[Nicolai P. Zwar]

What do you think of Penderecki’s “Threnody for the victims of Hiroshima” or Ligeti’s “Atmospheres”, concert compositions that obviously inspired Levi’s score for UNDER THE SKIN?

I like them, especially “Threnody” (which was used wonderfully in TWIN PEAKS: THE RETURN – almost like a “detached” music video for the nuclear blast). It helps that these are concert pieces composed for their own sake. But they also have a type of dissonance/modernism I can relate to, which I can’t in Levi’s case.

How does it help that these are concert pieces composed for their own sake? What does that have to do with the music as such? I find it interesting from someone who says “I disassociate myself as much as humanly possible from a film when I listen to a soundtrack” to put importance to the genesis of a piece of music. So if the exact same piece were not composed as a concert work but specifically for a movie (perhaps UNDER THE SKIN), you’d view the music differently? I thought you separate that completely, so it shouldn’t matter.

Incidentally, if I remember correctly, Levi even composed UNDER THE SKIN like a concert piece, without direct reference to the movie. More like Morricone composed some (by no means all) of his scores. And that’s actually how I experienced the album: more like a composition, not at all related to any movie or imagery. And it definitely has some elements of Penderecki, Ligeti, and interestingly, Bernard Herrmann.

I know there are loads who enjoy Levi’s music alone, and that’s fair enough. I know that many of them do so because of the film it was associated with (I disassociate myself as much as humanly possible from a film when I listen to a soundtrack), but some no doubt do it just for the music. But with the exception of some individual tracks and moments, her music has left me cold on album.

That’s ok, obviously, some people like something, others don’t. Since I have not yet seen UNDER THE SKIN, I have no opinion on how the music even works or functions as film score. The movie is on PRIME, maybe I watch it one of these days.

‘Great’ is obviously a subjective term — I just took issue with the notion that it is impossible to find a score great in the film, but not on album. As if it were some general truth. Because it clearly is VERY possible for me.

Fair enough, and well, of course true. I considered it a given. If I (or anyone else) says: “this is great music” or “this is not great music”, it’s obviously a personal, subjective evaluation, that’s not set in stone and valid for all people all the time.

That’s why I can say that I cannot conceive of a great film score that is not also great music on its own. It is just not possible. Not for me.

When I see a movie, my ears tend to note the music. When what I hear then is original, fresh, tense, exciting, inventive, etc., I will enjoy it as music on its own. If not, not. Of course, there is the possibility that the music is great, fresh, exciting, inventive etc… but I just didn’t notice it enough when watching the movie (because sound effects or dialog dialed it out, or it was badly mixed, or it was cut and pasted badly, or maybe it simply didn’t fit… ), so that I will enjoy it later on its own. I know film scores I enjoy away from the movie which didn’t really work for me in context (LADYHAWKE being an example).

But I personally have trouble imagining that I watch a movie where I find the music stimulating, original and engaging, but then not interesting as music by itself. Because stimulating, original, engaging or whatever music automatically becomes interesting on its own terms.
If the music bores me on its own, it’s because it was not all that good to begin with. Maybe it got by, doing it’s job and no more. But that’s not “great” or even “good” music, that’s “serviceable”. A great film score needs to be great music. And that is obviously true for me.