How do you judge the quality of a score?

[Delorean90 42]

On another note, can anyone who voted for option #1 give me a clear explanation as to how a film score consisting of crappy music really helps to enhance a film?

I don't think that's the only way to go Option 1. Some scores are perfectly fine, they're just unlistenable, such as Planet of the Apes and Images (the latter to a lesser extent). I wouldn't say either of them is a crappy music; on the contrary, they are both marvelously unique pieces of work from both composers. But that doesn't mean it's a pleasure to listen to them when seperated from the film. Having said that, I voted Option 2.

Hmm. Interesting point. But I tend to hear less of the "But film scores are designed to support the film!" defenses when the discussion is on the films mentioned above than something like, say, Batman Begins or Transformers. Obviously POTA and Images are still works of quality, just in a less accessible style, are they not? One could certainly argue in favor of an option #1 leaning there, but I think there's still a heavy scent of option #2 on the scores you mentioned.

I wouldn't agree with that (the inferiority) 100%, but I certainly don't find his music to be as simultaneously entertaining and compelling as many of his predecessors. As to your statement of him being the first (or one of the first) film composer to focus on making the music stand alone apart from the film, I find this a tough statement to analyze. At least the Golden Age composers may not have been so focused on the enjoyment of the music on an album, but I would imagine all of the best film composers have been just as much interested in writing good music as they were in helping the film.

I mean there is no way to know for sure for every composer. Zimmer is just the only one that I know of that does so, as proven by the Fowler quote. But if I were writing music for a film, I probably would not be thinking about pleasing my fans and making listenable music. I'd be focused on accompanying the film, and if it happens to be listenable on its own, then good for me.

Honestly, I take the JW quote about it being a happy accident with a grain of salt. Sure, he's trying to support the film, but he's doing so with a tremendous amount of skill and talent. How does one go about supporting a film with music? I'd say by writing the best music possible for the film. Wouldn't this be right?

Film music, to me, is all about the emotion. It's why I always prefer a serious score over fun ones. That's why Munich, Schindler's List, and Saving Private Ryan top my favorite JW scores instead of the usual Star Wars, Indiana Jones, or Superman. I want to feel something from it, and I'm usually re-experiencing the film in my head when I am listening to music. Although there is music that can be just as emotionally gripping without me thinking about the film, and it just connects with me.

So you don't feel excitement or joy or enthusiasm, just seriousness? I know that surely that's not what you meant, but I can't really make out what you mean here. I love the score to Star Wars because it's great music that I enjoy a lot. I think it's great because not only does it have that quality, but it also elevated the film immensely. I'm not sure where the serious vs. fun debate is coming into play here.

Great scores can do both, affect me emotionally in the context of the film, and away from the film. But if you're going to judge a score, it should be based on how it works in the film.

And on how good it is as music, right? Otherwise, it's only a serviceable score, decent at best. Good music is naturally going to be emotionally affecting, otherwise it's not very good music, it's simply sonic experimentation. If you write a score that delivers a basic emotional context that doesn't directly drag the film down, then okay, we're at square one, and that's okay, but greatness doesn't even enter the discussion until we're dealing with a work that fulfills both of its main capacities.

On another note, can anyone who voted for option #1 give me a clear explanation as to how a film score consisting of crappy music really helps to enhance a film?

Like indy4 said, it can be effective music, just not entirely listenable. Alien and Planet Of The Apes are two popular ones that I don't find listenable on their own.

Alien took me a bit of time to get into, but I'm so glad I bought it; I really enjoy it a lot now. It really does reward multiple listens. I'm unfortunately not too familiar with Planet of the Apes, but even just discussing Alien, can't you tell that it's well-thought out both as music and as accompaniment--a work of quality? And isn't the question of this thread "How do you judge the quality of a score"?

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Film music, to me, is all about the emotion. It's why I always prefer a serious score over fun ones. That's why Munich, Schindler's List, and Saving Private Ryan top my favorite JW scores instead of the usual Star Wars, Indiana Jones, or Superman. I want to feel something from it, and I'm usually re-experiencing the film in my head when I am listening to music. Although there is music that can be just as emotionally gripping without me thinking about the film, and it just connects with me.

