OK, once more besides all looooooong lametis for surpressed filmusic or indignated classical tradition here are the simple facts about the Music presented by the VSL in their music page:

There are ca. 740 mp3's in totalpresented in the music section of the VSL-Site

430 are in "contemporary" or "film" music."style" (While "contemporary" seems to mean here for the most of them nothing else than commercial or/and functional music)

288 are Baroque, Classical, romantic and 20th century modern style.

Sorry I myself present on my own site klassik-resampled allone defenitivly remarkebly more (=five times as much as VSL) Baroque, Classical, romantic and 20th century modern style mp3 than could be found here on the VSL-site.

Even if you would only count orchestral and chambermusic and do not count my solokeyboardrecordings, there are on klassik-resampled still more Baroque, Classical, romantic and 20th century modern-mp3's than you ever can find on the VSL-Site (Orchestral: klassik-resampled 15 hours, VSL 11 hours, chambermusic: klassik-resampled 6 hours, VSL ~ 3 hours.)  What means that even in more than ten years the VSL does collect less much Baroque, Classical, romantic and 20th century modern music on their site than just one normal single user like me would produce.)

And please keep in mind, that this is the original repertoire for the orchestral instrument/s which are digitally produced by VSL, like Bach WTK,, Mozart, + Beethoven Sonatas, Chopin Nocturnes & Studies etc is the original repertoire for the piano. So there is nothing wrong to try those digital instrumnts with their original repertoire.

So this is the clear answer to the question posed at the beginning of the thread:

There is definitly no problem at all concerning the presentation of "film" and "contemporary" music production on the VSL-Site. And of course no dominance of "serious" music from our musical tradition at all. The opposite seems to be true.

And why ever the film-musicians comunity-members perhaps might hesitate to post their stuff (what I dont think is realy the case) is their decision.

However if comunitymembers interested in the classical tradition are that busy that there is many new stuff to hear this is really nothing anyone has any reason to complaiin at all in my eyes. It just demonstrates how mighty,  versatile and inspiring the VSL-Products are.

So if you prefer to have more music in a contemporary, functional or filmmusic style just go produce it and and post it likewise....😃

@goran_tsch said:

As usual, I fully agree with the main thrust of your full post above, so I'am just quoting the second post scriptum ...

It is an another thread, but just out of curiosity: can you name a few exceptions you are referring to above? (I'm asking because even though I agree with much of what you wrote I still find many pieces of younger generation composers standig in the tradition of the Modernist Revolution (which I am a staunch defender of, independently of the fact that I myself am in a period of composing what would best be described as "New "Old" Music" (which is an another topic as well 😊  to exhibit real skill, inspiration and compositional integrity in general.)  

I really don't wish to discuss modern music further here, it is such a massive discussion, a field of inquiry so vastly larger than film-music, that I won't do it justice here, and certainly don't have enough time to do so elsewhere. Be that the case, I can only resort to some aphoristic remarks, which however do reflect my position on the subject:

I listen to as many modern works as is healthy for me. Lots of those scores are produced from the young and the younger generations ('young' in terms of modern music stretches to include composers my age - shhh, it's a secret...) And I am referring to free-atonal works in this case.

Without exception, I can find no raison-d'etre for any of those works; works that despite stemming from different people scattered about the remotest recesses of the planet, they all sound and look the same (they ALL sound and look the same), in terms of intentions, sensibilities, and execution. No nationality, no personality, no character. Orwellian clones that hilariously believe they are expressing themselves, when thousands of others are writing entirely the same stuff (exactly like all the untalented hordes sequencing string ostinati with dreams of Hollywood...)

From personal experience I know that most of them (statistical deduction) couldn't compose a convincing tonal work to save their lives. Most of them are harmonically illiterate beyond the very basics of functional harmony (even university graduates!), and wouldn't know about musical continuity and organicism if it hurled in their faces. Whereas convincing - not great - 'modern' music, is so easy to write for an educated "musician" it's a joke. Great modern music is a very rare gem indeed, but the composers capable of it and the ones I respect, you can tell they could write non-gestural music should they wish to, i.e. they are real musicians.

Since I don't intend to argue this as a) it would take too long, and b) it is my personal appreciation of the current state of affairs, I would like to suggest those composers-exceptions to you - all my such exceptions of living composers write sophisticated tonal / chromatic music, and there are quite a few. Those two I mentioned above (Vine and Rautavaara) feature on the top of my preferences.

