Do film scores require less to appreciate?

[indy4 152]

This is a claim that a lot of classical elitists* believe - that soundtracks listeners aren't as open-minded or sophisticated as those of other genres. They believe we aren't able to appreciate music on its own - we need to attach it to a more tangible story, like a film.

Now, I think film score enjoying, for everybody, is probably a mixture of the two. But most people would be able to pick one or the other (enjoying soundtracks for the music vs for the film), or an entirely different option. And even if you are a party of enjoying film music for the film, does that make you less open minded or cultured than the elites would think? To be clear: I don't necessarily agree with any of the opinions stated in this post, I'm just trying to prod a conversation that I think could be very interesting.

For those that listen regularly to both classical and soundtrack, do you approach the two differently? Or are they both just a form of music to you, inspired by different things but otherwise equal?

*not to suggest that all classical listeners are elistists, but of those who are, many are relevant to this post

[Koray Savas 2,095]

It honestly depends on the score for me. I can't imagine myself listening to something like LOST, and not have the events of the show going on in my head. But then there are scores like Solaris and Requiem For A Dream that I love listening to, and I've never seen the films. I think I find myself connecting the music with the cinematography and images of the film, rather than the plot and characters.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,476]

More often that not, I've been attracted to a score from the movie. So I'll have the connection, but appreciate the music on its own. I've listened to the Star Wars' more times than I've seen the movies at this point. I find myself nitpicking how the music is presented in the movie, for what it's worth. Do I in some way favor the music over the movie?

[Trent Hoyt 13]

Good question. I think for non-fans its simply about themes. People are attracted to themes that they enjoy. JW has always had memorable themes and I think thats why he probably sells more scores than other composers. Scoring good movies also helps.

I do think that a lot of classical fans do come off as elitist. They simply care about calling every composer derivative of someone else. Although this doesnt seem to be a problem with pop music fans. I believe Elvis said it best, and I'm paraphrasing, "Hell man, there are only 7 notes."

[Henry B 49]

I think it's only the younger, inexperienced students and the most stubborn professors that criticize derivation. Once you start leafing through classical scores in earnest, you begin to realize what an illusion original themes are. Everybody stole from everybody. It wasn't really until the last hundred years ago or so that musicians got concerned about absolute originality. We had a guest come into composition seminar a few weeks ago. He said that his main impetus to write was to be different; to avoid recalling other composers in his music. The result... was painful to listen to.

The whole idea that everybody in the classical world hates John Williams is... well, sort of true, I've found. I've actually heard a couple people diss Williams in public, then admit to me later that they like his music.

And the idea that classical music (I think that Western art music is a better term) is completely abstract? Aside from vocal music and opera (which happens to be the vast majority of music history, not instrumental music), programmatic music has existed for centuries. It wasn't always spelled out, but there was usually a purpose for everything, even if it was as mundane as teaching or accompanying a dinner. You would think classical composers worked in total vacuums. Not so.

[Jeff 0]

In a way, the "elitists" may be right about me - I consider myself mildly ADD and I need a bit more going on than just music to keep myself entertained. Recalling characters, images, and ideas from a film can enhance music for me. Who knows if I'd love Raider's March as much if I didn't have Indiana galloping through my daydreams.

That said, I love "classical" music and there are many composers and works that I enjoy playing on the piano or listening to in a concert. However, as Henry alluded to, most music was written with some sort of program or imagery in mind. Playing "Moonlight Sonata" evokes certain images (maybe moonlight on a lake in the mountains) that complete the experience of listening to the music. Maybe that makes me low brow. I like to think I'm just using more of my brain.

[bondo 33]

There are many scores I own and love whose films I've never seen. So no, they don't require the film as a crutch.

If anything, music makes me appreciate the film more!

[publicist 4,484]

The worst thing that can happen is to imagine a film based only on knowledge of a score...and then seeing a movie, thinking 'D'oh!'

Morricone and Goldsmith come to mind, prime examples being ORCA and THE SWARM.

[Thor 5,273]

As someone already said, it depends upon the score.

