[Thor Joachim Haga]

I also object to the idea that such film scores as Once Upon a Time in the West or The Thin Red Line are in any way less representative of film music than… exactly what other film scores?

Not as a whole, but tracks such as “L’uomo dell’armonica” or “Journey to the Line” are special compositions for special circumstances in the films. Most of it is not like that. Most of the tracks are not self-sufficient pieces like that. Well, maybe THIN RED LINE, but that’s such a special score anyway, hovering somewhat “over” the film than narrating it in a traditional way (like in most of Malick’s films; he rarely uses traditional narratives). So it’s a rather poor example of traditional, narrative film music.

You indirectly ask for examples on my end, but really — MOST film music tracks in all of history constitute examples. At least original film cues (rearranged concert suites, ‘setpiece tracks’ etc. are something different). I could just select a score at random and I’ll find most tracks being “typical” film music. Should I do that?

It’s great that you recognize film music as its own artform, but if you don’t think there’s anything – any characteristics whatsoever – that separates it from other kinds of music, I do wonder what properties you think this artform is based on?

[Thor Joachim Haga]

Also, there’s this:

There’s a REASON for why I gravitated towards film music as opposed to, say, classical music in my formative years. That reason is MUSICAL. There were things about how film music was conceived and conceptualized that I preferred over how classical music was conceived and conceptualized. I’ve mentioned some of those reasons earlier. How does that happen, in your view, when there are apparently no musical characteristics that sets film music apart from other types of music?

[Nicolai P. Zwar]

Not as a whole, but tracks such as “L’uomo dell’armonica” or “Journey to the Line” are special compositions for special circumstances in the films. Most of it is not like that.

On the contrary, I would argue that most film score tracks are special compositions for special circumstances in film. That’s just why film music is written in the first place. For special circumstances, scenes, events, happenings, etc. in the film. Why else would there be film music.

Most of the tracks are not self-sufficient pieces like that.

Not quite sure what “self-sufficient” means here. I take it to mean stand without musical or filmic context. Ok, let’s go with that.
Now, I would say all of the tracks composed for ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST, really all of them, can stand alone and without any context just as music. But when is a track “self-sufficient”? As noted recently, there is a 2 second track in Mozart’s ZAUBERFLÖTE… is that a self-sufficient track, or does it need context? I have a recording of Mahler’s 7 th symphony that has 21 tracks… are any of them “self sufficient” or do they belong in a context?

Generally, I think music must be self sufficient to be interesting to listen to. So obviously all film music I personally have in my collection, that I use as examples, that I talk about, that I refer to, I consider as “self-sufficient”… why else would I bother with it. That means all film music in my collection can stand alone as music. But that doesn’t mean every single track makes sense without the preceding or following tracks… but that’s the same in many non-film music works. Longer works tend to have many musical segments that are not “self-sufficient” in that they alone by themselves have no real “beginning” or “ending”, so of course they are only self-sufficent in musical context. That’s not film music specific.

But before I answer your question about film music, let me start by saying that I try to be as precise and clear as I can be. That does not mean all of what I say is always precise and clear, but at least I strive for it.
So before I answer, let me restate, as I have up there, that I find most film music is “unimportant” as pure music. It is mostly secondary to the images or story, a lot of it is clichéd and in many ways musically “banal”. That is the status quo “as is”, and I don’t disagree with that, nor have I objected to that.

That means, automatically and by default obviously, that the film music I am interested in is automatically “exceptional”, different from the rule.
Then, secondly and also importantly, as I have repeatedly said, I am not questioning certain tendencies in film music. Film music tends to have shorter, less developed cues than classical music, film music tends to be emotionally more direct, etc. I am not and have not denied these tendencies, I have merely pointed out, and that is for me an important distinction, that these are a) tendencies and b) nothing that sets film music per se musically apart from non-film music, because you can find all these elements in non-film music and vice versa. That is and has been my point all this time.

