Music Magic and Movie Music Magic: Is There A Difference?

[Desplat13 1]

This is somewhat in response to some posts and threads created by Quint in which he seems to imply that there is an inherent difference between music for itself and the 'magic' that is required in movie music. While I considered debating this in his thread, I decided to take a little more time and think it out more carefully, and found it to be an interesting topic. So hopefully this can generate some lively debate.

OK, then, these are my thoughts and the logic behind them:

I consider movie music to be nothing more than another form of music, just like ballet is a form and so is opera. In fact, I consider movie music to be somewhat of a combination of the two, with usually less emphasis on music than either. This is why I think it would be silly to judge movie music by a different criteria than any other music form, namely, how well does it do what it set out to do?

Now often it seems that the reason for the need of this definition-elusive 'magic' in movie music is actually an attempt to discard musical arguments for or against music. So it is important to look at why we study any type of music (all types need magic, or inspiration, by the way), and whether movie music should be an exception.

There seem (to me) to be two reasons for studying music. One, to learn how exactly the composer attained the effect that he did, and two, because it is fun. Both of these are obviously just as valid in movie music as in any other form. But, in the end, music is meant to be listened to above being studied, so trying to argue that this piece has great voicing and orchestration, while this is just boring same-old same-old will not convince anyone that the one is better, because they like the second better, and it is a matter of taste and style. This in no way means that the orchestration argument is not valid, but rather that it probably will not convince anyone (making it pretty much like any other music related argument). Therefore, it seems to me, that a musically studied and informed argument for or against movie music is just as valid as any other type of argument.

Movie music is just another venue for music, and I don't see any reason to say that it cannot be judged on the same principles as any other form.

So anyways, what are your thoughts, and where am I wrong?

[Hlao-roo 388]

What I wrote back in July:

In evaluating the quality of a film score, each of us -- depending upon personal penchance, perspective, and proficiency -- tends to place different emphases on various overlapping and interdependent criteria, among which are "craft" (the way in which the score complements its film), "art" (melody, harmony, rhythm, timbre, and so on), and "entertainment" (the overall satisfaction one derives from the stand-alone listening experience). In doing so, we often talk past one another as well as underestimate the degree to which multiple factors interact to influence our response to a score.

In theory, film music can be critiqued on multiple, discrete levels, but, in practice, these distinctions tend to get muddied and blurred because the informality of these types of forums don't lend themselves to analytical precision. For the most part, we're just fans sharing and squabbling over our likes and dislikes. While a great many of have some sort of musical background, I would imagine that the majority of us lack postgraduate-level training in music theory (or film studies, for that matter), the result being that our discussions tend to be powered mainly by our laypersons' perceptions of how a piece may or may not have worked for us, or may or may not have engaged us in comparison to a previous work by the same composer or one of a different composer.

[indy4 152]

There seem (to me) to be two reasons for studying music. One, to learn how exactly the composer attained the effect that he did, and two, because it is fun. Both of these are obviously just as valid in movie music as in any other form. But, in the end, music is meant to be listened to above being studied, so trying to argue that this piece has great voicing and orchestration, while this is just boring same-old same-old will not convince anyone that the one is better, because they like the second better, and it is a matter of taste and style. This in no way means that the orchestration argument is not valid, but rather that it probably will not convince anyone (making it pretty much like any other music related argument). Therefore, it seems to me, that a musically studied and informed argument for or against movie music is just as valid as any other type of argument.

Hmmm...I may be reading this wrong, but it sorta seems like you're contradicting yourself. Firstly, you state that music is meant to be listened to more than studied, and that the argument about why a piece is technically inferior is not going to change anybody's minds. Then you say "it seems to me, that a musically studied and informed argument for or against movie music is just as valid as any other type of argument." Isn't that going against the current of your "music is meant to be listened to more than studied" thesis?

I'm not arguing the actual statements, just want to get some clarification here.

