Soundtracks, Compilations, or other recently purchased Music

[indy4 155]

Williams on Williams arrived!

[Andy 4,127]

Enjoy it! It's a treat.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

Order from SAE: Islands In The Stream and Outland

Just received these. Hooray!

[Joe Brausam 214]

I have to say, I enjoyed the album recordings for Outland on disc 2 of the set, but I just can't get into the score as heard in the film. I just don't think it's all that great. Perhaps hearing it in the film would help, but as of right now I'm not a fan. Oh well...can't like them all.

I really should pick up Islands in the Stream though...that seems more to my taste.

[indy4 155]

Amazing Stories - Anthology Three arrived.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Waterworld - James Newton Howard

Fools Of Fortune - Hans Zimmer

I'm pretty sure my Edge/Speed 2 package is lost in the mail.

[Jay 37,364]

Waterworld - James Newton Howard

One of my early favorite film scores when I first got into them

I'm pretty sure my Edge/Speed 2 package is lost in the mail.

[arathornion33 0]

That's it, I finally caved and bought...

Hook - John Williams (6.28 including shipping )

along with

Sabrina - John Williams

A.I. - John Williams

Which means that now I've promised myself that the next soundtrack order I place will have to be my first Goldsmith!

[Jay 37,364]

Wow! What title will you select as your first Goldsmith?

[Trent B 337]

Just a suggestion arathornion33....the 20th Anniversary for Star Trek: The Motion Picture should be your first Goldsmith purchase.

[indy4 155]

That's it, I finally caved and bought...

Hook - John Williams (6.28 including shipping )

along with

Sabrina - John Williams

A.I. - John Williams

All three are excellent purchases.

Which means that now I've promised myself that the next soundtrack order I place will have to be my first Goldsmith!

I too would suggest TMP but I believe there are rumors that LaLa Land is working on a better version of that score, so I'd actually hold off. My Goldsmith collection isn't very extensive, but from what I do have I'd suggest either The Final Conflict: The Omen III or The Mummy as an introduction to Goldsmith. Both are pretty accessible.

[Jay 37,364]

And I'd suggest Alien, Twilight Zone, Air Force One, Total Recall, or Basic Instinct.

[indy4 155]

And I'd suggest Alien, Twilight Zone, Air Force One, Total Recall, or Basic Instinct.

Oooh, Twilight Zone is another great one. I haven't heard the others, but I thought Alien was supposed to be a a difficult score to get into for new Goldsmith fans?

[Wojo 2,453]

It's very atonal and nonmelodic in parts. It is as difficult a first Goldsmith piece as, say, Close Encounters would be for a first Williams score.

But I love it. Twilight Zone would be a superb first Goldsmith.

My first was Star Trek V...then FC...then TMP. I can't recall what my first non-Trek Goldsmith was.

[Jay 37,364]

I can't remember what my first Goldsmith was. It was either First Contact, Air Force One, Small Soldiers, or, oddly enough... Planet Of The Apes.

With Star Trek TMP expanded, and Rhino's Poltergeist among the other earlies.

[Marian Schedenig 8,193]

It's very atonal and nonmelodic in parts. It is as difficult a first Goldsmith piece as, say, Close Encounters would be for a first Williams score.

Along with Star Wars, CE3K was my first Williams score. Perfect pairing for newcomers on that Gerhardt album.

My first Goldsmith must have been First Contact.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

Technically my first Jerry was the Astral Symphony, although I remember taping bits from TMP and V off the TV in the early nineties.

[arathornion33 0]

Thanks for all the input. I think I'm going to purchase TMP, The Mummy, and First Knight.

[Luke Skywalker 1,795]

Thanks for all the input. I think I'm going to purchase TMP

I wouldnt buy that now, i would wait.

i hate double dipping.

I would recommend you 13th warrior.

[Wojo 2,453]

Besides, the second disc of TMP consists of behind the scenes interviews with Gene Roddenberry about Star Trek the 1960s TV show, with zero relevance to the 1979 movie or its marvelous Jerry Goldsmith score. I don't know how much the album costs today, but I paid $30 for it in 1999.

