What is film music's primary purpose for you?

[indy4 155]

Option 1: I enjoy film music primarily as a means of reliving the film (in sometimes a more meaningful and vibrant way than actually watching it) and/or enhancing the film during the filmgoing experience.

Option 2: I enjoy film music primarily as its own entity, to be listened to when isolated from any visual experience. For me to value it, it should stand without having seen the film.

NOTE: I am not asking you what you think film music's primary purpose is. I'm asking what makes you value/enjoy a film score.

Obviously, I think both options matter at least a little bit to everybody. But I choose option 2.

[NickTintin 0]

Option 2. And I think Williams accomplish's this more often then other composers. Its why he's my favorite.

[Delorean90 42]

Blast! I meant to vote option 2. Option 2 is why I listen to film music. I value Option 1, but I'm not going to buy a CD because of it.

[indy4 155]

You can delete your vote.

[Delorean90 42]

D'oh! Right in front of me. Thanks.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

This is not a possible choice. Everyone must agree to the second part of Option 1. If film music didn't actually enhance the films we watch, we wouldn't love it.

[indy4 155]

This is not a possible choice. Everyone must agree to the second part of Option 1. If film music didn't actually enhance the films we watch, we wouldn't love it.

That's not necessarily true. I love a bunch of film scores that I've never seen the films for, or cues that I don't think particularly help the film. You can enjoy classical music without having it enhance another work of art, why can't film music be the same?

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Because it's purpose is to enhance another work of art. Yes, I know you said you wanted this to be separate, but for me it's not separable. How did you come into liking film music? You watched a film and liked the music. I highly doubt any of us got into the medium by someone just playing a soundtrack to us.

[fommes 154]

I got into the medium by playing soundtracks without having seen the films.

[Jilal 569]

I always enjoy seeing the film and after that remembering where that bit of the score went in the film.

But that does not mean i don't enjoy a score without having seen the film (Tintin, for example).

So i choose option 2.

[Melange 446]

Voted option 2 because most of the time that is the case for me.

But option 1 may play a larger role than I realise when it comes to scores for films I 'have' seen.

'Journey to the Island' certainly brings back that memorable summer of 1993 and the movie experience.

[Thor 7,559]

Depends on what you're asking.

If you're asking me about SOUNDTRACK ALBUMS, there is obviously only Option 2 (it baffles me that C&C enthusiasts choose this too, since they are so keen to let the film dictate the music's presentation outside the film, but let's leave that for now...one of the great paradoxes I will never be able to understand no matter how long we discuss it).

If, however, you're asking me about FILM MUSIC, there is obviously no other way to appreciate and analyze it than in the film itself.

Two different interests, two different forms of enjoyment. For me, they are not related at all.

[filmmusic 1,848]

Hmmm, I would vote both. Unfortunately there is not an option for that..

[Marian Schedenig 8,237]

The primary purpose of film music, obviously, is to support the film it was written for. By definition, anything else is secondary.

However, a composer who writes music solely for the film's support without setting himself any other standards is less of an artist and mostly just a craftsman. Someone who is in it for actually *writing music* in my opinion should also demand that his own music be able to stand on its own.

And since I usually listen to music because I want to listen to the music, it's clearly option 2 for me, though I object to the thread's title, because... see my first line.

Thor, not to start the whole argument again, but you're still ignoring the main point of why I (and I believe many others) support C&C releases: I believe that scores, when written as self-sustaining music and not just purely serviceable wallpaper, derive their musical structure from the film's structure. And thus, they very often lose that structure and coherence when rearranged for an album. Concert suites are a different matter. The Star Wars is a wonderful work in its own right, but it's so different from the original music as a whole that it cannot ever be a replacement for it.

I highly doubt any of us got into the medium by someone just playing a soundtrack to us.

I did.

[mrbellamy 6,333]

I'm split pretty evenly between 1 and 2, but I lean towards 2. I definitely agree with Koray that the reason I got into film music was because I watched a film and loved the music. And my respect for a score will definitely decrease if I think it's used poorly in the film, no matter how brilliantly composed it is. But in the end, I have to genuinely love the music on its own, or else it just won't merit more than a few listens. As much as I love John Williams, there are plenty of Williams tracks that I just never listen to more than once, despite loving the movie, because it's not interesting to me on its own. The novelty of thinking about the film wears off eventually, and all that's left is the music. I have plenty of film scores where I heard it in the movie, loved it, bought the CD or downloaded a few tracks off iTunes, played it once, and then never listened to it again. Conversely, some of my very favorite scores are for movies I haven't seen, or didn't care for. The good stuff sticks with me even after the memory of the film fades away.

[Thor 7,559]

Thor, not to start the whole argument again, but you're still ignoring the main point of why I (and I believe many others) support C&C releases: I believe that scores, when written as self-sustaining music and not just purely serviceable wallpaper, derive their musical structure from the film's structure. And thus, they very often lose that structure and coherence when rearranged for an album.