Because of this, I reject the notion that “most film music tracks in all of history constitute examples”, when my contention was and is explicitly not that certain characteristics may be more frequently found or pronounced in film music, my objection was and is that these characteristics are in any way exclusive or specific to film music. That is a big difference. So you can’t say “most film music tracks constitute examples”, because “most film music tracks” cannot serve as the specific objections I have. “Most film music tracks” can serve to demonstrate a pattern, a tendency in film music, as I noted in a post up there, “a statistical count of frequency and not suitable to actually distinguish one piece of music from another”. So I don’t deny the “pattern”. I am denying that the pattern leads to a musical distinction. It is a contextual distinction, that certain musical tropes may be more frequently used or applied in film music, and I tried to show and demonstrate that very point. Therefore “most film music tracks” cannot serve as an example, as I did not try to show or prove that “most film music tracks” fit or do not fit into any particular pattern or that these patterns do not exist. I went from the pattern, which I acknowledge, to the specific, to make it disappear. I did that in order to demonstrate that the perceived pattern in film music is contextual, not musical, that it is statistical and not specif. Hence, by that very nature, “most tracks” can at best prove my point, not yours.

So, now to your specific question, which I think is a good question, I certainly enjoy this conversation.

It’s great that you recognize film music as its own artform, but if you don’t think there’s anything – any characteristics whatsoever – that separates it from other kinds of music, I do wonder what properties you think this artform is based on?

I do think there are lots of characteristics that are very specific to film music, which is why I think it is an art form to itself. However, once again, I do think that the characteristics and specifics to film music are contextual, not musical.
A film score is a music score written for a movie. It is composed to illuminate, enhance, support, embrace, strengthen, etc. the story, the action, the scenes and moods of the movie. For this, the film composer has all of the musical devices at his or her disposal that any other composer has at his or her disposal as well.

Nevertheless, you will find some musical devices and patterns more frequently applied and used than others, I’m not saying that ain’t so. I am and have just repeatedly said that these are statistical patterns, not clear-cut musical distinctions.

So the art of a film composer is to compose music that supports the film. That in itself does not give a film score a particular quality, that does not set film music apart from any other type of music, and I have shown plenty of examples to prove my point and could show many more. However, I acknowledge and have not denied that may nevertheless lead to commonalities of musical devices statistically particularly favored and presented in film music. It obviously is so. I am just saying that you cannot extrapolate direct musical relevance or peculiarities of any specific individual film score from that. Film music, just like ballet music, opera music, or any other type of music, is music first, and follows musical principalities first, and as such, is not inherently distinct or different from any other type of music. The properties of the artform are based on extra musical conditions the composer has to take into consideration, not on anything that distinguishes film music per se from any other type of music.

[Nicolai P. Zwar]

There’s a REASON for why I gravitated towards film music as opposed to, say, classical music in my formative years. That reason is MUSICAL. There were things about how film music was conceived and conceptualized that I preferred over how classical music was conceived and conceptualized. I’ve mentioned some of those reasons earlier. How does that happen, in your view, when there are apparently no musical characteristics that sets film music apart from other types of music?

Well, that’s super easy, barely an inconvenience. We have established that there are certain musical patterns that tend to be more frequently used or pronounced in film music statistically, which obviously means, if you gravitate and appreciate those patterns, you are drawn more towards film music because you find those patterns there more frequently. None of that is in any contradiction to anything I said.

[Thor Joachim Haga]

Well, I think you need patterns and frequency to establish the identity of something. That’s usually how research works. And I do think film music has an identity as its own THING (even if it covers all possible genres). So yes – you can extrapolate the BEING of a thing by identifying the most common occurences of certain properties. There will always be exceptions to the rule, but you can’t base a definition on exceptions. Exceptions, for me, would in this context be end credits concert suites, opening “overtures”, montages etc. All valid parts of the film, and they’re usually highlighted on soundtrack albums and compilations, but reserved for “special circumstances” in the narrative, as I tried to phrase it.

So, just using the example of the score I’m listening to right now, Thomas Newman’s ANGELS IN AMERICA, a track like “Angels in America (Main Title)” would be amongst the exceptions, while “Black Angel” is more typical, scene-specific film music, i.e. what constitutes MOST of the album, the most frequent occurences. It has more shifts, appears more “shizophrenic”, if you will.

I think film music has special characteristics as MUSIC that sets it apart from other types of music. It needs to, as an artform, and it needs to, for me to prefer that kind of music over other types of music. This is apparently where we disagree.

