[Thor Joachim Haga]

FSM # 3: January 11, 2001

For those of you who have followed my postings on this board, you should know my view on film music as an “independent” art form; film music as any other music genre and not simply a film tool. I really don’t want to start another thread on that again, though, as that horse was executed a long time ago.

However, based on the above “foundation”, I have assembled four criteria as to what I consider “good” [film] music, something I have also touched upon in previous threads, yes, but – as far as I remember – have never devoted an entire thread to. So here goes nothing.

[Film] music is “good” if it appeals to my…:

1) EMOTIONS

Perhaps the most obvious criterion. By triggering the basic moods in my body – happiness, sadness, anxiety etc. – the music tells me something, it does something to me physically. This is essential.

2) MEMORY

No, this does not mean memory as related to the movie, but rather memory of one’s own past. There are certain passages in certain scores that may resurrect a sensation or a memory (or both) that you had completely forgotten about. This is where SUBCONSCIOUS IDENTIFICATION with the music comes in.

3) IMAGINATION

It is crucial that the music “paints” in some way or other. This can be “inner films” forming narratives or “inner pictures” that evokes a mood. Or – as I remember from my own teenage years – you imagine yourself standing on the podium performing the music as if it was your own with a crowd consisting of awestruck relatives and friends, making the music “yours” and easier to dissect, which brings me to….

4) INTELLECT

The music must stimulate the right side of the brain – the analytical side – in some way or another. The music must provoke analysis (dissection). This can for example be exploring the music for intricate details and delicate structures and making sense of them all and how they are interrelated.

Note that the four criterias form a scale – from “heart” to “brain”.

If you think about it, you will see that these 4 criteria cover a vast amount of territory. You can put many things below these overarching categories.

Nevertheless, I’m certain there are a few criteria I have omitted, and I’m fully aware that the lines between the above-metioned ones are blurred.

In any case, a “good” score satisfy all the criteria, a bad score none. Some scores are linked more closely to one than the other (PLANET OF THE APES is more a number 4 for me, while BEYOND RANGOON fits nicely into 1 and 3).

Most of you will probably label a “good” score as one which WORKS in some way or other for the movie it was written for (and I have to agree with that). But let’s say you discard that opinion for the moment. What would YOUR criteria be? What “scale” would you use? How would YOU define what is good [film] music? Is it even possible to form objective criterions for such a subjective experience?

[GerateWohl]

Interesting topic. Especially because I would slice criteria for good score differently. I wouldn’t call my criteria catalogue complete but there are some things that I can already formulate.

Elevation
A good score elevates the action on screen. What do I mean by that? This goes maybe hand in hand with your emotion criterion. A good score makes the action on screen larger than life. It contributes to the aestetics of the film as an audio visual experience and in good cases it makes the whole more than the sum of its parts.
That is part of my trouble with Hans Zimmer. I have special memories of movies scored by him where I felt raþher distracted by his score and that it pulled it rather down than elevating it.

Style
I would say, I have a quite distinct musical taste. It happens rarely that I hear a score and think, I really don’t like that music but it serves the picture well. I really have to like the music as itself to call a score a good score. And the score is for me a crucial part of the movie experience. If I don’t like the score, I can still like the movie. But then it is a good movie with a bad score.

Balance
I really like a good wall-to-wall score. But there are also movies which are especially good, because the, have hardly any score. A clever ommission of music can have quite impressive effects. It must feel balanced. By the way, another thing that annoys me with some of Zimmer’s work. I find that especially intrusive in some Nolan movies like The Dark Knite Rises or, yes, the widely praised Interstellar where the omnipresent pulsing music managed to annoy me in some places.

I think, that’s it for now. If a fourth criterion comes to my mind, I will add it.

[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.

[GerateWohl]

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.

To avoid misunderstanding. The criteria that I came up with have no ambition to be a template for objectively great scores. It are just measures for my personal taste what I consider great. Others might see it differently. But after about 45 years of paying distinct attention to film scores in countless movies I have come to know what I like and what works for me.
For example I for my part was a little disappointed over Shore’s Lord of the Ring scores. I have come to like it over the years quite a bit after I got used to it.
But especially when it comes to the music for the orks and alike for this fantasy World I wished we got a score a little less conventional and more original, something more in the direction of Goldsmith’s Planet of the Apes, just in a more contemporary style.

[Malte Müller]

But especially when it comes to the music for the orks and alike for this fantasy World I wished we got a score a little less conventional and more original, something more in the direction of Goldsmith’s Planet of the Apes, just in a more contemporary style.

Although I did like it, I had the same feeling back then! Especially already loving POTA and also Rosenman’s LOTR although that could have used some IMHO unavoidable “celtic” stylings here and there.