I'm not ignoring it. I just can't understand it, no matter how hard I try (and I've tried for 15 years). How you can think that the exact same structure works equally well in two completely different media with two completely different set of properties, rules and functions. It's a paradox. To me, concert suites and soundtrack arrangement are two aspects of the "same side of the coin", so to speak -- both designed to make for fluid listening, albeit in slightly different ways. But I think it would be impossible for me to grasp this logic from your end, just as you probably have difficulty in mine. It's a bit like trying to convince someone with words that anchovies taste great, even though the other person hates them. If it makes sense for you, that's the most important thing.

[Brónach 1,302]

Easy. Good music sounds good and it's therefore enjoyable.

Now the God of Rain demands this conversation to end and the thread to continue.

[Quintus 5,399]

A bit of both.

[Ricard 2,245]

I think it would be impossible for me to grasp this logic from your end, just as you probably have difficulty in mine. It's a bit like trying to convince someone with words that anchovies taste great, even though the other person hates them.

Then it's not about logic but about taste.

[Thor 7,559]

I think it would be impossible for me to grasp this logic from your end, just as you probably have difficulty in mine. It's a bit like trying to convince someone with words that anchovies taste great, even though the other person hates them.

Then it's not about logic but about taste.

It is, absolutely. And it's difficult to rationalize about taste. Still, when asked why we like something, we often find ourselves trying to do so anyway (whether it's a car, a film, a dish or a preferred type of holiday). In art criticism, rationalizing our taste is even more difficult, but always fun and a great challenge!

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

If you cant argue about taste, then there is no reason for a Forum to exist

[indy4 155]

Because it's purpose is to enhance another work of art. Yes, I know you said you wanted this to be separate, but for me it's not separable. How did you come into liking film music? You watched a film and liked the music. I highly doubt any of us got into the medium by someone just playing a soundtrack to us.

Okay, so I saw a movie and liked the music. I didn't buy the OST because I thought the music worked well with the film, I bought it because I thought it would sound good outside of the film. And honestly, the CD that got me into film music was comprised mostly of music from films that I had never seen before.

[Trent B 337]

Maybe there should be a vote for "other" up there and have people explain.

I'm a toss up between 1 and 2 but I will admit I too have heard scores I liked that I never have seen the film for.

[Thor 7,559]

If you cant argue about taste, then there is no reason for a Forum to exist

Well said.

[indy4 155]

Maybe there should be a vote for "other" up there and have people explain.

I thought about it, but then you get a bunch of people who just can't decided between 1 and 2 who choose Other.

[Datameister 2,056]

I honestly can't pick between the two. I'm that evenly split. Of course, for some scores, I lean heavily toward option 2, especially if I haven't seen (or strongly dislike) the film, but for films that I've enjoyed, my appreciation from the score is derived from both its function in the film and its function as "pure" music.

If I had to pick one of these, I'd probably have to pick option 2, since there are no scores for which option 1 dominates, but there are some for which option 2 dominates. Still, I don't think I'm going to vote, since my favorite scores tend to be a perfect blend of both.

[nightscape94 965]

I don't think of it any differently then I would of a ballet score, or something like that. I don't need to see Swan Lake to enjoy the music.

You can even think of film score music as a tone/symphonic poem like Also Sprach Zarathustra or Ma vlast. I don't need to relive the film in anyway. For something like Schindler's List, you don't have to think specifically of the movie, but rather concentrate on the sheer sadness and emotional weight that the music brings as a result of the subject matter overall, not the precise story line.

Tim

[Richard Penna 3,716]

Seriously... I'm the only person who voted for option 1?

I don't think that film music has to stand on its own in order to be a good film score. I just choose not to listen to those that don't.

There's obviously some of option 2 where I haven't seen the film or where the music is way better than the film deserves, but I always attach images to what I listen to.

[crocodile 8,033]

As the likes of Korngold would say: It doesn't matter that it has to support the film. That's no excue for poor music.

Karol

[Delorean90 42]

Exactly.

Thor, not to start the whole argument again, but you're still ignoring the main point of why I (and I believe many others) support C&C releases: I believe that scores, when written as self-sustaining music and not just purely serviceable wallpaper, derive their musical structure from the film's structure. And thus, they very often lose that structure and coherence when rearranged for an album.

I'm not ignoring it. I just can't understand it, no matter how hard I try (and I've tried for 15 years). How you can think that the exact same structure works equally well in two completely different media with two completely different set of properties, rules and functions. It's a paradox.

At least in this case, it's possible to kill two birds with one stone.