[fommes 153]

My first Goldsmith was Air Force One.

But with Goldsmith, I would buy a good compilation of his themes first; and then see which theme you want to hear more of.

[Andy 4,127]

My first Goldsmith was Twilight Zone. It's a great one to start with because its anthology format is a great sampler of his many styles. Still have my cassette.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Also received JNH's The Last Airbender today.

[Ollie 1,059]

I would echo the comments of others and suggest holding off on purchasing TMP for awhile.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

Yeah, so I got Salute to Hollywood Boston Pops. I thought I had them all but somehow this one slipped under the radar. I only wanted the Witches of Eastwick music and it didn't disappoint. I think it's better than the OST.

[Marian Schedenig 8,193]

I would echo the comments of others and suggest holding off on purchasing TMP for awhile.

Didn't know we're that optimistic!?

[Ollie 1,059]

Not really, but the rumors are floating around out there.

[indy4 155]

I bought John Williams - The Denver Brass and the soundtrack to The Last Airbender. I can't believe it has taken me this long to hear of an all brass band playing new arrangements of John Williams pieces! I'm especially excited to hear "A Window to the Past," seeing as in the film it is played almost entirely on strings and woodwinds. And the CD has a JW piece not available anywhere else!

Also, I noticed that with the purchase of Amazing Stories, I now have 13 days of music. An enjoyable (but unlucky) milestone for sure.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

2001 soundtrack LP, 50p at a charity shop.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

I bought John Williams - The Denver Brass and the soundtrack to The Last Airbender. I can't believe it has taken me this long to hear of an all brass band playing new arrangements of John Williams pieces! I'm especially excited to hear "A Window to the Past," seeing as in the film it is played almost entirely on strings and woodwinds. And the CD has a JW piece not available anywhere else!

Also, I noticed that with the purchase of Amazing Stories, I now have 13 days of music. An enjoyable (but unlucky) milestone for sure.

How is Denver Brass? I'm weary of "outside" performances. I kinda want it.

[indy4 155]

I don't know yet, I just ordered it on Amazon. But there are samples online, so I'd suggest listening to those. But regardless how you feel about the new arrangements, it contains (to the best of my knowledge) the only available recording of "Winter Games Fanfare," so there will likely be something of interest.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

Lost World sounds awesome. I've been waiting for used prices to drop a bit. There isn't a used copy for under 10 bucks. I'll probably get it anyway.

This week I ordered a copy of Eiger Sanction through Amazon. A seller had it brand new for 24.99...thank Christ.

[indy4 155]

There were two selling for $11. I got one, and the other one appears to be gone. But yeah they sound really cool. I'm really really excited to listen to this one. As a brass player, it is especially enticing.

I bought "III. Finale. Allegro moderato from Concerto in B minor for Cello and Orchestra, Op. 104." God I hate these generic classical music titles.

[Henry B 50]

There were two selling for $11. I got one, and the other one appears to be gone. But yeah they sound really cool. I'm really really excited to listen to this one. As a brass player, it is especially enticing.

I bought "III. Finale. Allegro moderato from Concerto in B minor for Cello and Orchestra, Op. 104." God I hate these generic classical music titles.

Composer?

[indy4 155]

There were two selling for $11. I got one, and the other one appears to be gone. But yeah they sound really cool. I'm really really excited to listen to this one. As a brass player, it is especially enticing.

I bought "III. Finale. Allegro moderato from Concerto in B minor for Cello and Orchestra, Op. 104." God I hate these generic classical music titles.

Composer?

Not sure. It's on the Essential Yo-Yo Ma album.

[Henry B 50]

A Google search suggests Dvořák is the composer.

[Wojo 2,453]

I bought "III. Finale. Allegro moderato from Concerto in B minor for Cello and Orchestra, Op. 104." God I hate these generic classical music titles.

It's not generic. While other composers* wrote enough material to have "Op. 104" in their repertoire, only one's "Op. 104" was a Cello Concerto in B minor: Antonin Dvorák.