[Desplat13 1]

What I meant was that arguing over music is really pointless, because so much is based on what style a person enjoys, and no amount of arguing will change that. We just do it around here because we like to. Therefore, using music theory in an argument is just as valid as saying 'I like how this melody sounds'.

[Hlao-roo 388]

There seem (to me) to be two reasons for studying music. One, to learn how exactly the composer attained the effect that he did, and two, because it is fun. Both of these are obviously just as valid in movie music as in any other form. But, in the end, music is meant to be listened to above being studied, so trying to argue that this piece has great voicing and orchestration, while this is just boring same-old same-old will not convince anyone that the one is better, because they like the second better, and it is a matter of taste and style. This in no way means that the orchestration argument is not valid, but rather that it probably will not convince anyone (making it pretty much like any other music related argument). Therefore, it seems to me, that a musically studied and informed argument for or against movie music is just as valid as any other type of argument.

Hmmm...I may be reading this wrong, but it sorta seems like you're contradicting yourself. Firstly, you state that music is meant to be listened to more than studied, and that the argument about why a piece is technically inferior is not going to change anybody's minds. Then you say "it seems to me, that a musically studied and informed argument for or against movie music is just as valid as any other type of argument." Isn't that going against the current of your "music is meant to be listened to more than studied" thesis?

I'm not arguing the actual statements, just want to get some clarification here.

I think Colin means that music can be properly appreciated whether one has a background in music or not. An argument made on the basis of music theory and an argument made on the basis of sheer ignorance ineffable joy are equally valid -- and equally ineffectual.

[Desplat13 1]

I like how it sounds when Alan makes my arguments better than when I do...

[indy4 152]

What I meant was that arguing over music is really pointless, because so much is based on what style a person enjoys, and no amount of arguing will change that. We just do it around here because we like to. Therefore, using music theory in an argument is just as valid as saying 'I like how this melody sounds'.

Ah, I see. And I agree with you partially.

I know that before my conversations on this board, I, for the most part, listened to music and enjoyed it. That was it. I was an incredibly "superficial" listener, basing greatness on whether I was entertained by the piece or not. Of course that is still a huge part of my why I like a piece (the biggest, actually), after several discussions on this board, I started really paying attention to the smaller details. Orchestrations, storytelling through music, and basically analyzing the music at a deeper level. So in that sense I was "shown the light" by realizing that there was more to music than the face value, and that certainly changed my opinion about music.

At the same time, there is an incredible amount of bias on this board (and I admit I am a major contributor), so in a sense arguing is pointless. Also questionable is the motives for arguing. Forgetting this thread, if I, for instance, managed to convince Henry Buck that KotCS was a brilliant score...what would be gained? I'm sure he has plenty of other scores he enjoys listening to, and I know that by not convincing him, it's not like I won't be enjoying the score at all. So in terms of convincing another, arguing about film score has always been rather pointless.

But overall, arguing is not pointless, because it is fun to do. Debate is a very fun activity to partake in, and because of this, arguing will never be pointless to me (at least on this MB).

[Koray Savas 2,095]

I like how it sounds when Alan makes my arguments better than when I do...

But yeah, all of us here have preconceived likes and dislikes. We argue, but none of it is really going to change our opinions or perspectives. If someone says you should listen to some more Golden Age scores, I'm not gonna do a damn thing. I'll only listen to Golden Ages scores if I have a personal feeling or desire to do so. Even friendly discussion won't change a thing. I don't know what the reason is, but we all come here to just babble about film music.

I used to have this thing, where I separated quality and entertainment. I'm starting to realize it's stupid I kinda wanna tear it down. Entertainment equals quality, and vice versa. So I've come to realize, through some minor and unimportant epiphany, that I don't actually like music based on genre or time period or composer, I just like whatever I like, whatever sounds good to me. I don't enjoy listening to Star Wars or Indiana Jones or Jaws. It's a simple fact about myself that I cannot change. Give me anything by Giacchino over those, any day. I bought the Indy set more out of collector's sake than anything else. I listened to each score once and then kept on going back to the music I actually liked.

