popular tastes, "orchestral pop" tries to bridge the gap. If film and game music belongs anywhere, it is there. The question then is do you fit that under the classical umbrella aswell? I say no, because it devalues the expressions ability to acually describe anything with precision. Its then basically synonymous with "orchestral music" which again poses some problems concerning the classification of chamber and solo music.

When you come to think sbout it, classical music is a horribly bad way of describing anything, really.

 

[Albino Boo]

I definitely wouldn't call film and game soundtracks 'late romantic' - they've definitely moved into a genre of their own, in my opinion. The differences in structure etc that you mentioned are partly to do with trying to fit their medium, but also, I think, to do with representing what your average modern-day listener wants to hear. You can debate the reasons for it, and whether or not it's a good thing, but people prefer their music to be shorter these days. And this is the same reason for music developing from Baroque to Classical (with a capital C) to Romantic and beyond - reflecting changes in wider culture and changes in how people think.

That still doesn't answer whether or not it is classical (with a small c) though, but based on what you've said about video game soundtracks, you should also be ruling out a lot of the other music that's in the charts; minimalism from the likes of Einaudi, Glass, film sountracks, of which there are 8 in the top 100, and a whole load of other, more modern, classical music - Jenkins, Rutter, etc. So where do you draw the line?

Music from people like Rutter, Adams or Glass are primarily written for live performance. Glass does write soundtracks for films but his day job is writing operas or orchestral pieces to be performed live in front of an audience. Game soundtracks are not written with that in mind, and are very rarely given public performances and there is no great clamour from concert or recital goers from them to be played.

 

[harristhenerd]

Soundtracs may not be late romantic, but it is certainly rooted there. Both share a very similar aesthetic ideal, and John Williams, who started the epic orchestral trend in film music, is thoroughly based in the late romantic era. I should also add that romanticism, especially national romanticism was still alive and kicking when JW wrote the Star Wars theme. One might even suggest that that particular style of film music is a continuation of romanticism.

And to compare film music to the evolution from baroque to romantic, i dont agree with. While all the previous musical eras built upon the last, evolving new contrasting elements, and generally being more complex than the last, contemporary film music is basically a simplified version of old ideals, namely romanticism.

The question of where "classical" ends is an intersting one, but given the multitude of styles associated with classical music in the 1900's and 2000's, it has more to do with just who it is appealing to, or what its trying to be. Art music is an expression more suited perhaps. Minimalism, for example, distinguishes itself from other rythm-based music with its spesific ideal and its complexity. You wouldnt compare John Adams or Thomas Ades, both of whom draw inspiration from alot of contemporary rythmic music with say, techno or hip-hop, allthough they share alot of elements.

To adress Jenkins and people like him, he fits more into a genre which actually is quite old. "Light classics" or somehting has been around for about a century, with composers like Hayden Wood, and it is basically orchestral pop. Since contemporary "classical" music has diverged so much from popular tastes, "orchestral pop" tries to bridge the gap. If film and game music belongs anywhere, it is there. The question then is do you fit that under the classical umbrella aswell? I say no, because it devalues the expressions ability to acually describe anything with precision. Its then basically synonymous with "orchestral music" which again poses some problems concerning the classification of chamber and solo music.

When you come to think sbout it, classical music is a horribly bad way of describing anything, really.

On the issue of development of music - I agree that the development of music from Baroque to Classical to Romantic is very different musically from the development of film and game soundtracks, but I would still argue that they happen for more or less the same reason - changes in overall culture. But the problem with bandying around terms like this - it's an issue with the whole debate, really - is that it becomes very easy to pigeonhole music. It's not as if everyone woke up in about 1730 and decided that there would be no more polyphony and everyone would use sonata form and we'd better start writing for the piano because the harpsichord's getting a bit old hat. Development of music is a continuous process, and it becomes very easy to forget that, I think, when we try to classify music. The 'epic orchestral' trend you speak of has been around for around 50 years (as a ballpark figure), which is a comparatively short amount of time - but already I think we're seeing some pretty big musical differences.

'Art music' would be an interesting alternative term to classical - but then again, are you including programme music in that? And if so, surely that's all soundtracks are...

But yes, defining and categorizing music is an impossible process, as it's all so subjective. What you see as a simple development of Romantic traditions, I see as a new genre, and I'm sure we could both back up our points of view with some pretty strong musical arguments. It's hugely a matter of opinion - I think this is why the Hall of Fame has sparked the debate that it has: it represents a very sudden and dramatic change in opinion, which many people might be uncomfortable with.

