FSM # 3: The $1000.000 Question: What is good [film] music?
- This topic has 101 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 1 week, 6 days ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I was just thinking of your statement, Malte, about these two different terms, ‘good film music’ and ‘good music’, by which it is simply impossible to decide, if a film score is good or not, if you haven’t watched the film. By my definition, I can call a soundtrack great even though I haven’t experienced it in context of the movie.
I just think that you cannot evaluate a “film”score if you don’t know how it is used (or intended as that is not always the same as we know if directors mess around…). I certainly have and had lots of scores before I ever saw the movie it belongs to.
Great film score, but bad stand alone music.
(That’s just not something that can conceivably exist.)Good roundup, Nic. I think it is again highly subjective. For example we both consider Goldsmith’s PLANET OF THE APES of of the greatest film scores and also a great standalone listen. But this is certainly a type of score quite some will disagree on the listening experience…
Anything that has to do with evaluation of art, “good”, “great”, “bad”, “boring” etc. is subjective, of course.
You mentioned only THE TERMINATOR specifically, which I think is a terrific film score.
So do I. Just not on album.
Similarly, I’ve been taken by Mica Levi’s static, original, sometimes eerie textural soundscapes in films like UNDER THE SKIN, JACKIE, MONOS and THE ZONE OF INTEREST. But sampling these on album has been very difficult, to put it mildly. There’s nothing for me to latch on to — textures are too static.
And with the exception of JOKER (which I do like and own on album), I’ve had similar issues with Hildur Gudnadottir’s work. Fascinated by her sounds in films or TV shows like SICARIO: DAY OF THE SOLDADO, CHERNOBYL and TÀR. But find no to little value in them as albums.
PLANET OF THE APES and STAR WARS are from an era where especially fantasy movie heavily depended on their musical score to provide the fair dust to the imperfect images to make the shown other world believable.
In the 90s the imagery and visual effects became better and better and the movies more independent of the music. But composers were still used to their high standards. So, they delivered. But slowly the industry realised, that they don’t rely on great music. Great composers need long education, are expensive and composition takes long. So, this is since the 2000 a saving point. And let’s face it. The fans of good old standalone music soundtrack fans never were a big relevant group and they are dying out anyway.And another issue is, that the old movie sound of the 80s doesn’t fit to modern movies. Unless you are a Genius like John Williams who managed to adapt in a wonderful musical way. Also in recent years he managed to make every movie much better with his music.
It would be interessting of today’s generation gets some nostalgic connection to nowadays film abd TV scores like we do have to ours. It always has to do with nostaglia and the formative years. Decades ago I would have never thought that I catch myself thinking “everything was better in the old days”…
Getting older I made an interesting observation. When I was young I thought. There is some kind of young people fashion and old people fashion. So, I expected when people get older at one point they will start to dress like old people. But in the meantime I understand my generation dresses in their fifties ans sixties more or less same as in their 20s. And so did the people who were old when I was young. So, there is no such thing as old people fashion. There is just fashion for certain generations.
I guess it is somehow similar with the music people listen to.
So, there is no such thing as old people fashion. There is just fashion for certain generations.
Sure some truth in that! and especially in fashion trends seem to re-appear every now and then as well.
I guess it is somehow similar with the music people listen to.
Yeah, might be. Some may investigate to broaden their music listening range and some will just stay “radio/laylist” or “charts” listeners.
Just recently stumbled upon a Youtube video where a school music teacher or so had his class (older ones around 16-17 or so) listen to Beatles songs the first time. Apparently some kind of project to go through all albums and the haven’t yet reached the later more experimenals ones. Interesting comments.
Though I think that is more true for people who primarily listen to pop music and less true for people who primarily listen to classical music, and maybe to some extent film music. (And of course, there’s always “lots of in between”.)
The “music of a generation” usually refers to the songs that were popular at a certain era. Say “music of the 60s”, and you have a certain sound in mind, stuff like THE BEATLES, Jimmy Hendrix, Woodstock, etc… same with “music of the 80s”. What’s it today? Probably a lot more fragmented and we are all parted and divided by algorithms anyway, so people can be enormously famous to one group and virtually unknown to another (which is a fairly recent phenomenon because of Social Media bubbles).