But where we CAN agree, is that these characteristics may have been borne out of earlier music. I could even stretch myself to admit that some of these characterists are just accentuated or extra developed in film (sneaking-around music, stingers, mickey-mousing and all those things).

Furthermore, another possible overlap is our interest in pre-film “prototypes” where some of these characteristics occur. Perhaps not as razor-sharp-specific and “unstable” as film music, but with the general elements in place.

(btw, I prefer to use a term like ‘trope’ over the more loaded words ‘banal’ or ‘clichée’….film music is able to conjure up some fantastic tropes!)

[Nicolai P. Zwar]

You don’t need patterns and frequency to establish what film music is, because that is actually easily established. It is music written specifically for a film. I think we agree on that?

So you can of course look for patterns and look for commonalities, for styles and tropes and whatever, all of this is fair and square, but you extract patterns and statistics from a mass of work. You do not then try to reverse it by trying to apply the pattern and statistics to individual works.
Scores like ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST are no more “exceptions” to the rule than Beethoven’s 9th Symphony is an “exception” to the symphony. Yes, they are both “exceptional”, but in the sense that they are particularly good, not in that they are particularly “unfit to represent the art”.

I think film music has special characteristics as MUSIC that sets it apart from other types of music

Name one.

[Thor Joachim Haga]

Name one.

Well, we have gone into that already. The thematic urgency and immediacy (often without the ornamention or fancy bridges you hear in concert music), the abrubt changes within cues to fit onscreen split timings, and the more developed (or extreme) uses of elements that already existed in concert music (some of those horror film gimmicks, for example). Again, I’m not denying that the seeds of some of these things already existed in other types of music, but film music has taken it and turned it into its own thing. More pointed, specified. More “unstable”. More whimsical, if you will.

I think that’s about as far as I can describe it, as a person with no musical education. Most of the time, I recognize film music when I hear it. In some rare cases, I’m more in doubt.

[Nicolai P. Zwar]

So if you are saying that there are special characteristics as MUSIC that sets film music apart from other types of music, and that these are thematic urgency and abrupt changes, I have to say, no. Film music may employ these more frequently, but there is not a single musical device that is not to be found in non-film music and vice versa, so gain, I’d have to say that these are not really musical distinctions. I mean look (or listen) to a piece like Edgar Varèse’s Amériques, with it’s sudden mood shifts from serenity to aggressive rhythmic dissonance on a dime.

But maybe we are not that far apart.

I think we both would recognize most film scores as film scores. Give us an album, blindfolded, not knowing what’s on there, and we could probably identify that it may be a film score. Not all the time, not always correctly, but often, simply because we are familiar with how film scores are usually constructed, composed and what they try to accomplish. So we are not disagreeing there. We are both agreeing that certain patterns, mood shifts, certain musical devices, perhaps even a certain length of cues, with thematic material related to other cues, are often very typical for a film score. So we agree that’s there and true. Pick any random (orchestral) film score neither one of us knows, and a random orchestral classical score neither one of us knows, blindfolded, and chances are, even if we don’t know the music, we could correctly identify which is which.

The only thing we seem to disagree on, it seems to me, that you seem to insist that there are any specific musical attributes that are more or less unique to film music, while I say that there are not. It’s just that certain specific musical attributes are particularly frequently applied and used in film music. That is, for me, a difference.

[Thor Joachim Haga]

Yes, I think that sums it up nicely.

I’m of the firm belief that film music has its own set of characteristics (even if many of them are imported from earlier times), mostly in the way it behaves and “moves”. My lack of musical knowledge prevents me from being more specific than I have.

Would be interesting to have a quiz some time, “Film Music or Not?”. I’ll see if I can put one together at some point.

[GerateWohl]

For a film score I would say, we have basically three dimensions.
– The fashion in orchestral music at the time when the score was written
– The musical tradition and fashion of time and place where the film’s story is set.
– and a musical style connotated with the films genre like drama, action, thriller, comedy etc.