P.S. to the rest of the forum: Of course not all Mozart is great, but we are talking about an opus no. in the 600s for a 35 year old (Schubert in the 900s for a 31 year old). Goldsmith scored a little more than 200 films and do you know how many of them are worth listening to?... And lest we forget, a lot of the early stuff in Mozart's case was actually composed by a young child; including the first symphony which is quite good. I wonder how many here could handle and balance the classical orchestra and sonata form as well as Mozart did at age 8...

P.S.2: My musical opinions are not musical snobbery. I am not suggesting that only trained musicians can write great music. In fact, most trained musicians cannot. And Paul McCartney, Benny Anderson, and Barry Gibb for example, were infinitely more inspired than at least 2/3rds of the New Grove gang.

However, when one wishes to write for orchestra, one must be told that orchestral writing is not merely 'Melody and Accompaniment', and one is cheating only themselves (OK, and the ignoramus director who hired them), when they only look to Hans or James Newton to learn the craft, instead of the traditional masters. The greats of film did so in the past, instead of just bying a laptop and start banging away. However, what did they really know? Maybe today everybody is so much more talented and intuitive than Herrmann and Williams, they do not need Mahler, Stravinsky, Ligeti, and Saariaho. They just need Inaction Strings and Project Scam and hoopla! Music!!

Oh come on this is definitly neither the question posed at the beginning of this thread nor anything, which still must be discussed in any way at all. Everybody can think about music and compose whatever he has fun to do so.

And if he wants to convince anyone of anything concerning music the only argument that counts are the ears which are interested and enjoys listening.

"Modernism" is definitly a problem of the 20th century and became history in the "postmodernism" of the 90th. That is already more than 20 Years ago. Now we are so free that you can write good or awful tonal or atonal music how much you ever want to.

If anything might be intersting to discuss is the question,

a) if the money some at least hope/wish or dream to earn by doing filmmusic is really the only esthetic value which is left, or

b) if there is any other reason what music might be about, what obviously seems to be true for those who uses VSL-Samples for traditional Orchestral-repertoire without expecting any huge Hollywood-payments (instead of just illustrating one or another imaginated Filmcue with VSL-Samples and dreaming to be discoverd as the second Hans Zimmer once). 

However for me those tonal-atonal-discussions sound more than odd today and completly offtopic in this thread here. Better produce some good music of whatever concept you like in the time you spent writing things like this here.

@fahl5 said:

However for me those tonal-atonal-discussions sound more than odd today and completly offtopic in this thread here. Better produce some good music of whatever concept you like in the time you spent writing things like this here.

If that is what you understood from my post, then perhaps a course in the english language would not be amiss?

But you are right in one thing. I did spend valuable time writing here instead of writing music, I shouldn't have; even though I was asked in a previous post to address these exact issues, be they only somewhat off-topic mind you.

@Another User said:

But you are right in one thing. I did spend valuable time writing here instead of writing music, I shouldn't have; even

To come back to the very topic of this thread:

Of course I would have enjoyed it much more to hear good and fresh examples of your musical "capablity"  might it be filmmusic, contemporary, traditional, neoromantic, commercial, neoclassical, dodekaphonic, functional, mikrotonal or christmas carols.

I myself at least am sure it would need no further arguments at all if it simply is done well. and presumably we even consent in this point. 😉

I agree very much with Errikos who is speaking as a composer frustrated with the various dysfunctions in modern music - i.e., academic championing of atonalism at the cost of everything else including quality, as well as pop music which includes film music composed by pop musicians such as Zimmer or the recent Oscar winner Reznor who is a universe away from what Hollywood composers were in the 1940s - Max Steiner, Erich Korngold, Franz Waxman, Herrmann (whose first film was Citizen Kane!).  All of the aforementioned were brilliant, even genius masters of orchestration, advanced Mahler-Post-Romantic harmony, and extreme Richard Strauss-level orchestral counterpoint   who took to film music of the day because it offered them work but also gave them inspiration.  Korngold viewed his film scores as "operas without words."   Herrmann created his greatest music, arguably, in his film scores, and if you listen to his pure concert music you will discover many references to his film scores, such as the wonderful "Echoes" string quartet, one of his latest works and a tremendous, flawless masterpiece, referencing "Vertigo" and others.    Great music knows no boundaries that are conventional. 

As for "classic" composers in film bussiness we must realise that very little number of composers were or are allowed to bring music of their intention. Mostly, the director screw it and want it to fit scenes no matter what the music language means. The whole history of film music is full of examples where great composers was replaced in minute by not so good only because they not agreed on this kind of music destruction. Zimmer is one of the best examples of this nonoriginal fastworking replacers that satisfy every director's request. Remember that director is still most important person in film making process...