Many pieces of classical music have very simple yet functional titles: you know it's the third and last movement of the concerto, it's moderately fast, it emphasizes the cello, and it is in the key of B minor. A more descriptive title like "Fur Elise," "The 1812 Overture," or "Gooey Gooey Gumdrops on a Warm Summer Day (In the Rain)" really doesn't tell you anything.

* = Brahms also had an Op. 104, Fünf Gesänge. Never heard of it.

Not trying to be a prick. I have a lot of classical music waiting in line to jump onto my iPod, nearly all with generic functional titles, waiting for me to decide if I want the "album" to be the Symphony or Concerto, or something else like "Beethoven's Greatest Hits." With 525 albums onboard and no end in sight, adding classical music could double that with a bunch of 1 to 4 track albums

[Ollie 1,059]

I bought "III. Finale. Allegro moderato from Concerto in B minor for Cello and Orchestra, Op. 104." God I hate these generic classical music titles.

It's not generic. While other composers* wrote enough material to have "Op. 104" in their repertoire, only one's "Op. 104" was a Cello Concerto in B minor: Antonin Dvorák.

Many pieces of classical music have very simple yet functional titles: you know it's the third and last movement of the concerto, it's moderately fast, it emphasizes the cello, and it is in the key of B minor. A more descriptive title like "Fur Elise," "The 1812 Overture," or "Gooey Gooey Gumdrops on a Warm Summer Day (In the Rain)" really doesn't tell you anything.

* = Brahms also had an Op. 104, Fünf Gesänge. Never heard of it.

Not trying to be a prick. I have a lot of classical music waiting in line to jump onto my iPod, nearly all with generic functional titles, waiting for me to decide if I want the "album" to be the Symphony or Concerto, or something else like "Beethoven's Greatest Hits." With 525 albums onboard and no end in sight, adding classical music could double that with a bunch of 1 to 4 track albums

Try translating Japanese to English and you can end up with some very drawn out track listings.

[Wojo 2,453]

I don't have any Japanese that I know of in my MP3 collection. A lot Italian from the classical music and Morricone, and a bit of Spanish.

[indy4 155]

I bought "III. Finale. Allegro moderato from Concerto in B minor for Cello and Orchestra, Op. 104." God I hate these generic classical music titles.

It's not generic. While other composers* wrote enough material to have "Op. 104" in their repertoire, only one's "Op. 104" was a Cello Concerto in B minor: Antonin Dvorák.

Many pieces of classical music have very simple yet functional titles: you know it's the third and last movement of the concerto, it's moderately fast, it emphasizes the cello, and it is in the key of B minor. A more descriptive title like "Fur Elise," "The 1812 Overture," or "Gooey Gooey Gumdrops on a Warm Summer Day (In the Rain)" really doesn't tell you anything.

* = Brahms also had an Op. 104, Fünf Gesänge. Never heard of it.

Not trying to be a prick. I have a lot of classical music waiting in line to jump onto my iPod, nearly all with generic functional titles, waiting for me to decide if I want the "album" to be the Symphony or Concerto, or something else like "Beethoven's Greatest Hits." With 525 albums onboard and no end in sight, adding classical music could double that with a bunch of 1 to 4 track albums

I guess functional is what I meant. Those titles are only really worth something if you have a large collection and understand all the buzz words. And honestly, even if I did learn what all those words meant I would never be able to remember any of them. I'd much prefer a more creative, abstract name (like Fur Elise) and a movement number. Then I could easily reference it.

[Marian Schedenig 8,193]

I bought "III. Finale. Allegro moderato from Concerto in B minor for Cello and Orchestra, Op. 104." God I hate these generic classical music titles.

It's only generic if you put it this way. It's like saying "Song - Third verse".

[Henry B 50]

I bought "III. Finale. Allegro moderato from Concerto in B minor for Cello and Orchestra, Op. 104." God I hate these generic classical music titles.

It's not generic. While other composers* wrote enough material to have "Op. 104" in their repertoire, only one's "Op. 104" was a Cello Concerto in B minor: Antonin Dvorák.

Many pieces of classical music have very simple yet functional titles: you know it's the third and last movement of the concerto, it's moderately fast, it emphasizes the cello, and it is in the key of B minor. A more descriptive title like "Fur Elise," "The 1812 Overture," or "Gooey Gooey Gumdrops on a Warm Summer Day (In the Rain)" really doesn't tell you anything.