So you don't feel excitement or joy or enthusiasm, just seriousness? I know that surely that's not what you meant, but I can't really make out what you mean here. I love the score to Star Wars because it's great music that I enjoy a lot. I think it's great because not only does it have that quality, but it also elevated the film immensely. I'm not sure where the serious vs. fun debate is coming into play here.

The part you quoted was just me rambling about my view on music, and so is the following. Light scores do make me feel excitement and joy, but I vastly prefer a more deep and somber score. I guess that's just what I like to listen to more. I've used this comparison before, maybe not on the board, but I view light (term used lightly) scores as like good summer music. It's the equivalent of a beautiful day, while darker more emotional scores are like winter. I like my share of both, like if it's nice outside, I'll say it's good Zimmer weather and throw on some Pirates Of The Caribbean. In other words, scores like Indiana Jones give you the immediate satisfaction, while something like Schindler's List lets you ponder or go into your thoughts. Get what I'm trying to say?

Alien took me a bit of time to get into, but I'm so glad I bought it; I really enjoy it a lot now. It really does reward multiple listens. I'm unfortunately not too familiar with Planet of the Apes, but even just discussing Alien, can't you tell that it's well-thought out both as music and as accompaniment--a work of quality? And isn't the question of this thread "How do you judge the quality of a score"?

If you like Alien and think it's good listenable music away from the film, then that's your taste. That's good. But what I'm trying to get across is that should not factor in to how good the score is in terms of its job in the film. Alien is perfect for the film, but I don't enjoy listening to it on its own. Would it be fair for me to call it an average score if it's good in the film but bad on its own?

[Delorean90 42]

The part you quoted was just me rambling about my view on music, and so is the following. Light scores do make me feel excitement and joy, but I vastly prefer a more deep and somber score. I guess that's just what I like to listen to more. I've used this comparison before, maybe not on the board, but I view light (term used lightly) scores as like good summer music. It's the equivalent of a beautiful day, while darker more emotional scores are like winter. I like my share of both, like if it's nice outside, I'll say it's good Zimmer weather and throw on some Pirates Of The Caribbean. In other words, scores like Indiana Jones give you the immediate satisfaction, while something like Schindler's List lets you ponder or go into your thoughts. Get what I'm trying to say?

Yep. I can let a little side journey slide.

Alien took me a bit of time to get into, but I'm so glad I bought it; I really enjoy it a lot now. It really does reward multiple listens. I'm unfortunately not too familiar with Planet of the Apes, but even just discussing Alien, can't you tell that it's well-thought out both as music and as accompaniment--a work of quality? And isn't the question of this thread "How do you judge the quality of a score"?

If you like Alien and think it's good listenable music away from the film, then that's your taste. That's good. But what I'm trying to get across is that should not factor in to how good the score is in terms of its job in the film. Alien is perfect for the film, but I don't enjoy listening to it on its own. Would it be fair for me to call it an average score if it's good in the film but bad on its own?

I don't think so. You don't think the level of musical creativity involved is clearly on a much higher level than something like POTC? A movie can make a lot of money, but that doesn't make it great. A score can work fine in a film, but that doesn't make it a great score. Just because it fulfilled the basic goal, that doesn't mean it has somehow set itself up as anything of great quality.

[Henry B 50]

Zimmer is the first composer to my knowledge that makes it a goal for his music to stand alone away from the film. I highly doubt most composers are thinking about making good listening music while composing for a film. Yes, John Williams likes to make the best listening experience for his listeners, but he's not thinking about that while he's writing the music. He's thinking about that while compiling the album from the music he already wrote for the film.

You've said this before--has he literally made the comment in (an) interview(s)? I find it ironic that you consider him the first composer (that you know of) to make it a goal for his music to stand on its own away from the film when he is generally considered a lesser composer who produces lesser music--generally. I wouldn't agree with that (the inferiority) 100%, but I certainly don't find his music to be as simultaneously entertaining and compelling as many of his predecessors. As to your statement of him being the first (or one of the first) film composer to focus on making the music stand alone apart from the film, I find this a tough statement to analyze. At least the Golden Age composers may not have been so focused on the enjoyment of the music on an album, but I would imagine all of the best film composers have been just as much interested in writing good music as they were in helping the film.