 

[harristhenerd]

Music from people like Rutter, Adams or Glass are primarily written for live performance. Glass does write soundtracks for films but his day job is writing operas or orchestral pieces to be performed live in front of an audience. Game soundtracks are not written with that in mind, and are very rarely given public performances and there is no great clamour from concert or recital goers from them to be played.

This is actually a really interesting point - musically, of course, whether it's written to be performed live or not doesn't matter, but you could make the case that the essence of the music, and what we can categorize it as, is intrinsically linked to its purpose. I hadn't thought of that.

However, live concerts and performances of soundtracks are becoming increasingly common, particularly in countries like Japan. Does that change anything?

 

[Albino Boo]

Music from people like Rutter, Adams or Glass are primarily written for live performance. Glass does write soundtracks for films but his day job is writing operas or orchestral pieces to be performed live in front of an audience. Game soundtracks are not written with that in mind, and are very rarely given public performances and there is no great clamour from concert or recital goers from them to be played.

This is actually a really interesting point - musically, of course, whether it's written to be performed live or not doesn't matter, but you could make the case that the essence of the music, and what we can categorize it as, is intrinsically linked to its purpose. I hadn't thought of that.

However, live concerts and performances of soundtracks are becoming increasingly common, particularly in countries like Japan. Does that change anything?

Every year over 300,000 people attended the proms concerts in London. The number of game soundtracks=0
270,000 go every year to the Salzburg Festival. The number of game soundtracks=0
Every year 500,000 people apply for one of 58,000 tickets for the Bayreuth festival. The number of game soundtracks=0

In short, no it doesn't change a thing.

Live performance is different. There are huge variations in interpretations. Different conductors use timings and different emphasis on passages. They also change with each performance. You also get difference in interpretations between soloists, giving you vast numbers of versions of the same piece. Each conductor and soloist has there own style has developed over the years, to create each live performance as new thing. To be frank, when classical artists perform things like game soundtracks, they are either doing purely it for the money or its the B listers who can't get into the big leagues.

 

[harristhenerd]

Music from people like Rutter, Adams or Glass are primarily written for live performance. Glass does write soundtracks for films but his day job is writing operas or orchestral pieces to be performed live in front of an audience. Game soundtracks are not written with that in mind, and are very rarely given public performances and there is no great clamour from concert or recital goers from them to be played.

This is actually a really interesting point - musically, of course, whether it's written to be performed live or not doesn't matter, but you could make the case that the essence of the music, and what we can categorize it as, is intrinsically linked to its purpose. I hadn't thought of that.

However, live concerts and performances of soundtracks are becoming increasingly common, particularly in countries like Japan. Does that change anything?

Every year over 300,000 people attended the proms concerts in London. The number of game soundtracks=0
270,000 go every year to the Salzburg Festival. The number of game soundtracks=0
Every year 500,000 people apply for one of 58,000 tickets for the Bayreuth festival. The number of game soundtracks=0

In short, no it doesn't change a thing.

Live performance is different. There are huge variations in interpretations. Different conductors use timings and different emphasis on passages. They also change with each performance. You also get difference in interpretations between soloists, giving you vast numbers of versions of the same piece. Each conductor and soloist has there own style has developed over the years, to create each live performance as new thing. To be frank, when classical artists perform things like game soundtracks, they are either doing purely it for the money or its the B listers who can't get into the big leagues.

I'm not sure that's entirely fair - I'd hardly call the London Philharmonic Orchestra 'B listers', and Andrew Skeet, who conducted and arranged their albums, is obviously pretty passionate about game soundtracks, and that comes across in some of the interviews he's done about them.

And obviously live performance will grant a different experience each time, but video game music definitely has the capacity to be performed live, and it has been done, although it isn't mainstream yet. It's growing, however; there's a series of annual concerts in Germany, Video Games Live events that tour all over the world, and so on. Obviously these do not yet compete with the major classical music festivals, but that's no reason to ignore their existence entirely.

The point is, though, that video game soundtracks do have the capacity to be performed live - musically, as I said, it doesn't make a difference whether this is the original purpose of the music or not. Sure, it's something that marks them as different from almost all other pieces of classical music, but to me, it's not a difference that means we should discount them entirely from discussions about modern classical music.