* = Brahms also had an Op. 104, Fünf Gesänge. Never heard of it.

Not trying to be a prick. I have a lot of classical music waiting in line to jump onto my iPod, nearly all with generic functional titles, waiting for me to decide if I want the "album" to be the Symphony or Concerto, or something else like "Beethoven's Greatest Hits." With 525 albums onboard and no end in sight, adding classical music could double that with a bunch of 1 to 4 track albums

I guess functional is what I meant. Those titles are only really worth something if you have a large collection and understand all the buzz words. And honestly, even if I did learn what all those words meant I would never be able to remember any of them.

You wouldn't? Finale is self explanatory. Allegro moderato is a tempo and/or stylistic indication. A concerto is an orchestral piece that showcases a solo instrument. An opus number is just a number a composer assigns to his work. Usually, but not always, opus numbers are meant to be chronological. There are many tempo markings, but basically five or six common ones. In order from slow to fast (note: I'm heavily simplifying here) largo, adagio, andante, allegro, presto.

And that's about it. So... it's not too hard to remember these terms. As Wojo said, the Italian terms are actually very informative. If you're looking for program music, well, most composers before the mid nineteenth century just didn't write it, and to assume that they would have given their pieces abstract titles had they been able to I think distorts why they wrote music in the first place. For example, Beethoven's sixth symphony was labeled "Recollections of Country Life" and is known today as the "Pastoral" symphony. However, Beethoven's seventh is simply Beethoven's seventh. Why is one program music and the other not? That distinction interests me.

[Joe Brausam 214]

And very often the abstract titles given to composers' works were actually given by the publisher rather than the composer.

An abstract title really offers very little information about a piece of music, and given the volume of a composer's output back when, it would be an unnecessary annoyance for the composer to come up with individual titles for each work. The "functional" titles, as was pointed out, gives you a lot of information about the music you'll be hearing.

[indy4 155]

I guess functional is what I meant. Those titles are only really worth something if you have a large collection and understand all the buzz words. And honestly, even if I did learn what all those words meant I would never be able to remember any of them.

You wouldn't? Finale is self explanatory. Allegro moderato is a tempo and/or stylistic indication. A concerto is an orchestral piece that showcases a solo instrument. An opus number is just a number a composer assigns to his work. Usually, but not always, opus numbers are meant to be chronological. There are many tempo markings, but basically five or six common ones. In order from slow to fast (note: I'm heavily simplifying here) largo, adagio, andante, allegro, presto.

And that's about it. So... it's not too hard to remember these terms. As Wojo said, the Italian terms are actually very informative. If you're looking for program music, well, most composers before the mid nineteenth century just didn't write it, and to assume that they would have given their pieces abstract titles had they been able to I think distorts why they wrote music in the first place. For example, Beethoven's sixth symphony was labeled "Recollections of Country Life" and is known today as the "Pastoral" symphony. However, Beethoven's seventh is simply Beethoven's seventh. Why is one program music and the other not? That distinction interests me.

As I said, even if I was able and willing to memorize those terms, memorizing a movement title, which is composed of multiple parts, would be horrible. For the first movement of Tchaikovsky's Symphony No 6, I'm not going to be able to remember "Symphony No.6 in B minor Op.74, 'Pathétique' : I Adagio - Allegro non troppo" even if I know what the terms mean. I'm much happier thinking "Pathétique Movement I." Okay, I could memorize it if I tried, but not for every single piece of classical music I own. And with composers varying the format of titles as they please, with the less "simplified" version of tempo markings, and with the occasional guy who doesn't use the opus chronologically, I'm not sure it's even a very efficient way to get this information out there. I understand back when there weren't easy ways to communicate information this system was helpful, but it's really outdated nowadays. And these titles are one of the reasons classical music is considered to be so far removed from the general public.

And very often the abstract titles given to composers' works were actually given by the publisher rather than the composer.

Fine by me!

