orphicmusic.com Blog

It is a source of constant worry to many professional musicians that the world at large is terminally bored by classical music. The appropriate level of panic is frequently debated by the interested parties. Some perceive that the sky is falling, while others feel that nothing’s wrong. In any case, it’s fairly obvious that the majority of people don’t actively seek out classical performances or recordings.

Both classical aficianodos and the public at large generally fail to acknowledge a basic fact that has great impact on this debate: Film music is classical music. The great composers of our time are James Horner, Danny Elfman, John Williams, Howard Shore, Hans Zimmer, and many others. Many “serious” musicians will readily acknowledge this (especially those who are employeed in the recording of these scores), and others will cede the point if pressed. Yet, according to the survey classes I took as a music minor, the great musical contributors of the 20th century were the the likes of Schoenberg, Webern and Cage. The Wikipedia entry on 20th Century Classical is quite typical – in acknowledging the interaction between popular and classical music, it includes film scores among the popular.

Consider the fusion and of orchestra and choir, and the interchange of melodies between scongs and score in The Lion King, contrasted with the the acoustic guitar and synthesizers of Mission Impossible 2 – all Hans Zimmer’s work. Browse through the hundreds of projects to which John Williams has contributed. Listen to an Oingo Boingo’s hit New Wave album “Dead Man’s Party,” then the score from Edward Scissorhands, and realize that Danny Elfman wrote them both in the same decade. Watch the musical features on the extended edition of the Lord of the Ring’s film, and see how Howard Shore drew from the real world’s folk music to create leitmotif’s for fictional realms and characters. Each of these scores are passively enjoyed by millions of people, as they gel with films to create the Cinematic Experience. A substantial minority of these millions (myself included) purchase and enjoy the scores independent of the films.

The fact that atonal music is touted as a landmark achievement rather than a curiosity astounds me. I view it as a manifestation of the pretentiousness that causes the classical community to disavow film music. Perhaps, if the classical elite would step down off their pedestal and realize that “commercially succesful” and “good” are not part of the same spectrum in music, there wouldn’t be such cause for concern. When that day comes, we can move on to discussing the credibility of video game music.

When you hear a song (or an album, or a band) too often, you get tired of it; Unless you’re 15, in which case all bets are off. Anyway, the term “overplayed” gets thrown around a lot in my world. At the same time, we like music we know. If that wasn’t true, why would radio stations play the same songs over and over and over and over and over? Okay, bad example. Why would we go out and buy CDs that we’ve heard before? Why would we have favorite albums? Though there are probably some audiophiles out there who would prefer to constantly listen to new music, most of us seem to prefer a middle ground.

To illustrate, my favorite three songs from the Broadway version of The Lion King are “They Live in You,” “Shadow Land,” and “Endless Night.” When I first listened to this CD, I kind of liked “They Live in You,” but didn’t really notice the other two. I preferred the songs I knew from the movie soundtrack. After a number of listens, I decided I needed a 5-string bass so I could play along with “They Live in You” (and The Cure’s “To Wish Impossible Things” – you really should have at least two good reasons to buy a $400 instrument you can’t really play when you’re only making minimum wage). A number of listens later, “Shadow Land” and “Endless Night” absolutely blow me away. Changes in my musical taste over time are certainly a factor, but I think a lot of it is familiarity with the music.

That brings me to the root cause of this rant – music that is promoted with the caveat “You have to listen to this X times to ‘get’ it.” This seems to be a very ambiguous way of saying “This music boring and a little irritating – but, since humans like what they know, you’ll get used to it after a bit!” Why should I spend four or five hours letting something grow on me, when there are so many albums that I find at least moderately enjoyable the first time around?

The reason this is on my mind is that it’s kind of what a reviewer said about Radiohead’s Kid A, which I picked up this past weekend. To the reviewer’s credit, he didn’t seem to mean it as a compliment. I listened to the album on the way to work this morning, and I kind of recognized a couple of songs. Surprise, those were my favorites!

The reviewer’s comment started this train of thought, but two things I’ve read previously are the real impetus for this rant. The first, unfortunately, I cannot document. In the early 90’s, Alan Wilder left Depeche Mode, one of my all-time favorite bands. Admittedly, I have yet to listen to any of his work under the name Recoil, but I once read an interview (or perhaps just an album description) where he said that his new album was unlike what he had done with Depeche Mode, in that you had to listen to it 6 or 7 times before you could appreciate it. I remain skeptical.

The real treat is something I did (attempt to) listen to, by a band called Second Sufis. It was a cheap find at Half-Price Books. Here’s the last sentence from the liner notes of Slave Labor on Mars:

“Twenty listenings are suggested at a minimum.”

This is a full-length album. So, if I get up in the morning and put this on repeat all day, I won’t be quite ready to appreciate by the time I go to sleep.

I sold it back.

Enya says her music is NOT New Age.

Robert Smith says The Cure is NOT Goth (and neither is he).

Musicians sometimes have a hard time with the whole instrospection thing.