But in general, I would argue that it is MORE challenging than most other genres of music. Not only because it is usually more complex than a straight-forward 4/4 Top 20 pop song, but also because of its extreme dynamic and "schizophrenic" nature (seeing as it was initially composed to fit specific visuals). This certainly makes it more challenging to appreciate as a listening experience than some of the most mainstream classical music too.

The great thing about film music, however - and enjoying it as a listening experience - is that it goes straight to the emotional core. It doesn't have time to fool around with "detours" to get the point across, which is often the case in much classical music. It doesn't have lyrics to tell us explicitly what it wants either. So that's why I love it so much. On the other hand, it also requires - IMO - that the tracks be arranged to make musical sense in relation to each other, not just be transferred as they were in the movie. But I'm not allowed to talk about that, so I'll leave that for now.

Suffice to say, I can understand the "elitist"'s claim that much of film music is pastiche. It is. On the other hand, I won't accept the notion that it's somehow easier to listen to as a musical expression.

[Melange 446]

Not knowing which movie a score came from is better (imo).

Myself, I rarely connect the great music to movie scenes while it's playing. When I get the CD off the shelf I of course cannot help but know which movie it scored. But I tend to enjoy the structure of the music itself no matter what movie it came from, and I have quite a lot of scores for movies that I've never even seen. The music I listen to may even come from a movie as silly as Rambo II, but it's still great music nonethless. When introducing movie music to others, I think this needs to be taken into account, and it can make or break interest for some. If they know which movie it came from (for some scores, the motifs are so well known that you can't hide it of course), their opinion of the music can be tainted by that movie's image in popular culture. For example when someone hears a great piece of movie music a certain age group is going to be more receptive to listening to it and the magic within the music itself if you told them it came from a movie involving an elite squad of black ops troops,than letting them in on the little secret that it actually comes from a cute family movie about a Boy and his Dog. Hence the popularity of the Pirates of the Carribean scores. It's pirates. If the very same music had been the score from a movie about a Boy and his Dog, then that very same oh so popular music would suddenly be deemed "Gay". It is folks like that, that the classical listeners are probably referring to. The fickle mob, for whom movie music is only accepted if attached to the right kind of movie with the right kind of popular image. Although it doesn't stop me listening to great music from awful films, I admit I sometimes wish some great music I listen to wasn't attached to such god awful movies. LOL. But it doesn't stop me listening to it.

[indy4 152]

As someone already said, it depends upon the score.

But in general, I would argue that it is MORE challenging than most other genres of music. Not only because it is usually more complex than a straight-forward 4/4 Top 20 pop song, but also because of its extreme dynamic and "schizophrenic" nature (seeing as it was initially composed to fit specific visuals). This certainly makes it more challenging to appreciate as a listening experience than some of the most mainstream classical music too.

Interesting point. But I think the question remains: do soundtrack fans enjoy the music in itself? The idea that film scores are more challenging to enjoy as music in itself suggests that many people may just enjoy them for their relation with the film.

The great thing about film music, however - and enjoying it as a listening experience - is that it goes straight to the emotional core. It doesn't have time to fool around with "detours" to get the point across, which is often the case in much classical music. It doesn't have lyrics to tell us explicitly what it wants either. So that's why I love it so much. On the other hand, it also requires - IMO - that the tracks be arranged to make musical sense in relation to each other, not just be transferred as they were in the movie. But I'm not allowed to talk about that, so I'll leave that for now.

Again, I think a case could be made that the music is written to tell the message of the film, and therefore that message is just as explicit as songs with lyrics. A case could also be made that the demands of a film may force the music to inhibit unnecessary "detours." For instance, generic sustained string crescendoes leading up to a big reveal isn't really that key in getting the message across - rather, it is what the film needs to be entertaining and interesting.

Again, I'm not an enemy of film scores - I love them, and I do believe that I appreciate them as pure music in most cases. But these claims do interest me.

[Alan 600]

The elitist, snobbish attitude towards film scores by some classical listeners has always baffled me. Not least because many of the arguments they put forward apply just as easily to classical works.