Now in all these eras there were people who listened to Mendelssohn, Brahms, Schubert, Bach, etc., that stuff doesn’t belong to one era, it’s timeless (like Shakespeare), it doesn’t belong to one generation or one decade, it was performed a hundred years ago and will — likely and hopefully — be performed a hundred years from now.
Film music may be somewhat in between… on the one hand, many get to know and encounter film music through the movies of “their” era, so the music they start with may be the film scores of movies that were popular when they started to develop such an interest. On the other hand, among my favorite film composers are Miklós Rózsa and Bernard Herrmann… they had already stopped composing music (or even living) when I started to collect film scores.
If he keeps this up, I must re-evaluate my fairly recent re-appraisal of his work.
Maybe Isham should be judged by his own music and not his thoughts about others, Thor. Just before you throw him into the basement or out town in your composer house construct 😉
Film music may be somewhat in between… on the one hand, many get to know and encounter film music through the movies of “their” era, so the music they start with may be the film scores of movies that were popular when they started to develop such an interest. On the other hand, among my favorite film composers are Miklós Rózsa and Bernard Herrmann… they had already stopped composing music (or even living) when I started to collect film scores.
Same for me. But I watched a lot of movies that were old back then already. So I encountered their music in my youth. But we ony had three programs back then. Nowadays young people may not even encounter old movies because they don’t have to and won’t choose them by themself. Some classic film composer – forgot who – once talked about the responsibility to write good film music because that is the only music some people have contact with and are “educated” by. Of course that was quite some decades ago and is not fully valid anymore if it ever was.
For example we both consider Goldsmith’s PLANET OF THE APES of of the greatest film scores and also a great standalone listen. But this is certainly a type of score quite some will disagree on the listening experience…
Yeah, sure. But many people won’t listen to film scores at all, so obviously, many more won’t listen to film scores that are atonal, 12-tone, experimental, etc. But many people won’t listen to Arnold Schoenberg, Anton Webern, or Pierre Boulez either, but that doesn’t mean their music is not great as stand alone music (I think it is.)
I agree, PLANET OF THE APES is one of the greatest film scores of all time and also a great standalone listen. Decades ago, classical music magazine GRAMOPHONE called it “vicious, brutal, and utterly without humor, the raw power of Goldsmith’s score remains a landmark in the annals of film music” and “a reminder of just how inventive and original a good film score can be”. Certainly addressed at an audience that listens to music on its own.
It was also a score that made it to their “Top 40 (film music) Editor’s Choices” some time in the late 1990s.But many people won’t listen to Arnold Schoenberg, Anton Webern, or Pierre Boulez either, but that doesn’t mean their music is not great as stand alone music (I think it is.)
Yeah, that is generally accepted but those who won’t listen to it will probably not agree. It always seems to come down to subjectivity… Unless you view it from a scholary point of view.
So do I. Just not on album.
As I said, most people don’t even listen to any film music at all. So that’s ok. I think THE TERMINATOR is excellent as pure music.
I remember I listened to the album once during a longer night drive on the Autobahn (partly through Belgium) and it was just the perfect album for that drive.Similarly, I’ve been taken by Mica Levi’s static, original, sometimes eerie textural soundscapes in films like UNDER THE SKIN, JACKIE, MONOS and THE ZONE OF INTEREST. But sampling these on album has been very difficult, to put it mildly. There’s nothing for me to latch on to — textures are too static.
And with the exception of JOKER (which I do like and own on album), I’ve had similar issues with Hildur Gudnadottir’s work. Fascinated by her sounds in films or TV shows like SICARIO: DAY OF THE SOLDADO, CHERNOBYL and TÀR. But find no to little value in them as albums.
Ironically, I think UNDER THE SKIN works very well as pure music on album. While I have it, but I’ve never actually seen the movie, so I don’t know how well it works as film score. But it’s good as pure music. A sort of Penderecki meets Herrmann soundscape.