[indy4 152]

Because it's fun.

[Koray Savas 2,095]

Made some edits, Indy. Maybe you'll have a little more to say this time I'm expecting the noose.

[indy4 152]

Well it's actually sorta a relief that you aren't saying how you've never heard all of SW and then saying how it's the best score ever written. That seemed a bit extreme.

I understand those who seperate quality from entertainment, and those who say it cannot be done. And I guess it really depends on how we evaluate the art, just as Alan mentioned in July. Do we determine greatness by whichever film has the least technical flaws, whichever film has the most moving story, whichever film is most original, whichever film is most entertaining...it goes on. And I think most people evaluate on a rubric that consists of all of those criterions listed above.

I have always stated that AWE is an extremely entertaining bad film. I guess this is because there are tons of great elements to it but there are a lot of elements that could have been done better, such as the over stuffed plot. The fact that the film could have been better tells me that it is not a perfect film...the fact that it could have been better in MANY ways tells me it's a bad film...and the fact that I enjoy watching it despite this tells me it's an entertaining film. It seems unfair to equate two films because they're both equally entertaining, even when one CLEARLY has more flaws than the other. But it seems equally unfair to say that the one with the flaws is a horrible film. So I use the "entertaining but bad" tagline. I think it works.

Really if I say "entertaining but bad," then it's a film that I think of in a good light, but there are just too many things that could've been better to call it "good."

[Hlao-roo 388]

So in terms of convincing another, arguing about film score has always been rather pointless.

I think that if we're honest, engaging in debate is often as much -- if not more -- about defending our opinion as it is about persuading others to share it. When we encounter a statement with which we disagree, our natural response is to try to pick it apart -- otherwise it threatens our own beliefs, and the sense of security we may feel by possessing them.

Ultimately, I agree that there's no right or wrong when it comes to evaluating art. That said, each of us, consciously or not, holds to certain standards that we consider necessary and essential in bringing to bear when we put on our critic's hat. On some level, we know that the reason that we didn't enjoy a particular movie is that it failed to meet one or more of those standards. With that in mind, I think it's somewhat disingenuous (and patronizing) when we tell others, "I'm glad you enjoy [insert name of movie, score, or whatnot] as much as you did. I wish I could enjoy it as much you do, but I just can't." Such a statement is usually a well-meaning attempt to defuse the tension in the room, but it's generally not an accurate reflection of how we truly feel: I have certain standards that I value, and I don't think I could respect myself were I to apply this fellow's standards in making an assessment. I would hate not to be able to separate the dreck from the sublime as this person seems incapable of doing.

[Henry B 49]

Forgetting this thread, if I, for instance, managed to convince Henry Buck that KotCS was a brilliant score...

Bahahahaha!

[Nick Parker 3,017]

I must say, this thread has prompted some wonderfully insightful posts. Bravissimo, gentlemen!

[Desplat13 1]

OK, I said arguing music was pointless in my other post, but that might be a bit extreme. My main point was that movie music should be judged on the same criteria as any other form of music.

I do, however, believe that it is possible, as Indy4 said, to 'see the light' and come to appreciate something that someone didn't like before, because of arguments. Probably not so much for a single score, but for a style. It is important to understand that there is a difference betweem 'hearing' something and 'listening' to something. 'Listening', to me, seems more like a verb, meaning the audience is taking more of an active role. I think this is why so much MV generic music is so popular: because people do not want to listen, they just want to hear it. They want to be able to bepop there head along with the beat the very first time, and in order to do this, all the beats must be the same. This is obviously not possible with most of Williams more complex action music. But convincing someone to really listen can often help them to appreciate a style more (by the way, I like some MV music. I also do not like a lot of MV music).

Therefore, arguing about music is not really pointless, but arguing about movie music based on a musical knowledge is just as good an argument as any other.