It's ironic that many criticise film music for being written specifically to accompany another medium and for being restricted to the form or time constraints of that film or TV show when Opera, often considered to be the most snobbish and elitist genre of all, faces exactly the same problems. Operas were not written to be heard away from the theatre. The score for an Opera is written to be experienced with the stage production. It is also tied to specific stories or images and can therefore be described as facing similar time constraints as film and television scores. The musical score for an opera act or scene can not last longer than that scene now can it??

Another blow that I've seen classical elitists deliver to film scores is that they are written in a very short period of time giving the composer very little time to carefully plan his work and come up with something worthwhile. It seems these people are forgetting that most classical composers did not spend their time strolling thoughtfully through meadows thinking up their next bar of music over a period of weeks on end! Most of the great composers, including Mozart and Beethoven, were hired men. They wrote the majority of their work to commission and to very tight deadlines - in many cases probably a damn sight tighter than those that film composers work with today. The person requesting the music would also probably have had specific instructions on what type of music they wanted - like a film director spotting with a composer or suggesting changes to a film score.

I love both classical music and film scores. I do not listen to one differently from the other. Of course it depends on the music I'm listening to at the time whether or not I can simply listen to the notes or have images/stories running through my head, but surely that's not even a bad thing anyway? Should music not evoke images? To me if a piece of music, film score or otherwise, has the power to tell me a story and make me recall images without actually seeing them at the time then that is the superior piece of music than the one that simply plays along, never conjuring anything but its own notes.

Yes, there's a lot of crap produced in the film score world, but there's an awful lot of crap that has been written in the "classical" world too.

*Steps down from soapbox*

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,251]

Classical music is an archaic, dying form of music (i hestiate to call it an artform) bereft of purpose and function.

It is kept alive only because of ludicrous amounts of goverment subsidies.

[Melange 446]

It seems these people are forgetting that most classical composers did not spend their time strolling thoughtfully through meadows thinking up their next bar of music over a period of weeks on end! Most of the great composers, including Mozart and Beethoven, were hired men. They wrote the majority of their work to commission and to very tight deadlines - in many cases probably a damn sight tighter than those that film composers work with today. The person requesting the music would also probably have had specific instructions on what type of music they wanted - like a film director spotting with a composer or suggesting changes to a film score.

Agreed. Going by Mozart's letters, it was a never ending source of frustration and boredom for Mozart to be painting by numbers until he became more independent (but very poor) and could express himself with a bit more variety. Even in that later phase though with his astounding Piano Concerto 20 for example, there is that tale that on the night of the first performance the ink was still wet on the later part of the score,because he was working on it right until the last minute. It may be one of those heroic myths that was created after his death, but it wouldn't surprise me if it were true.

[Thor 5,273]

Interesting point. But I think the question remains: do soundtrack fans enjoy the music in itself? The idea that film scores are more challenging to enjoy as music in itself suggests that many people may just enjoy them for their relation with the film.

There's a fair amount of people who do that, true. But there are also many like me, who just enjoy it as any other kind of music, and who really couldn't care less about the film it came from. It's the great combination of straigh-to-the-emotional music (a film tool) and the suitification/re-arrangement of the scores (a music tool) that makes me go back and listen to soundtracks. The compositions themselves, the individual tracks, often remain challenging and complex and "schizophrenic" - at least once you move beyond the themes - but the arrangement makes the experience as a whole easier to get into.

Again, I think a case could be made that the music is written to tell the message of the film, and therefore that message is just as explicit as songs with lyrics. A case could also be made that the demands of a film may force the music to inhibit unnecessary "detours." For instance, generic sustained string crescendoes leading up to a big reveal isn't really that key in getting the message across - rather, it is what the film needs to be entertaining and interesting.

Personally, I've never really been a fan of those film music tools that have to do with very SPECIFIC visual elements - whether it's the sustained string chord for suspense scenes or mickey-mousing in a comedy film or whatever. To me, these are the most challenging elements of film music to swallow once I'm supposed to enjoy them outside the film. If a composer is able to make more self-sustained pieces that can also live on their own, I'm more interested. Williams and Goldenthal are two composers that spring immediately to mind here.