[Nick Zwar]

Of course some musical techniques lend themselves to accomplish or represent certain things within film music, and since there is an abundant amount of film music composed (way more than any other orchestral music, though of course not all film music is orchestral), you will find these techniques especially often in film music. However, there are certain things that need to be unpacked here.

First of all, while film music is certainly “applied music,” being “applied music” says nothing about the type of music it is. All music used functionally is “applied music.” By definition. Opera, ballet, church music, melodrama, incidental theatre music, radio drama, video game music, and even Renaissance dance suites are all “applied.” Film music is simply one more instance of music that is “applied” to something.

Second, there is no clear boundary between “absolute” and “non-absolute” music. The term “absolute music” was coined by Richard Wagner, incidentally only to reject the idea of such music. For Wagner, all music should be about something, so he himself regarded his music explicitly not as “absolute music.” Still, if we’re talking about “absolute” vs. “non-absolute” music, all the aforementioned types of music I mentioned — opera, ballet, etc. — are not “absolute” music in the way that term is used, no more than film music is. The distinction between “absolute” and “non-absolute” music is not a musical one, but simply one of perceived or applied intent. There is no musical difference between so-called “absolute” and “non-absolute” music, because the notes, harmonies, rhythms, and structures do not change their nature depending on whether a piece accompanies or represents something or stands alone. The real distinction is functional, not musical: “absolute music” is simply music presented as if it has no external purpose, while “applied” or “programmatic” music is created or used in relation to something outside itself, be it drama, ritual, dance, film, narrative, or imagery. In other words, the boundary isn’t in the sound, the boundary isn’t in the music, but in the context and intention surrounding it. There is no actual way to distinguish a piece of film music from a piece of non-film music just by looking at it from a musical perspective. Without the context, there is no difference.

While a “piano sonata” has certain clear characteristics that define what it is and can be distinguished from “non-piano sonatas” more or less purely on musical terms, the same is not possible for film music vs. non-film music. Because there is no clear boundary between film music and any other type of music. Many film scores are written in symphonic, chamber, electronic, or minimalist idioms indistinguishable from concert works. In fact, if a piano sonata is composed for a film, it is both film music and still a piano sonata. Because what makes it film music is simply that it is written for film, nothing else.

“Trademarks,” as you call them, are tendencies, not defining properties. I would certainly agree with you that if you look at film music as a whole, you will find that certain “trademarks” may appear more frequently in film music than in some other types of music, but “more frequently” already establishes that it’s just a tendency, not a real border. There is no musical device in any genre of music that cannot (and usually has not) been applied in film music, and there is no musical device used in film music that cannot (and usually has not) been applied to non-film music. Because there is no such musical “identity” as film music, there is just music written for film. Of course, and so there is no misunderstanding, there is an enormous wealth of film music written, and as such you will find a lot of commonalities and recurring tropes and “bag of tricks” in film music, but again, none of these are suitable to draw distinguishing lines between film music and non-film music, because none of them are inherent to film music.

I think your argument confuses function, which can be more clearly defined and basically all film music has a “function” of sorts, with musical identity. A piece of music becomes “film music” only by context of use, by its “origin,” not by any intrinsic musical features.

Even some of the tangential arguments don’t hold up all that well. I really don’t think that film music must necessarily adhere to specific timings more strictly than ballet or stage music, as you claim. Quite the contrary. Especially ballet music has to be exactly timed; ballet music is full of exact cue points, tempo-locked choreography, and bar-accurate transitions. Likewise opera has precise timings for entrances, lighting cues, scenic changes, etc. Film timing is not inherently more rigid. In fact, many directors edit and cut their scenes to already written film music, such as Leone’s Once Upon a Time in the West and Once Upon a Time in America; two very famous film scores by a very prominent “film composer”, yet by and large composed with no rigid sync-points or timing in mind. Some film music is not directly timed or related to any specific action that happens on screen at all, but just sets a mood. There are no rigid timings Vangelis’s music for Blade Runner adheres to; it’s atmospheric.

And it’s a stylistic choice, not a musical or structural necessity to “get to the emotional point quickly,” and many film scores unfold very slowly, like Zimmer’s The Thin Red Line or Jóhannsson’s Arrival; they don’t strive to get to an “emotional point” quickly.

On the other hand, concert music can be extremely specific, immediate, and to the point. Like Strauss’s Don Juan, or Don Quixote, with extremely sharp and clear “descriptive” structures, a very specific narrative, compositions that come to the “emotional point” of a “scene” (as in Don Quixote) very quickly. I don’t see The Thin Red Line or Once Upon a Time in the West as more “unstable” or with more dynamic and sudden shifts than Strauss’s Don Quixote; quite the opposite is obviously true. So again, these arguments are all based on certain perceived or in some cases real tendencies, but can easily be countered by example. Because a tendency is basically just a statistical count of frequency and not suitable to actually distinguish one piece of music from another. And that was my point: film music is not inherently different from any other type of music; it is not even a “style” of music. Because, unlike a “piano sonata,” which can be musically defined, the definition of what makes film music film music is outside of the music itself. It’s contextual.

As far as Wagner is concerned, yes, he is an obvious “predecessor” to film music, but Wagner’s influence on film music is structural, not just musical. When you say that his music is used in film only as self-sufficient pieces, like pop songs in montages, that’s certainly debatable. The Wagner pieces in, say, the opening of Excalibur, were not different in “use,” in “applicability” than had the scene been scored with original music. In fact, the way the opening scene was shot, it “synced” and timed specifically to Wagner’s music. In Excalibur, the way Boorman inserted the Wagner music, for an unaware viewer, it would be impossible to say whether the music was synced to the picture or the picture to the music. Because, again, the difference is contextual, not musical.

I would also greatly object to the idea that “sync points” are a litmus test for film music, because lots of film music does not specifically “sync” with any points (and conversely, lots of non-film music actually does “sync” with points and concepts). That’s an arbitrary test, and one that can easily be used either way.

However, my main point was actually that Wagner’s influence on film music is structural and conceptual, not merely musical. Leitmotifs, harmonic language, orchestration, and dramatic pacing in orchestral film music owe a lot to Wagnerian practice.

Any music can be used in a montage; again, that’s not a property of the music itself. And any piece of music can be made to sync with film; again, that’s not a property of the music itself. It is not possible to distinguish on purely musical terms whether a piece of music was composed to sync to a film, or whether a film was edited to sync to a piece of music.

Case in point right here, the wonderful Dvořák animated sequence from the Italian movie Allegro Non Troppo, a childhood favorite of mine: Is this music composed to sync to picture, or is the picture designed to sync to the music? We can only know this from context, obviously, but we cannot conclude it from the music itself. That’s my point.

Enjoy either way, I loved this ever since I was a kid (the movie is basically Italian animator Bruno Bozzetto answer to Disney’s FANTASIA). Enjoy!