But as I said, if I didn’t think a film score worked as pure music, I would personally never call that music great… just serviceable. Levi’s album for UNDER THE SKIN works great as stand alone music I think. Same with SICARIO: DAY OF THE SOLDADO, works good as film score and on its own.But as I said, if I didn’t think a film score worked as pure music, I would personally never call that music great… just serviceable.
I think film music sometimes operates under different rules. It can lean up against sound design, and skirt the boundaries of what is music in the first place. Or it can definitely be music, just more about the “mechanical presence” in the film, and less about the independent musical value. That’s why some scores can easily be great in the film, but not great listening outside.
Not so sure I get what you mean by “film music operates under different rules”… Different rules from what, exactly? “Film music” is music written for a movie… just like opera music is music written for an opera, ballet music is music written for an ballet, and so on. And yes, all of these have their own specifics and demands on the music they require. But the rules of music per se, they are the same for all and any of these. The “rules of music” don’t become less relevant suddenly because a piece of music is composed for a movie. In short: rhythm, melody, harmony, chords, ostinato, counterpoint etc. don’t suddenly function differently because a camera is nearby. The basic grammar of musical thought applies no matter what.
While I agree with you that film music may “lean up against sound design” or can “skirt the boundaries of what is music in the first place”, why, sure, but that’s not something unique to film. Half of Xenakis is basically beautifully (hmm… or not so beautiful, as some would say) engineered industrial… er… “sounds” or “sound design”. There is an ongoing performance of a John Cage piece that lasts 639 years, and Cage opened up and explored in many ways the boundaries of music from not music. Pierre Boulez based compositions on mathematical equations. In the concert hall, you get pieces that are more texture than tune, more “sounds” than “melody”.
Film music does not so much operate under different “rules” (I use “rules” in parenthesis, as of course there are many differen types or concepts of “rules” that may or may not apply to certain compositions… film music can use any or all of them) from any other type of music… what film music does it is applies these “rules” to achieve an effect in conjunction with film. It is composed for a movie, that is the definition and main distinction from any other type of music, and it is important to note that that is not a musical distinction.
And that’s the key: the difference between film music and any other type of music is not first and foremost a musical one. There is no technique or chord or harmony that is unique to film, and vice versa, there is no technique or chord or harmony that could not be utilized in a film.
And film music can be great or not great. (Or lots of things in between of course, I just want to simplify it.)
And if film music manages to push the right (emotional) buttons on cue, yet the music itself is trite, bland, or structurally inert, then yes: I might call it serviceable craft, but not greatness. Most film music probably falls somewhere there. Though it’s hard for music to be emotionally manipulative if it doesn’t reach at least a certain quality on its own… perhaps impossible even.
But most film music is not great. And most film music won’t end up in my collection. Music can just have a purely functional role without any artistic aspiration, sure, and it may work, sure, but I wouldn’t consider such music “great”, merely sufficient. Within the movie or apart from it.
For me, without reservation, a film score cannot be great unless it stands on its own as music.
I actually follow Thor here. In Opera or ballet the music is a much the central or equally important part. Everything else is primarily made around the music. Music in films is generally only one part of the overall work and competes with everything else. Of course depends on the type of film (and silent movies are as special case additionally but the majority does not watch these). Fact is that film music is not concieved to be listened as a standalone work. Think of image and music counterpoint usages (yeah, probably rare nowadays…). That is a conceptual quality you cannot directly hear in the music itself (e.g. a sad scene scored with funny music).
I actually follow Thor here. In Opera or ballet the music is a much the central or equally important part. Everything else is primarily made around the music. Music in films is generally only one part of the overall work and competes with everything else. Of course depends on the type of film (and silent movies are as special case additionally but the majority does not watch these). Fact is that film music is not concieved to be listened as a standalone work. Think of image and music counterpoint usages (yeah, probably rare nowadays…). That is a conceptual quality you cannot directly hear in the music itself (e.g. a sad scene scored with funny music).