Yeah, honestly, this smacks of ignorance. I would bet good money that many film composers before Zimmer have had a concert / home listening experience in mind. I also really doubt Zimmer holds himself to that standard all the time. I mean, he doesn't even write all the music sometimes; how can he ensure that it is all "listenable"? Besides, the composing process is simply not that black and white. I always write with enjoyment in mind because, well, I enjoy writing music. My intent is to complement the film (or whatever I'm writing for; I haven't done any films yet), but the listenability factor is such a gray area. It's not like if I write something with the concert hall in mind, it will sound good on its own, and if I only have the film in mind, it will sound like unintelligible garbage. Music just doesn't work that way. It's so many things to so many people. Why even try to explain its intent? In my opinion, there is very little music that serves a film well but is unlistenable on its own. Yes, music can be very coarse, dissonant, emotionally draining or downright depressing, but that is part of the experience.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

A score can work fine in a film, but that doesn't make it a great score. Just because it fulfilled the basic goal, that doesn't mean it has somehow set itself up as anything of great quality.

The word "score" is the defining word here. There's no basic goal, it's the only goal, to enhance and compliment the film. If it's good enough music to stand alone, it'll make a good album, but that should have no bearing on the actual quality of the score, because it's taken away from the thing it's scoring. Out of context, if you will.

And you'd be surprised what people cook on engine blocks.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

A score can work fine in a film, but that doesn't make it a great score. Just because it fulfilled the basic goal, that doesn't mean it has somehow set itself up as anything of great quality.

The word "score" is the defining word here. There's no basic goal, it's the only goal, to enhance and compliment the film. If it's good enough music to stand alone, it'll make a good album, but that should have no bearing on the actual quality of the score, because it's taken away from the thing it's scoring. Out of context, if you will.

Yeah, that's what I'm trying to say.

[Quintus 5,399]

You can also differenciate a good composer from an excelent one. The latter writes his work with the isolated musical experience in his mind, as well as the fitting of the film.

You don't really know that, instead you merely assume it to be the case. Someone like Jerry Goldsmith just happened to be so good at what he did that he couldn't help but write good music for a movie, indeed it was so good that it found a life of it's own outside of the job it was written for. Simply put, the fans got lucky.

It is folly to believe that a film composer might put his own agenda before the movie he is working for. And if he does, he's in the wrong business. The best composers know that if they write a good film score, the natural benefits of it (listenability) will be reaped as a consequence anyway.

[Josh500 1,615]

It shouldn't need to work outside the film. That's just a plus and yes, is a hallmark of great composers. But it's by no means a caveat that should be met.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Sorry, but the notion somehow that film music MUST also work as a standalone listening experience is ridiculous. If JW (or other film composers) wanted to write just standalone pieces, he wouldn't be rushing to write and record a 2 hour score in 2 months! He'd be taking 2 years!

The fact that some film scores also work as standalone pieces is just (and nothing but) a testament to the composers's talent and ingenuity.

[publicist 4,643]

[

I believe there is a quote from Bruce Fowler where he pretty much explains it. Ah, found it:

The tune is everything. This is Hans Zimmer's view. The music must be able to stand on its own, not merely accompany the picture, but to be its partner, offering a path to the inner most feelings of the characters.

I'll bet that the 'tune' is everything, since Zimmer's strength certainly lies not in classical structures and idioms.

That the music is able to stand on it's own; well, if that means that Zimmer arranges a nice sacral-pop album like 'Da Vinci Code', i'm all for it. As for listening to 10-minute action pieces without any structure, i'll gladly invite Zimmer to my home to teach me what 'inner most feelings' he found there. He has to pay for lunch, though...

[Jeshopk 8]

It shouldn't need to work outside the film. That's just a plus and yes, is a hallmark of great composers. But it's by no means a caveat that should be met.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Sorry, but the notion somehow that film music MUST also work as a standalone listening experience is ridiculous. If JW (or other film composers) wanted to write just standalone pieces, he wouldn't be rushing to write and record a 2 hour score in 2 months! He'd be taking 2 years!

The fact that some film scores also work as standalone pieces is just (and nothing but) a testament to the composers's talent and ingenuity.