Because of the first point it probably makes little sense to compare 20th century film music with 18th century symphonic music. Certain stylistic elements find their way from conte.porary orchestral music into film scores. In orchestral film scores rarely something was invented. Maybe cartoon music is something that you hardly find outside of film music.
Apart from that I don’t know.

[Nicolai P. Zwar]

Yes, I agree. Film music is film music, it is not an opera, not a tone poem, not a ballet, etc. but it can incorporate and even “be” all of those things. There are certain things that set film music apart from non-film music, just as there are certain things that set ballet music apart from non-ballet music. But like in film music, the difference between ballet-music and non-ballet music is contextual, not inherently musical. Which is why you can perform ballets to non-ballet music, and perform ballets in concerts without any stage presentation. (I’ve seen a number of complete ballets performed live in concert, including the Firebird and The Wooden Prince.)
If you take a look at the full ballet of Stravinsky’s THE FIREBIRD, that’s very “filmic”. The main difference is that the “tracks” segue into each other (as THE FIREBIRD is about 40-50 minutes long with clearly different “scenes” but few “breaks” in between), whereas in film music, you have “stop and go”.
Still, if you pick a cue out of THE FIREBIRD and put them next to a cue of some film scores, uninitiated people (those who wouldn’t know either composition presented) likely may not be able to assert which is film score and which isn’t.
Stravinsky is a very “filmic” composer anyway.

[Thor Joachim Haga]

Interesting how we can read a piece differently. I’ve had FIREBIRD for many years (on the Michael Tilson Thomas 3CD set that also includes THE RITE OF SPRING and PERSPEPHONE), and I’ve never once thought it resembled film music. It simply moves too fluidly along, from segment to segment. But I’ve obviously heard bits and pieces with a dramatic, storytelling flair. And for RITE, there’s that whole JAWS ostinato, of course, that gets film music associations going. Plus the use in FANTASIA. So that one is one of those ‘borderlines’.

[Malte Müller]

The thematic urgency and immediacy (often without the ornamention or fancy bridges you hear in concert music),

This is actually what drove me to film music in my later teens. Simply put: The immediacy of pop music and a feel like classical music to put it simply. Plus that I liked TV and films for ages. Classic I found rather boring and the cause was music in school actually and changed later via film music.

Tried to find which composer said that, must have been something like “you get one chance with a theme to get the audience” or so but couldn’t find it so far. Maybe some one else remembers that?

In film music these breaks are more determined from the outside than on classical music where they are more determined by making sense musically. Even if the inspiration is something programmatic. And ballets are musical through and through for both parts.

Stravinsky is a very “filmic” composer anyway.

Indeed and Symphony Of Psalms is of course the direct inspiration for Goldsmith’s OMEN and RITE also is very Goldsmithy 😉

[Thor Joachim Haga]

There is a specific sub category of this discussion that has always fascinated me – scores that merge with classical music in one form or another. I was reminded of this issue now, while listening to Stefano Lentini’s recent BELCANTO.

For example, it can be a composer doing straight-up pastiche of an old classical period, even if the compositions themselves are original. An example would be James Newton Howard’s wonderful RESTORATION.

Or it can be films that utilize several existing classical pieces, around which the composer writes his own music. An example would be THE MADNESS OF KING GEORGE, with Fenton’s music circling the Händel.

Sometimes, the original music is more contemporary in style. There are cues in both RESTORATION and THE MADNESS OF KING GEORGE that are more contemporary-sounding, for example. But the main gist of the score is that film music/classical merger.

What are some other examples you can think of?

[Tall Guy]

Christopher Willis seems to have immersed himself in 20th century soviet concert hall music (one of my favourite genres) for The Death of Stalin. Influences are alleged to include Shostakovich and Weinberg (the greatest composer nobody’s ever heard of).

That said, I haven’t listened to it for ages, generally preferring the originals.

Also, at the risk of flogging a dead horse, the score to “(Escape to) Victory” should have been credited as “Music by Dmitri Shostakovich ruined for this film by Bill Conti”

[Thor Joachim Haga]

Also, at the risk of flogging a dead horse, the score to “(Escape to) Victory” should have been credited as “Music by Dmitri Shostakovich ruined for this film by Bill Conti”

Ha, ha…yes, I remember your beef with ESCAPE TO VICTORY from elsewhere. But at least it had Halvar Thoresen in the cast.