Exactly. Film music has certain specific properties that other forms of music do not. It’s a separateness that should be CELEBRATED, and not dismissed as just any other type of music. The stance that “music is music” is rather belittling to all the different kinds of music out there. One thing is that it must co-exist with the film’s sound track otherwise (sometimes even merging with it, sometimes standing widely apart from it). Another is the split-second timings within scenes. It’s the musical artform that is the most ADJUSTED to other external things. That means you can easily have scores that work wonderfully in the film, but not so much as pure listening. I’m surprised this is even something to discuss – it’s always seemed to me as one of those “obvious” things that everyone interested in film music experiences once in a while.
I should point out that the opposite is sometimes true as well — a score works poorly in the film, but great on album. Like, say, Williams’ overwrought scoring of Hopkins’ speech in AMISTAD. It just takes the whole thing over the top, melodramatically. Same as the romantic music in Zimmer’s PEARL HARBOR. But alone, without those filmic associations, these are actually fine pieces of music.
I actually follow Thor here. In Opera or ballet the music is a much the central or equally important part. Everything else is primarily made around the music. Music in films is generally only one part of the overall work and competes with everything else. Of course depends on the type of film (and silent movies are as special case additionally but the majority does not watch these). Fact is that film music is not concieved to be listened as a standalone work. Think of image and music counterpoint usages (yeah, probably rare nowadays…). That is a conceptual quality you cannot directly hear in the music itself (e.g. a sad scene scored with funny music).
None of what you say is in any way contradictory to anything I said though. In fact, I mostly agree with you. (Which, logically, means if you agree with Thor and I agree with you, it logically follows that Thor and I agree… yet Thor says he does not agree with me… now this gets complicated!)
However, and that is more my key point, even if what you say here is true, the fact that film music is not, as you say, conceived to be listened to as a standalone work and sonically “competes” with everything else, does not mean some of it gets a pass as being “great” even if it doesn’t hold up as pure music, quite the contrary, it serves more as an explanation for why a lot of film music gets away with a lack of quality, for why a lot of it is (barely) serviceable, but not great.
Exactly. Film music has certain specific properties that other forms of music do not.
Yes, I never denied that. Just as opera music has certain specific properties that other forms of music do not. Yet these specific properties are not musical distinctions per se.
It’s a separateness that should be CELEBRATED, and not dismissed as just any other type of music.
I’m certainly not dismissive of film music. Obviously not.
The stance that “music is music” is rather belittling to all the different kinds of music out there.
So you are saying music is not music? Of course music is music. All music must function as music before it can hope to do anything else. Including supporting a movie.
One thing is that it must co-exist with the film’s sound track otherwise (sometimes even merging with it, sometimes standing widely apart from it).
That is again, not a musical but functional distinction.
Another is the split-second timings within scenes.
Again, that’s a functional but not a musical distinction, and in the overall “picture” of film music “split-second timings” or “Mickey-Mousing” aren’t even all that common. Furthermore, it doesn’t really make a difference if the split second timing is because the music fits to a scene, the scene is edited to the music, or even such a device is used without film (such as the snare drummroll and sudden orchestral “drop” to announce Till Eulenspiegel’s execution in Richard Strauss’ composition… could have been Mickey-Mousing film music, but it’s not film music at all.)
It’s the musical artform that is the most ADJUSTED to other external things.
That’s probably true.
That means you can easily have scores that work wonderfully in the film, but not so much as pure listening.
I have never encountered score that works “wonderfully” in the film, but not as pure listening, which is why I say it doesn’t exist. I sure have seen plenty of films with scores that were “okay” in that they didn’t go in the way of what’s on screen but were not interesting by themselves, sure, but none of them were “great”. There is no such thing as great film music that is not great music first.
I’m surprised this is even something to discuss – it’s always seemed to me as one of those “obvious” things that everyone interested in film music experiences once in a while.
That’s because we are not disagreeing about the “obvious” things, we’re disagreeing about the conclusions. We are not disagreeing what film music is and how it functions, we are disagreeing about whether a music that is merely serviceable in a movie can be considered “great”. I say no, it cannot.
So you are saying music is not music?