@Another User said:

Most of them are harmonically illiterate beyond the very basics of functional harmony (even university graduates!)

Just want to relay my own university experience from a number of decades ago:

I was really looking forward to studying 18th century counterpoint.  It was a subject I knew little about, but something, given my interests, that I knew I would find vauable...

The class was taught by the music department's new music prof.  He spent almost the entire semester - when he was there that is (the class only met about 1/2 the scheduled sessions) talking about new music.  I came into class knowing little, I exited the class knowing little (quite a contrast from the "old school" harmony prof who drilled us endlessly).

A few serious general comments:

Given the culture of postmodernism, coupled with Nietzsche and other subsequent philosophers (French deconstructionists in particular), that the noise of so much "modern" work reflects much of where the West, in particular, is at is not a shock.  That the skill levels are declining is not unexpected. 

Consider the reversal regarding knowledge that exists under the deconstructionists (Foucault especially).  Instead of knowledge being power - for example a noted heart surgeon being more highly regarded than a first year general intern - that has been reversed so that power now determines knowledge.  Simply stated, those who have power dictate what is considered knowledge.  The philosopher then insists that anyone who claims to have knowledge actually is merely trying to exercise his/her power over another person, that the claim to having real knowledge is false, and the person/group claiming knowledge can simply be disregarded (of course one is not to treat the philosopher's own writings in the same manner).

While it is sometimes easy to ignore what goes on in some of the "ivory towers" the difficulty comes when those philosophies trickle down into day to day life.  They morph in very different ways, and it is then no surprise that someone who simply strings loops together will disdain someone who practices a serious musical craft.  The one practicing the serious craft is merely trying to play power games over the "loop stringer".  The reality that the serious composer is actually correct is of no consequence.

One only needs to examine Roman architecture/sculpture from say the early 4th century compared to the 1st to see a parallel historical decline.

Personally, it is worth it to proclaim a different position than what is going on with much of so-called "creativity".  That is also one reason I enjoy many of the discussions on the VSL forums.

"Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible."

    Frank Zappa

@kenneth.newby said:

 

"Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible."

    Frank Zappa

Only in case you know the norm and know rules that you are breaking and why 😉

@Another User said:

I was really looking forward to studying 18th century counterpoint.  It was a subject I knew little about, but something, given my interests, that I knew I would find vauable...

The class was taught by the music department's new music prof.  He spent almost the entire semester - when he was there that is (the class only met about 1/2 the scheduled sessions) talking about new music.  I came into class knowing little, I exited the class knowing little (quite a contrast from the "old school" harmony prof who drilled us endlessly).

A few serious general comments:

Given the culture of postmodernism, coupled with Nietzsche and other subsequent philosophers (French deconstructionists in particular), that the noise of so much "modern" work reflects much of where the West, in particular, is at is not a shock.  That the skill levels are declining is not unexpected. 

Most people here and in universities don't care much for 18th century counterpoint, and most wouldn't know there are differences between that and 16th century counterpoint, let alone what those are... In fact, they don't care for anything in music that is actually pretty hard and takes years to learn, let alone master. People claim they are serious about being "composers" of orchestral music - both in and out of academia, however they refuse, or are never required, to build those skills that everybody in the past - even John Cage - did possess to at least an acceptable degree, before they branched out into experimentation. The complexity of modern music 'proper' for the last 100 years (that most guys in film could never fathom, nor do they need to) is directly derived and based on the highest and most intricate achievements in harmony and polyphony over the last 500 years. 

Finally, I don't see much to connect Nietzche and the dreary French post-modernist bunch, although I am far from an expert. I just know that I have enjoyed reading most of Nietzche's work and regretted wasting time on the latter.

Errikos wrote:

"Most people here and in universities don't care much for 18th century counterpoint, and most wouldn't know there are differences between that and 16th century counterpoint, let alone what those are..."

Oh I see you obviously dont know my site which favours not only very much of for instance bach's and others counterpoint but also many interesting examples of little known but very well developped 19th century counterpoint-compositions (Klengel, Draeseke, Nicode and some others which I am trying to propagate a bit with my web-project).

Even if I confess that I am guilty to have studied at an university, there is at least a tiny hope that I am not completly ignorant when it comes to counterpoint, but I also confess that does not keep me from apreciating music of the 20th century as music of the 20th century as I appreciate music of the 18th century as music of the 18th century.