An abstract title really offers very little information about a piece of music, and given the volume of a composer's output back when, it would be an unnecessary annoyance for the composer to come up with individual titles for each work. The "functional" titles, as was pointed out, gives you a lot of information about the music you'll be hearing.

Again, I understand how this would be useful way back when, but not in the modern day. The functional system clearly necessary as no other type of music uses it. Imagine if it was used in film scores:

Score No. 51 Op. 21, "Adventures on Earth" : I - Andante

Score No. 51 Op. 21, "Adventures on Earth" : II - Allegro moderato - Presto

Score No. 51 Op. 21, "Adventures on Earth" : III - Adagio

[Marian Schedenig 8,193]

As I said, even if I was able and willing to memorize those terms, memorizing a movement title, which is composed of multiple parts, would be horrible. For the first movement of Tchaikovsky's Symphony No 6, I'm not going to be able to remember "Symphony No.6 in B minor Op.74, 'Pathétique' : I Adagio - Allegro non troppo" even if I know what the terms mean.

You're mixing things up there. Tchaikovsky wrote a symphony, his 6th in this case. He wrote a symphony because that's what he wanted to write: A musical work in the symphonic form. A symphony traditionally consists of 4 movements, and so does Tchaikovsky's, so that's what he wrote: Another symphony. Because it was his 6th, it became known as Symphony No. 6. Because the 4 movements are easy to tell apart, they're recognised as "1st movement", "2nd movements" etc. Because the musical score has to contain information about the intended tempo (and sometimes mood) of the movements, that's what it says on the first page of each score sheet (in other cases, the third movement often has multiple tempo markings, because it consists of three parts). And because the public *always* had to put labels to stuff, they came along and called it "Pathétique".

The actual title is, if anything, Symphony No. 6. Nothing more, nothing less.

Score No. 51 Op. 21, "Adventures on Earth" : I - Andante

Score No. 51 Op. 21, "Adventures on Earth" : II - Allegro moderato - Presto

Score No. 51 Op. 21, "Adventures on Earth" : III - Adagio

Wrong again. Tchaikovsky wrote operas. Operas have a plot, and therefore a title - for example, one of his is called Eugene Onegin. Grieg wrote stage music, e.g. for a play called Peer Gynt - hence, the music also bears that title. Mendelssohn wrote choral works, e.g. an oratorium called Paulus, because that's what it's about. Strauss wrote tone poems based on an existing program, hence they're named after that program, e.g. Also sprach Zarathustra.

A symphony often has some kind of background story, but usually nothing so concrete that it would define it. First of all it's a piece of music, based on one of the richest musical forms, which gives enough structures for themes and their development to stand on its own. A program isn't necessary, rarely very specific, and often doesn't exist at all. So why should it be called anything more than it is - a symphony?

PS: Regarding Adventures on Earth. If you take a look at some CD releases of the shorter tone poems, like Rimsky Korsakov's Sheherazade, you will notice that they sometimes are split into multiple tracks. To label the tracks, they often use the tempo markings - not because they're titles, but because they're what separates one section from the next. You could easily apply this to a Williams piece of sufficient length. It's just that film music is so inherently story-bound, and the individual cues are usually so short, that there's rarely the option and never the need to do so.

[indy4 155]

As I said, even if I was able and willing to memorize those terms, memorizing a movement title, which is composed of multiple parts, would be horrible. For the first movement of Tchaikovsky's Symphony No 6, I'm not going to be able to remember "Symphony No.6 in B minor Op.74, 'Pathétique' : I Adagio - Allegro non troppo" even if I know what the terms mean.

You're mixing things up there. Tchaikovsky wrote a symphony, his 6th in this case. He wrote a symphony because that's what he wanted to write: A musical work in the symphonic form. A symphony traditionally consists of 4 movements, and so does Tchaikovsky's, so that's what he wrote: Another symphony. Because it was his 6th, it became known as Symphony No. 6. Because the 4 movements are easy to tell apart, they're recognised as "1st movement", "2nd movements" etc. Because the musical score has to contain information about the intended tempo (and sometimes mood) of the movements, that's what it says on the first page of each score sheet (in other cases, the third movement often has multiple tempo markings, because it consists of three parts). And because the public *always* had to put labels to stuff, they came along and called it "Pathétique".