The point was to highlight the different types of music out there – and yes, that includes the differences in how it functions. A functional distinction is a distinction.
I have never encountered score that works “wonderfully” in the film, but not as pure listening, which is why I say it doesn’t exist.
Just because you haven’t experienced it, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. It clearly exists for me, as the previous examples suggest. And I’m sure I’m not alone in having experienced a score that works great in the film, but not on album.
There is no such thing as great film music that is not great music first.
I disagree with that. As the earlier examples alluded to, a lot of it I don’t consider particularly great music, just great film music. That’s because it fulfills certain FUNCTIONAL purposes in the film greatly, but these do not automatically translate to great music outside.
we are disagreeing about whether a music that is merely serviceable in a movie can be considered “great”.
No, not really. I’m not really interested in serviceable film music. I’m interested in music that lifts things beyond that, into great and often original film art, but that simply doesn’t have that value as soon as it “loses” the film.
The point was to highlight the different types of music out there – and yes, that includes the differences in how it functions. A functional distinction is a distinction.
Sure. No argument there.
I have never encountered score that works “wonderfully” in the film, but not as pure listening, which is why I say it doesn’t exist.
Just because you haven’t experienced it, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.
Yet perhaps it does. I am trying to conceive of such a theoretical case, but admit, I come up blank so far. Maybe I consider the concept contradictory to begin with.
It clearly exists for me, as the previous examples suggest.
That’s fine of course. Just because something doesn’t exist for me doesn’t mean it cannot exist for anyone else.
And I’m sure I’m not alone in having experienced a score that works great in the film, but not on album.
Oh, I’m sure you are not. Most people don’t listen to film music albums to begin with.
the scene is edited to the music, or even such a device is used without film (such as the snare drummroll and sudden orchestral “drop” to announce Till Eulenspiegel’s execution in Richard Strauss’ composition… could have been Mickey-Mousing film music, but it’s not film music at all.)
But here the composer chooses it by musical means and not because the film demands it.
(…) he contrary, it serves more as an explanation for why a lot of film music gets away with a lack of quality, for why a lot of it is (barely) serviceable, but not great.
It could also be seen that the quality of film music may at least partly lay outside of pure musical measures.
Most people don’t listen to film music albums to begin with.
And they don’t really do that within a movie as well.
Great topic btw even if we might not come to a conclusion 😉
But here the composer chooses it by musical means and not because the film demands it.
Yes, but that distinction requires extra musical knowledge, it is not obvious from the music itself, which is why I mean it’s not a musical characteristic. If you play that sequence to someone who does not know the music, the person could easily assume it was written to accompany a film and even hit precise spots.
Great topic btw even if we might not come to a conclusion 😉
The “conclusion” is simply that we may have different points of view of what we might consider “great”. Which is fine of course.
If a film score somewhat works inside the movie, but is trite, bland, unoriginal, uninteresting, boring, or whatever else that may prevent it from being appreciated as music on its own, I personally will not consider that film score “great”. Or even “good”. It may serve the movie in perfunctory way but is not interesting or valuable as music on its own. That’s probably the majority of film scores, but I’d never consider any such film scores “great” or even “good”. They are at best serviceable. Nothing per se wrong with being “serviceable”, but “serviceable” is far removed from “great”.
If, on the other hand, a film score works inside the movie, but does so in a fresh way that’s not trite, not bland but vivid, not unoriginal but inventive, not uninteresting but engaging, not boring but compelling, or (again) whatever (I just used the opposites of what could make music uninteresting as music), then it becomes automatically interesting as music per se and may be considered “great” or at least “good”.
If, on the other hand, a film score works inside the movie, but does so in a fresh way that’s not trite, not bland but vivid, not unoriginal but inventive, not uninteresting but engaging, not boring but compelling, or (again) whatever (I just used the opposites of what could make music uninteresting as music), then it becomes automatically interesting as music per se and may be considered “great” or at least “good”.