Well, having studied John's sketches, I have a theory, which is that commercial music is the only way he could logistically do what he loved, which was write music every day. Working with orchestrators and funding, with a detailed sketch is the best way to keep up with a super-active creative mind. It is clear things like Battle in the Snow were written in a frenzy of inspiration that would be impossible if you were taking your sweet time. And I will take that over any symphonic work that was fretted over for a year. When working as a concert composer there is a lot more busy work that has nothing to do with writing the music - such as laying out the full score. A lot of repeated hand movements.

Whenever writing my own music, I write slower, but not better. When writing for a deadline and a paycheck, I write quickly and with inspired urgency. I have surprised myself in that some of my favorite stuff was done with very little time or conscious thought.

Pure concert composers are almost philosophers, usually trying to some up with something to say with music beyond pure emotion and rhythm. For a composer who wants to paint emotions, I think journalistic writing is the best way to go rather than sitting days in and out trying to perfect some abstract thesis in musical terms.

And if film music doesn't always work for someone in a standalone experience, perhaps the only reason is that it isn't that particular person's cup of tea. Judging by all the Zimmer fans in the world, ANYTHING will work on CD depending on the audience. By the same token, many people find Planet of the Apes to be totally accessible. With all the genres that are at your local record store, is there anything that epirically "doesn't work" as a standalone listening experience? I think not.

Exhibit A) Bone Alphabet by noted composer Brian Ferneyhough

Pandering to an audience is usually a bad idea for a film composer, but hey, then we would never have Mancini. But since the function of film music is to emote, then it usually "works" for more people than pure contemporary concert music. If we saw a viable resurgence of melodic concert music, then film music would get a run for its money.

[Jarbas 1]

You should have added a 3rd option: "For me, they're equally important..."

[Jay 37,469]

You should have added a 3rd option: "For me, they're equally important..."

[Ollie 1,064]

Film music is composed with the film in mind first. Now there are some composers who also take the listener in mind when preparing their albums, concert pieces, re-recording & fleshing out the music a bit more. But the main purpose is to serve the film, there's no denying that.

However I personally have found that I can enjoy film music away from the movie, regardless of whether or not the composer has prepared an album for the listener. I can listen to it as I would any other type of music and I do not associate it with the film when I'm listening to it.

I do not let the quality of the film determine whether or not I will buy the soundtrack, the composer will be the factor I base my decision on. I do by blind if I'm familiar with a composer. I have quite a few film scores that I may never see the movie they were composed for.

For me it's about the music, not the movie. I enjoy listening to film music.

Now I do enjoy movies, and I do have some films in my collection that have bad scores to them. But I've found that bad scores really don't affect a movie too much because they can be buried in the mix and a good movie will keep your attention focused on the entire picture so everything blends together.

I've said last summer that even though I find The Dark Knight score to be poor it works within the movie. POTC scores work within the film for the most part.

[Luke Skywalker 1,805]

You can also differenciate a good composer from an excelent one. The latter writes his work with the isolated musical experience in his mind, as well as the fitting of the film.

You don't really know that, instead you merely assume it to be the case. Someone like Jerry Goldsmith just happened to be so good at what he did that he couldn't help but write good music for a movie, indeed it was so good that it found a life of it's own outside of the job it was written for. Simply put, the fans got lucky.

It is folly to believe that a film composer might put his own agenda before the movie he is working for

Not 'before' but 'along'

Williams and other composer's write and release the concert versions that go almost always unused in the movie. They coukd just write down the theme and orchestrate it in the score. That is not just to fit the movie.

[Jacob 0]

I voted for the second option, but if it's a movie I like, the emotional impact of the music can be strengthened for me...and the opposite is also true.

[Jarbas 1]

One thing I know: if Williams music hadn't enriched the films that I watched as a child like Star Wars and Superman probably I'd never hear the music outside of the films (cassettes, LPs and subsequently CDs and MP3s).

See a classical scene that impressed me the first time I "watched" the best score of all time!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCSVfTL784Q

[pixie_twinkle 48]

You should have added a 3rd option: "For me, they're equally important..."

Yup.

[Quintus 5,399]

For the skimmers and gun-jumpers of this thread, please see the second part of this [early] post.