The actual title is, if anything, Symphony No. 6. Nothing more, nothing less.

I don't see why it can't just be Symphony No. 6 Movement I. The tempo markings etc. belong, nowadays, in the liner notes, online, in a book...not in a title.

Score No. 51 Op. 21, "Adventures on Earth" : I - Andante

Score No. 51 Op. 21, "Adventures on Earth" : II - Allegro moderato - Presto

Score No. 51 Op. 21, "Adventures on Earth" : III - Adagio

Wrong again. Tchaikovsky wrote operas. Operas have a plot, and therefore a title - for example, one of his is called Eugene Onegin. Grieg wrote stage music, e.g. for a play called Peer Gynt - hence, the music also bears that title. Mendelssohn wrote choral works, e.g. an oratorium called Paulus, because that's what it's about. Strauss wrote tone poems based on an existing program, hence they're named after that program, e.g. Also sprach Zarathustra.

A symphony often has some kind of background story, but usually nothing so concrete that it would define it. First of all it's a piece of music, based on one of the richest musical forms, which gives enough structures for themes and their development to stand on its own. A program isn't necessary, rarely very specific, and often doesn't exist at all. So why should it be called anything more than it is - a symphony?

Again, I'm not against labeling something as a Symphony. It's still generic, unnecessary (and again, I'm talking modern day), and inconsistent with every other type of music, but if it's simple and easy to remember then I'd be okay with it.

PS: Regarding Adventures on Earth. If you take a look at some CD releases of the shorter tone poems, like Rimsky Korsakov's Sheherazade, you will notice that they sometimes are split into multiple tracks. To label the tracks, they often use the tempo markings - not because they're titles, but because they're what separates one section from the next. You could easily apply this to a Williams piece of sufficient length. It's just that film music is so inherently story-bound, and the individual cues are usually so short, that there's rarely the option and never the need to do so.

You're missing my point. Okay, maybe the impracticality of using the functional system to name film cues isn't felt in the world of classical music, but I said that no other type of music uses it - Pop, Jazz, Rap, etc. Not only is this proof that the system isn't necessary, but it also shows one of the reasons why classical music is so alienated from popular culture - the intimidating and confusing titles support the view that it's for a more sophisticated audience, when in reality a lot of classical pieces are very accessible.

[Henry B 50]

I guess functional is what I meant. Those titles are only really worth something if you have a large collection and understand all the buzz words. And honestly, even if I did learn what all those words meant I would never be able to remember any of them.

You wouldn't? Finale is self explanatory. Allegro moderato is a tempo and/or stylistic indication. A concerto is an orchestral piece that showcases a solo instrument. An opus number is just a number a composer assigns to his work. Usually, but not always, opus numbers are meant to be chronological. There are many tempo markings, but basically five or six common ones. In order from slow to fast (note: I'm heavily simplifying here) largo, adagio, andante, allegro, presto.

And that's about it. So... it's not too hard to remember these terms. As Wojo said, the Italian terms are actually very informative. If you're looking for program music, well, most composers before the mid nineteenth century just didn't write it, and to assume that they would have given their pieces abstract titles had they been able to I think distorts why they wrote music in the first place. For example, Beethoven's sixth symphony was labeled "Recollections of Country Life" and is known today as the "Pastoral" symphony. However, Beethoven's seventh is simply Beethoven's seventh. Why is one program music and the other not? That distinction interests me.

As I said, even if I was able and willing to memorize those terms, memorizing a movement title, which is composed of multiple parts, would be horrible. For the first movement of Tchaikovsky's Symphony No 6, I'm not going to be able to remember "Symphony No.6 in B minor Op.74, 'Pathétique' : I Adagio - Allegro non troppo" even if I know what the terms mean. I'm much happier thinking "Pathétique Movement I." Okay, I could memorize it if I tried, but not for every single piece of classical music I own. And with composers varying the format of titles as they please, with the less "simplified" version of tempo markings, and with the occasional guy who doesn't use the opus chronologically, I'm not sure it's even a very efficient way to get this information out there. I understand back when there weren't easy ways to communicate information this system was helpful, but it's really outdated nowadays. And these titles are one of the reasons classical music is considered to be so far removed from the general public.

