[Nick Zwar]

Let me start with a quote from Tolstoy, because every Internet post gets an automatic quality buff when started with a quote from a famous Russian novelist:

“All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.”

I use that because I love that quote and always wanted to use it, and now I finally got the chance. And the Film Score Monthly site and forum is down, so I get to spend my allocated forum time here instead. Which is why this may become a tad lengthy… For some reason though Thor’s “$1000 Question” inspired me to ponder about this today on my walk with my dogs, and to jot down my views on this.

Anyway, here is the parallel I want to draw with that quote:

Every great film score is great in its own way. I don’t think there is a universal formula, no checklist that guarantees greatness. In my view, many, or even all the things you mentioned — elevation, emotion, memory, imagination, intellect, style, balance — these are all valid, these can all be used to analyze and judge a piece of film music “great”, but another film score may come along that subverts all of these and be just as great.

That’s why I don’t have a template, or a checklist, or a set of rules for what makes a score “great”, and I find it hard if not impossible to talk about greatness in art — music or film or literature or paintings — without referring to actual works. I approach all art, and especially music, from the other direction.

Instead of measuring a (film) score against a pre-established score card, I just decide that a score is “great”, I just “recognize” a work or a piece of art as “great”, and then I ask myself: why. Why is that score “great”, or why do I consider it “great”. And then I peel away the layers and try to get to the core of what makes a particular score great.

Because film scores can be great for radically different reasons. Sometimes it’s musical architecture, sometimes captured atmosphere, sometimes audacity. I try to come to any new piece of music open minded, to stay alert for new ideas, new aesthetics, new ways music can fuse with image. If I began with rigid criteria, I’d risk missing a great piece of art because it did not fit in with my set of established rules. Or at least would fear it. So my process is the reverse: I judge a film score first, and then decide and try to decipher the underlying rules and ideas that made me come to that conclusion. Or at least which score card I pull out for it.

So I pick four examples of film scores I consider “great”, but for very different reasons.

There is BLADE RUNNER (1982) by Vangelis.
That’s just a highly atmospheric score. Vangelis didn’t write a dramatic underscore, this is not narrative music, it is music that lingers and fills the world of the movie like the smoky haze that drifts through Ridley Scott’s dystopian Los Angeles. It is synthetic, yet very organic… the music doesn’t “tell” you what Deckard feels, it just makes you feel what the city feels: neon melancholy, rain-soaked isolation, it’s a future that’s already tired of itself. (I love the movie, just like I actually love Dick’s book). BLADE RUNNER is music as part of the environment, it’s a soundscape, an immersive musical soundscape, that engulfs you.

Which is totally different from

Howard Shore’s THE LORD OF THE RINGS (2001-2003)
This is classic leitmotivic “Wagnerian” film music at its best. It’s epic and highly operatic. Where Vangelis captured the “mood” of BLADE RUNNER, Shore’s music is practically the novel… it is THE LORD OF THE RINGS told in music. It’s a masterclass in leitmotivic technique. Every culture, every character, every moral axis has its own musical DNA. You recognize it subconsciously when watching the movie, but the vastness and intricacy of the ideas became only clear to me when I read Doug Adams’ book about the music in context with many note excerpts. There are themes for cultures, characters, concepts… in fact, the titular Ring alone is represented by at least three different musical ideas (the “history of the ring” theme, the Ring seduction theme, and the evil Ring theme). Shore even uses musical semiotics, like the aleatoric textures for the Watcher in the Water (which is without clear form and shifting), an eight-note motif for Shelob (eight legs, eight eyes, eight notes… maybe on the nose, but fun). Howard Shore’s music does not just accompany the story; it tells the story. It’s really THE LORD OF THE RINGS in sound. Wagner probably would have approved.

And here’s another piece of greatness:

ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST (1969) by Ennio Morricone
Morricone’s themes don’t develop like Shore’s, and the music isn’t just atmosphere like Vangelis’. Instead, the music here is often broad and bold, the music lingers, it stays with you long after you have seen the movie. Major characters get their musical soul, there is Jill’s beautiful, aching lyricism, the haunting Harmonica theme that ties Bronson’s and Fonda’s characters. There isn’t really much (though some) motivic interplay. Morricone (and Leone) here are after grandeur, myth, and emotional punch. “Big” music for “big”, archetypal Western moments. And of course: silence where silence tells more. Those opening credits with the creaking windmill… perhaps my favorite 10 minutes of cinema of all time. No music at all…

So… to get back to the original question… the “$1000” question… What makes film music great? I have no idea, or perhaps better, I don’t have a single set of ideas… or maybe I have too many ideas what makes a film score great. So when I think a film score is great, I configure my score card on the fly for that particular score. Maybe that’s how I tick… I think I learned something about myself today writing this.

PS: I said “four” but only came to “three” before I had to go… I may add the one I had in mind later, but I guess I made my point.