Yes, I think that’s where we fundamentally disagree. I marvel at the way Mica Levi just used a single, descending chord (that runs its course, then restarts again) to describe the alien’s deadly seduction in UNDER THE SKIN. It’s original, it’s fresh, it’s something that lifts the film. Or how those low-register rumblings created an uneasy, nervous atmosphere throughout the narrative. It’s lean and mean. When assessing it as a filmatic tool, alongside acting style, effects, editing, sound design, it is – as far as I’m concerned – a GREAT score. Not merely serviceable, but GREAT. A fundamental reason for why the film is somewhat of a modern sci fi/horror classic.
However, when I try/tried to listen to it outside its movie, it just went on my nerves. It was monotonous, boring, static, aggravating. Nothing great or pleasurable about it. Not something I want to listen to again, not something I want to own.
This is not some weird, abnormal thing to experience, I think. It’s fairly normal. To be able to appreciate a score in-context, but not so much on album. Or vice versa.
I probably have dozens, if not hundreds, of such examples.
Yes, I think that’s where we fundamentally disagree. I marvel at the way Mica Levi just used a single, descending chord (that runs its course, then restarts again) to describe the alien’s deadly seduction in UNDER THE SKIN. It’s original, it’s fresh, it’s something that lifts the film. Or how those low-register rumblings created an uneasy, nervous atmosphere throughout the narrative. When assessing it as a filmatic tool, alongside acting style, effects, editing, sound design, it is – as far as I’m concerned – a GREAT score. Not merely serviceable, but GREAT. A fundamental reason for why the film is somewhat of a modern sci fi/horror classic.
It’s good music, period. Which is why I enjoy it outside of the movie, which I haven’t even seen.
However, when I try/tried to listen to it outside its movie, it just went on my nerves. It was monotonous, boring, static, aggravating. Nothing great or pleasurable about it. Not something I want to listen to again, not something I want to own.
Interesting, as I said, I had a different reaction to the music. As I said, I found it original and fresh, which is why I enjoy it on album. Without even having seen the movie, so I don’t know how well it works as a film score.
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 think then that becomes more a personal choice of what one likes to listen to as music.
I should mention here then there are quite a few people that like Mica Levi’s soundtrack album on its own, it’s even listed with excellent listener reviews on “Album of the Year” (https://www.albumoftheyear.org/album/14602-mica-levi-under-the-skin-ost/user-reviews/).
So as I noted, I personally would never consider a score “great” that does not work foremost as music first. UNDER THE SKIN obviously does.
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.
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.
‘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.
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.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?
Because it’s composed without the constraints of film. I believe many film composers who do concert works speak about this liberty it gives them. Means the music is allowed to be structured differently or developed differently.
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?
Maybe, maybe not. I think in this particular case, it’s more the type of modernist music on display that would be the most important criterion. Some modernist music I connect to, some I don’t (I often have issues with Morricone’s approach, for example, but can appreciate Ligeti or Penderecki…I’ve never been able to work out why or how it is so).
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.
For me, it’s fairly easy, because I consider it stimulating, original and engaging IN RELATION TO SPECIFIC IMAGES. It is only in that symbiosis it works. It sometimes doesn’t without it.
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?
Because it’s composed without the constraints of film. I believe many film composers who do concert works speak about this liberty it gives them. Means the music is allowed to be structured differently or developed differently.
But that’s only relevant for the creative process. For the receptive process, as audience, it’s irrelevant. A piece of music is not going to become better because the composer had all the freedom he wanted while composing, and it’s not going to be worse because it’s composed with the constraints of the film.
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.
For me, it’s fairly easy, because I consider it stimulating, original and engaging IN RELATION TO SPECIFIC IMAGES. It is only in that symbiosis it works. It sometimes doesn’t without it.
Then it’s serviceable only. Not great. Not even good.
But that’s only relevant for the creative process. For the receptive process, as audience, it’s irrelevant. A piece of music is not going to become better because the composer had all the freedom he wanted while composing, and it’s not going to be worse because it’s composed with the constraints of the film.
Not better or worse, but the experience of it may differ a bit.
Then it’s serviceable only. Not great. Not even good.
How so? Where do you get this reduction to ‘serviceable’ from?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.