Giving people accessible titles won't turn the tide. You can never make Beethoven popular the way Lady Gaga is popular. It's simply a very different type of music. Oh, and it [what most people consider "classical music"] is about a hundred and fifty years old, or more. The general public can only sustain old music in superficial ways, e.g. by remembering catchy tunes.

And very often the abstract titles given to composers' works were actually given by the publisher rather than the composer.

Fine by me!

An abstract title really offers very little information about a piece of music, and given the volume of a composer's output back when, it would be an unnecessary annoyance for the composer to come up with individual titles for each work. The "functional" titles, as was pointed out, gives you a lot of information about the music you'll be hearing.

Again, I understand how this would be useful way back when, but not in the modern day. The functional system clearly necessary as no other type of music uses it. Imagine if it was used in film scores:

Score No. 51 Op. 21, "Adventures on Earth" : I - Andante

Score No. 51 Op. 21, "Adventures on Earth" : II - Allegro moderato - Presto

Score No. 51 Op. 21, "Adventures on Earth" : III - Adagio

What do you mean "no other type of music uses it"?

[Marian Schedenig 8,193]

I don't see why it can't just be Symphony No. 6 Movement I. The tempo markings etc. belong, nowadays, in the liner notes, online, in a book...not in a title.

They *aren't* in the title.

Again, I'm not against labeling something as a Symphony. It's still generic, unnecessary (and again, I'm talking modern day), and inconsistent with every other type of music, but if it's simple and easy to remember then I'd be okay with it.

So instead of "Symphony No. 1", it'd be better do name a new musical work without any specific sort of program "John"? "Symphony" tells you pretty much exactly what you're getting, "John" doesn't.

but I said that no other type of music uses it - Pop, Jazz, Rap, etc.

Mostly because most of the time, a piece "popular" music is actually a song, with lyrics. As I said, if there's a clear story behind it, you usually get a descriptive title in classical music as well. Pretty much any classical song you'll find will have a title. Song 2 is by Blur.

Not only is this proof that the system isn't necessary

Nobody said it's "necessary", but you're saying titles are necessary. Even when there's nothing to derive a title from. The classical "system" is useful, however. You yell "Pathétique", everybody says, "Huh? What?". Could be Tchaikovsky, could be Beethoven. Symphony No. 6 "Pathétique" conveniently tells you you're going to get a somewhat lengthy piece of fully orchestral music. Piano Sonata NO. 8 "Pathétique" on the other hand prepares you for a different experience. If you'd just heard Pathétique and were expecting a full orchestra (or the other way round), you might be disappointed.

With "pop" music it's much more straightforward simply because you're expecting a song anyway, probably a few minutes in length. If you're told "Sympathy for the Devil and you're expecting a song, and instead you get a 2 hour long chamber opera, you will at least be surprised. The classical system makes sense simply because there are so many different types of music in it - and when a composer decided to write a symphony, he usually didn't say "oh yes, let's write a piece of music about this and that", but he said "ok, this is it, I'm ready to tackle a symphony". And people are listening to it because they want to hear *a symphony*.

but it also shows one of the reasons why classical music is so alienated from popular culture - the intimidating and confusing titles support the view that it's for a more sophisticated audience, when in reality a lot of classical pieces are very accessible.

I've never met anyone who was frightened of classical music because of the title. And I don't believe Beethoven's Symphony No. 3 "Eroica" would become the next top ten hit if you shortened its name to Eroica.

I'll give you one thing though, people must always have had problems telling numbers apart, which is why so many popular symphonies carry titles. Problem is, often these titles are incorrect, not being chosen by the composer but by some random guy who often didn't understand the music in the first place. Most of Bruckner's symphonies had titles attached to them at some point, but fortunately most of them have been retired long ago - because they didn't fit the work at all.