[Tall Guy]

Well I hadn’t mentioned it here before, so…

No doubt it’ll raise its ugly head again before too long 🙂

[Nicolai P. Zwar]

I’m of the firm belief that film music has its own set of characteristics

Of course I also believe that film music has its own set of characteristics, but as I said, that set of characteristics is not musical per se, it’s contextual, it’s frequency of use, etc., it’s not in the notes themselves. There is not a single musical device unique to film music, not any “type” of music that just has to be film music, not a single page of a written score would reveal it’s a film score.. it is only in context (how the devices are used in relation to other musical devices etc., the frequency in which they are applied, etc., the construction of the work at large, with cues in relation to each other etc.) that a film score reveals what it is.
Like no isolated paragraph or even paragraphs of a written text reveal whether they belong to a novel, or a short story, or a novella, or even a play, or a screenplay, film music discloses its identity through its dramatic function and the architecture of the whole, because there are no linguistic differences between a novel, a short story or a screenplay, so there are no musical differences between a ballet score, a film score, a tone poem.

[Thor Joachim Haga]

OK, do you have any examples of how film music’s unique characteristics are merely contextual, but never musical? Seems to me you can’t really have one without the other.

[Tall Guy]

I actually agree with Nick on this point, but I have a slight reservation through experience. I listen to Classic FM whilst driving, and about half the pieces aren’t introduced before being played. Every so often a piece that I don’t know will come on unannounced, and I think “that sounds like a film score”, and I’m generally correct.

That leads me to wonder if there might be something intrinsic in the phrasing, or the instrumentation (although they rarely play an original piece of course, usually an orchestral cover) or some other feature that distinguishes film music from the concert hall variety.

[Nicolai P. Zwar]

Indeed, that’s why I said that we would recognize film scores as film scores most of the time, because we are familiar with film scores, and how film scores are usually constructed. I never said film scores don’t sound like film scores. They usually do. What I am saying is that you cannot identify film music on a micro-level of compositional technique, there is not a single musical “device” used that is unique to film music, there is not a block of bars where you can reliably say “that’s film music”. You can only identify film scores contextually or on a macro level (when you get the “whole picture”, so to speak).
Take a piece like “Toccata & Dreamscapes” from Final Fantasy. That’s a “complete” composition into itself, it has a strong musical unity and coherence that you could just drop it into a concert of (modern) 20th/21th century classical music program (you would not even have to change the title) and it would work as a concert piece, even though it’s an excerpt from a film score. And take the “Adagio” from Bartók’s Music for Strings, Percussion and Celasta and claim it’s a track from a suspense/horror film score, and people would recognize it as such. Obviously, Kubrick famously sought so himself and used it prominently as underscore in THE SHINING.
So it’s important to note that I am not saying there is no difference between film music and any other type of music, I am merely saying that the difference between film music and any other type of music is the same as the difference between ballet music and any other type of music, or a tone poem and any other type of music, and so on… We can all distinguish these different types of compositions, but the differences between them are contextual, there is no direct difference in any compositional technique or device only found in one but not the other, only that certain elements/tropes/elements tend to be more pronounced or more frequently used in one form that another. Film music tends to have shorter cues, film music tends to juxtapose and mix different elements more frequently even within a single cue, etc, but these are all just tendencies, not hard fenced borders. We recognize the patterns (that’s what I mean by contextual), but it’s not as if the music on a micro-level per se is different than any other music. All of it is music first, constructed from the same building blocks.

[Malte Müller]

IMHO film scores use the same vocabulary but are more direct and to the point, be it theme variation like or in instrumentation. It far less subtle. But on the radio they often play the main theme highlights anyway that are totally to the point. On classic scores of the Golden Age it is surey far less different but for newer ones surely is.

For some film music at least “newer ones” it might also be the production technical stuff itself. There are often differently recordded which results in a different sound than a classical recording.

[GerateWohl]

Film music specifically has usually passagaes whère hardly anything is happening in the music which can leave the active listener quite bored, if he or she is kein on following what is happening musically and expecting it is something interesting.

[Author]

Posts