[Thor Joachim Haga]

Some excellent posts by Gerate and Nick there. There really isn’t anything right or wrong about which criteria one uses (all the ones mentioned so far seem fine to me), but there’s always the strive to find some sort of broad, semi-objective criteria that can function as umbrella categories for more specific sub criteria. Re-reading that old FSM thread, I see a made a post a few months later, in June 2001, where I tried to use criteria I had picked up from a media criticism course I was attending, to film music. I DO still like these main criteria as overarching categories, although there’s much to be discussed and nuanced within them. Here’s what I said at the time:

————-

Since I’ve just completed a course in media criticism here at the university, I thought I’d resurrect this thread – to see if anyone is interested in further discussion.

The reason is simply that I have several new criteria to add.

The four criteria that I mentioned in the initial post have really to do with the SUBJECTIVE interpretation of the product; with the quality we attach to a product out of a simple identification with it. I’m still 100% behind that one and I think they cover a lot of ground.

However, one may also forward several socalled OBJECTIVE criteria; criteria that reviewers (should ideally) use when they’re talking about a certain film or film score to assess a legit dichotomy between ‘good’ and ‘bad’.

If one is going to use the same “type” or system of criteria that is applied to literary texts, one can separate between the following:

1) A MORAL/POLITICAL CRITERION

This has to do with the ‘attitude’ in the text; how ‘important’ it is in a political or ethical context. I find it hard to relate this to film music, though (although easily to film, of course).

2) A COGNITIVE CRITERION

This has to do with the ‘depth’ of the text – what the text has to offer intellectually. This one is basically the same as my no. 4) in the first post.

3) A GENETIC CRITERION

This is a criterion first and foremost attached to the text’s ORIGINALITY – whether in relation to other historical texts/scores or to the artist’s own output. Innovation.

4) AN AESTHETIC CRITERION

This is perhaps the most relevant criterion in a (film) music context. It has to do with the actual artistic expression.

It can be subdivided into three:

a) Complexity

The text/score has to offer more than one level of perception. Several text/score levels, several reader/listener levels, several interpretative levels etc.

b) Integrity

The score has to be ‘tied together’ in one way or other. Coherence. Unity (see Dan Hobgood’s recent FSDaily, although I have several issues with his point-of-departure). The MOTIVATION for certain approaches etc.

c) Intensity

There has to be a “hook” in the text/score, something that can emotionally engage the listener to continue listening. Vivacity. How “new” can a well-known phenomenon be described to attract interest? Attached to this is the theory of “audience expectations”.

[Nick Zwar]

There really isn’t anything right or wrong about which criteria one uses (all the ones mentioned so far seem fine to me), but there’s always the strive to find some sort of broad, semi-objective criteria that can function as umbrella categories for more specific sub criteria

Fully agree, because we look for patterns and meaning.
Though I think the evaluation of art in general and music in particular is basically subjective. I don’t see how anything can be evaluated objectively, as value is bestowed and not inherent, and as such always dependent on personal preferences.

[Nick Zwar]

I have one more… well, I got more than four, but I originally wanted to pick four examples, but didn’t get to finish what I wanted to write. So here is the fourth one I didn’t get around to writing yesterday (we went to the theater).
Phlip Glass’ KOYAANISQATSI (1982), which opened completely new doors of music for me. I was a teen back then, and had never heard anything like it before. I was already interested in both classical music and film music, I knew Wagner and Beethoven and Stravinsky, and even some Schönberg, even some Ligeti, and of course Morricone, Williams, Goldsmith for film scores… but here came something along I had never heard before.
A type of music that would be called “minimalist” (I didn’t know the term back then), but Glass music was repeating arpeggios, gradual shifts, hypnotic layering… if Wagner’s music was oil paintings and Stravinsky’s music was ink sketches Glass’ music was… mosaics.
I was still in school, but I had a summer internship at the German distributer for KOYAANISQATSI, Atlas film, and access to all the promotional materials, so I got the poster and LP and stuff.
Glass music was perhaps the type of “current” modern classical music that was not overly concept bound and abstract, nor was is it simply regurgitating neo-romantic paths… it was definitely something different. KOAANISQATSI back in the day was an experiment, it was a highly influential film, and Glass himself would go on to apply his techniques and compose some very impressive film scores for movies with a more “classic” narrative. We’re all used to minimalist sound and music by now, but back in 1982, the music KOYAANISQATSI was radical. Even today, when I listen to it, the music has not aged, not dated, the music is timeless. (And was partially used, very effectively, in both the trailer and the movie for Zack Snyder’s WATCHMEN.)
That was the fourth score I wanted to mention among my examples for “great” film scores. And this one was one that would have fit in no score card I would have had back ín the day.

[Author]

Posts