[indy4 155]

Giving people accessible titles won't turn the tide. You can never make Beethoven popular the way Lady Gaga is popular. It's simply a very different type of music. Oh, and it [what most people consider "classical music"] is about a hundred and fifty years old, or more. The general public can only sustain old music in superficial ways, e.g. by remembering catchy tunes.

Of course it's not the only reason, or even the main reason that the public isn't interested in classical music. But it is a reason.

What do you mean "no other type of music uses it"?

Classical music is the only type of music that I'm aware of that insists on cramming so much information into the title of a piece.

I don't see why it can't just be Symphony No. 6 Movement I. The tempo markings etc. belong, nowadays, in the liner notes, online, in a book...not in a title.

They *aren't* in the title.

Now it's just semantics. I don't like how classical pieces are referred to in way that is way to informative, when a nice simple reference is all that's needed to communicate what piece of music you are referring to. Maybe their official titles are how I like them. But that's not what they're referenced as on albums, iTunes, etc.

So instead of "Symphony No. 1", it'd be better do name a new musical work without any specific sort of program "John"? "Symphony" tells you pretty much exactly what you're getting, "John" doesn't.

Why does the title/reference need to be the one to inform listeners of "exactly what they're getting?" Again, that seems like something that belongs in liner notes.

but I said that no other type of music uses it - Pop, Jazz, Rap, etc.

Mostly because most of the time, a piece "popular" music is actually a song, with lyrics. As I said, if there's a clear story behind it, you usually get a descriptive title in classical music as well. Pretty much any classical song you'll find will have a title. Song 2 is by Blur.

I'm not talking exclusively about popular music, I'm talking about any type of music that isn't classical.

Not only is this proof that the system isn't necessary

Nobody said it's "necessary", but you're saying titles are necessary. Even when there's nothing to derive a title from. The classical "system" is useful, however. You yell "Pathétique", everybody says, "Huh? What?". Could be Tchaikovsky, could be Beethoven. Symphony No. 6 "Pathétique" conveniently tells you you're going to get a somewhat lengthy piece of fully orchestral music. Piano Sonata NO. 8 "Pathétique" on the other hand prepares you for a different experience. If you'd just heard Pathétique and were expecting a full orchestra (or the other way round), you might be disappointed.

C'mon, you're going to get some repeats every once in a while no matter what. If I say "Fantasia in G," how do you know if I'm talking about Mahr's or Bach's? This is easily remedied by tagging the composer's name onto it--Bach's "Fantasia in G" or Tchaikovsky's "Pathetique." Or, Tchaikovsky's "Symphony No. 6."

With "pop" music it's much more straightforward simply because you're expecting a song anyway, probably a few minutes in length. If you're told "Sympathy for the Devil and you're expecting a song, and instead you get a 2 hour long chamber opera, you will at least be surprised. The classical system makes sense simply because there are so many different types of music in it - and when a composer decided to write a symphony, he usually didn't say "oh yes, let's write a piece of music about this and that", but he said "ok, this is it, I'm ready to tackle a symphony". And people are listening to it because they want to hear *a symphony*.

Again, I'm not against using technical terms to label something (ie Tchaikovsky's "Symphony No. 6"). I take issue when composers try to describe a piece by cramming as many descriptive words into the title as they can, when less than half of them are necessary to sufficiently reference the piece.

[Joe Brausam 214]

To be fair, when much of this music was written there was no such thing as liner notes.

Take this into consideration. An orchestra in London has a poster out, circa 1700s.

May 11

Bach - Brandenburg Concerto No.5

Haydn - "Surprise"

What are people supposed to make of this? They know that the Bach piece will be a concerto. But what is this Haydn piece called "Surprise"? This means nothing to them. So they buy their tickets, go in, and are treated to a symphony. They had no idea what this work was going to be - maybe they have no idea who Haydn even is!

A title like Symphony No. 94 in G Major tells the audience much more.

#1. It's a symphony.

#2. It's Haydn's 94th. People who have never heard of Haydn can at least tell that he has written a lot of music and thus must have some skill, to have written 94 already!

#3. It's in G Major - this tells the audience what kind of "mood" the piece may have, to put it generally.

Something like an opus number is assigned for publishers to keep catalog on the works of a composer.