 

[Gearhead mk2]

Yeah, we all know gaming doesn't have any real, deep music that stirs up emotion and makes you think.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'll go back to listening to Dancing Mad, AKA that eighteeen-minute five-part symphony from Final Fantasy VI that makes reference to the Divine Comedy whilst simultaneously speaking volumes about the mentality of the greatest vilain in gaming history and is quite possibly one of the deepest tracks ever made for gaming despite being made with synths and chiptune.
Seriously, screw these snobs. Just because a peice of music is from a soundtrack doesn't mean it's inherently lesser than any other music. Heck, I would prefer to listen to soundtracks than most of the crap on the charts nowadays.

 

[Scentedwiind]

As a snob I found that to be a bit mean. Video Game music tips the scales of classical and modern that comes a bit to close to comfort for most of those who listen to classical. I can, and do, enjoy both and can thus understand the frustration of both parties who found that Soule's inclusion was acceptable but far to elevated compared to who he was facing (he edged out Beethoven from the top 5 which is a major insult to a great composer). We have no problems with the recognition of soundtrack music as a gate to the classical world but it has a little more maturing before it should be elevated to such high levels so quickly and without so much as a gradual escalation. Then again, to be perfectly clear, Jeremy Soule's music is absolutely amazing in its own right and the best within his genre, in my opinion, but a different beast than the classical hardcore music lovers are ready to accept. Considering his path into symphonic music with his post-romantic, I may be mixing terms though on that one, sound I can see the development of his style as inspire by the classics and advancing to a prolific position himself.

Simply put, he is good, they are good, all of them are good but have not earned the necessary street cred as it were to be labeled properly by us snobs as worthy of the title they gave him. If he had fallen just outside the number 5 spot then I suspect we would be singing a different tune.

 

[harristhenerd]

As a snob I found that to be a bit mean. Video Game music tips the scales of classical and modern that comes a bit to close to comfort for most of those who listen to classical. I can, and do, enjoy both and can thus understand the frustration of both parties who found that Soule's inclusion was acceptable but far to elevated compared to who he was facing (he edged out Beethoven from the top 5 which is a major insult to a great composer). We have no problems with the recognition of soundtrack music as a gate to the classical world but it has a little more maturing before it should be elevated to such high levels so quickly and without so much as a gradual escalation. Then again, to be perfectly clear, Jeremy Soule's music is absolutely amazing in its own right and the best within his genre, in my opinion, but a different beast than the classical hardcore music lovers are ready to accept. Considering his path into symphonic music with his post-romantic, I may be mixing terms though on that one, sound I can see the development of his style as inspire by the classics and advancing to a prolific position himself.

Simply put, he is good, they are good, all of them are good but have not earned the necessary street cred as it were to be labeled properly by us snobs as worthy of the title they gave him. If he had fallen just outside the number 5 spot then I suspect we would be singing a different tune.

I don't think anyone would suggest for a moment that the soundtrack to the Elder Scrolls series is actually the fifth best piece of classical music ever written - but then again, that's not what the Hall of Fame is for, in my opinion. If we're just trying to find out what the best pieces ever written are, then we don't really need a new poll every year. Rather, when I vote, I ask myself what my favourite 3 pieces of classical music are at the moment, and this can be changed by new recordings, or something being played more often because it's a composer's anniversary year (not a coincidence that Rachmaninoff was number 1 this year!) and so I often vote for different pieces. It only achieved the place it did because of social media campaigns, and I'm sure that next year, it'll return to a more suitable place. However, lots of people, including myself, voted for it because it is genuinely one of my favourite works right now, and I speak as someone who listens to a lot of classical music. At least it has given the genre some exposure, though, and lots of people who wouldn't otherwise have heard it are now interested.

 

[takemeouttotheblack]

I think perhaps one slight difference is that it's a little harder when designing game music to necessarily fit it to a certain time frame; whereas in a film or an opera, there's a pre selected number of actions the music must fit around, the timing remains the same throughout. With a game, your player could spend a minute or an hour on a certain segment, and thus when writing, it's probably something of a different challenge for a composer, and that might make some elements of a game soundtrack a little more repetitive than other media.

In terms of the actual topic, I think that game music is improving year in, year out, and that some of the better stuff is increasingly going to be regarded as artistically valuable outside the gaming community. However, most establishment figures tend not to be gamers, and that will only change with time. Moreover, the art form of gaming is still quite young, and there is the slight problem of the need for profit; we're not quite at the stage where companies are willing to invest in more risky projects because the market for games is a lot smaller than that for films (which are open to larger audiences, can be bought multiple times and in multiple forms [e.g. cinema tickets, dvd/bluray/download sales, sky box office and then tv slots]).

TLDR?

Acceptance will happen eventually, but we can't force it.