(But of course I am nearly completly ignorant on the field of christmas carols so please errikos post at least one or two of your finest CC-Masterworks to bring my poor academic mind on a higher level of musical conciosness 😉)

noldar, that is a very interesting post and profoundly true about post modernist thought.  I believe Post Modernism originated in valuable observations about the debatable relativity of "truth," "knowledge," etc. but has degenerated into a devaluation of any meaning in any field of endeavor.  A brilliant, massive book called "Madness and Modernism" by Louis Sass, a psychiatrist with wide-ranging erudition in psychology, philosophy, literature and art has pointed out the astonishingly close parallels between schizophrenia and modern - especially post-modern - art, philosophy and literature.  In fact, to most perfectly create a genuinely Modern work of art, one MUST adopt a schizoid frame of mind. 

I hasten to add that many of the works created in this way I really like - works as divergent as de Chirico's great early paintings or one of my favorite films, Resnais' "Last Year at Marienbad" or as Errikos mentioned the great writings of Nietchze whose philosophy prefigures so much of the modern era.  But still,  it is unsettling to think that "to be modern"' is to be mentally ill.  😛

However cool, smart, sophisticated and so on Foucault, Derida, Sloterdijk and their friends might be, to me the most significant knowledge we got from "post-modernism" is just what the name itself tells us.

"Modern" is no longer "modern" but just another page of (musical) history.

OK, now we must no longer try to do anything "better as" it remains enough to do things just "good". That is true for me not only for Boulez, and Nono, Xenakis or Ligeti (who all defenitly have done enough things good to remain interesting even after Modernis is gone), as it is true for Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms Mahler, Berg and so on. who all likewise have done enough things that good, that I personally dont need to decide who ever was "better as".

That is why I dont have any problem wether someone does film, or intended "serious" music, tonal or atonal music. Even if I have studied at the university, read Kant, Adorno, Foucault, Derrida etc blabla, I do still have my ears that judge what I like.

I can not find any necessity to be "schizoid"  or "ill" at all, I feel in best health when I just do today what I like to do today let it be historic inspired, or by modernism, by an specific functional occasion, or simply by christmas😉.

(Post retracted)

Reading some of the remarks uttered in this thread, I assume some of you guys have nice patches of lawn in front of your houses that you frequently tell whippersnappers to get off of ... 😕😃

Thank You errikos, that you corrected you last posting. It was definitly right and necessary to do so.

Please dont take the difference between "good" and "better" to easy. "Good" does as I understand it not necessarily needs "Progress" like "better" does. Modernism is as far as I know based on the Idea of progress.

This central aspect seems to me lost since "postmodernism". This difference is at least for me important, because it gives different historic solutions/styles/musical languages their own historical ("relative") justification in "relation" to their own context.

I do not belong to those who only think of something "nihilating" when they hear thatt postmodernism makes values "relative". For me to judge in relation to a certain concret context allows useable positive (relative) judgements which seem to me in a general meaing at least difficult if not simply wrong. At the end of this for me one still has to judge if something is in its own context "good",  And again in my eyes no one needs do be ill or schizoid just to make the difference between different contextes. (For instance to let 18th century be the 18th century, the 20th century the 20th and today again something quite different.)

And yes that is why I personally do not take any offense in the fact that others follow other values than I do. If I would write filmmusic. I presumably would try to use all available technical means to let the music do their job in the certain film, But I am personally not that interested in that what allows me to put my focus more on other things I am more interested in. 

I don't really want to derail the direction of the thread...

Very briefly the connection between Nietzsche and the French Postmondernists has to do with the latter's buidling off of some of Nietzche's positions, especially as it relates to morality, the death of God, and the corresponding death of truth.  Personally, philosophically, I would say "no" to both, but that is an entirely different subject, and one not really suitable for this forum.

In terms of my own compositions (I do not claim to be a "pro"), even without any formal composition training, I came out of college being able to write all kinds of atonal works, serialism, etc., etc.  Could I write (at that point) an actual fugue that worked harmonically?  No.  That is not to say or imply that no "good" atonal works exist.  Penderecki in particular struck me as someone who really knew what he was doing (unlike some others).  The point is, to actually understand how harmony and counterpoint work and compose accordingly takes a degree of effort that I suspect most are just not interested in.

As for Cage, my favorite story about him remains his interest in mushrooms.  He remarked that if he approached his mushroom collecting and eating in the same way he approached his music, he would soon be dead.  One simply can't eat any old mushroom by chance.  IMO, whatever one may think about his music, a cohesive thought-system is not part of the equation.  Of course, postmodernism would debate if any sort of a cohesive thought-system is possible.

To me, some of the "modern" composers do have serious things to say, regardless of whether I "like" their music or not.  Others, and I would put Cage in this camp, even though they are saying things, seem to be selling form rather than substance.