To me, concert suites and soundtrack arrangement are two aspects of the "same side of the coin", so to speak -- both designed to make for fluid listening, albeit in slightly different ways. But I think it would be impossible for me to grasp this logic from your end, just as you probably have difficulty in mine. It's a bit like trying to convince someone with words that anchovies taste great, even though the other person hates them. If it makes sense for you, that's the most important thing.

See, I find soundtrack arrangement--at least, when it involves chopping up the existing music, to be much more distasteful. I prefer to hear a fully composed and recorded piece of music, whether it is the original film recordings, or a newly recorded concert work based on the score. Though some success can be had from editing, it feels more fake to me. The TPM OST is a great example of this.

[mrbellamy 6,333]

I always attach images to what I listen to.

Me too, but they're not always the images they were specifically written for. A great film score can sometimes break away and conjure brand new images for me, in the same way as I don't think of ballet when I listen to The Nutcracker or Petrushka or Swan Lake, as Tim was saying. That's what steers me away from option 1.

[crocodile 8,033]

Yes, yes. Music is very much about painting an image. That's what makes it so emotional. And this is probably the only sensible explanation to why it is even used in films.

Karol

[Brónach 1,302]

My imagination drifts away with new images even when I'm listening to music from films that I love. I can't help it, music makes me think on things. I think that's why I like it.

[crocodile 8,033]

Funny thing is when you listen to great film music before seeing the film, the image never reaches the heights of what your imagination can do.

Karol

[Brónach 1,302]

Yes.

For example I haven't seen The Lost World in years and I can barely remember any of it. Then I sort of "discovered" the score, and I loved many parts of it. Recently I saw the start of the T. rex in San Diego scene, and I was like "I'm not sure this start is anywhere as cool as the music suggests".

Well it's TLW, but you get the idea.

[crocodile 8,033]

Had the same reaction to it actually.

Karol

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Because it's purpose is to enhance another work of art. Yes, I know you said you wanted this to be separate, but for me it's not separable. How did you come into liking film music? You watched a film and liked the music. I highly doubt any of us got into the medium by someone just playing a soundtrack to us.

Okay, so I saw a movie and liked the music. I didn't buy the OST because I thought the music worked well with the film, I bought it because I thought it would sound good outside of the film. And honestly, the CD that got me into film music was comprised mostly of music from films that I had never seen before.

Isn't it one and the same? If you like a score enough to purchase it, did it not enhance your viewing experience? Is it possible for a score to not do its purpose yet be good music? This is different than a bad film having a good score, because the music in a case like that is still enhancing the picture, but all other aspects of the filmmaking process don't hold up.

[Richard Penna 3,716]

I always attach images to what I listen to.

Me too, but they're not always the images they were specifically written for. A great film score can sometimes break away and conjure brand new images for me, in the same way as I don't think of ballet when I listen to The Nutcracker or Petrushka or Swan Lake, as Tim was saying. That's what steers me away from option 1.

It's probably more accurately said that I seek out scores to relive the effect the music had in the film.

I often come across context-free scores that work for me too, and like you, I invent my own imagery. But I don't actively look for them, in the same way that I rarely buy LEs.

I dunno - it's a hard one - sometimes you don't enjoy a score until you see the film and understand what the composer was trying to achieve, and then it works standalone. I'm not sure if that would be considered reliving the film or not.

I'm removing my vote, because on reflection, there's no one right answer IMO.

[Olivier 5]

Option 2: I enjoy film music primarily as its own entity, to be listened to when isolated from any visual experience. For me to value it, it should stand without having seen the film.

Even more so as I have never seen most of the movies whose score I have, and may well never be able to in some cases.

It's always the music I'm interested in; remembering the movie is an incidental bonus; seeing the movie may be useful to better appreciate some tracks or parts of cues, however, by knowing what is going and thus understanding what the music is doing (or rather why it is).

[Marian Schedenig 8,237]

Isn't it one and the same? If you like a score enough to purchase it, did it not enhance your viewing experience? Is it possible for a score to not do its purpose yet be good music? This is different than a bad film having a good score, because the music in a case like that is still enhancing the picture, but all other aspects of the filmmaking process don't hold up.

It's easily possible to write great and enjoyable music that's completely out of place in the movie it was written for.

[King Mark 3,631]

option 2. to please my ears

[indy4 155]

Isn't it one and the same? If you like a score enough to purchase it, did it not enhance your viewing experience? Is it possible for a score to not do its purpose yet be good music? This is different than a bad film having a good score, because the music in a case like that is still enhancing the picture, but all other aspects of the filmmaking process don't hold up.

It's easily possible to write great and enjoyable music that's completely out of place in the movie it was written for.

Exactly. The "March from 1941" is a wonderful piece of music, but it would be detrimental to the film if it was placed behind Saving Private Ryan. Option 2 would still value it as a good piece of music, option 1 would not.

I"ve got to say, I'm surprised that nobody has voted option 1. I've definitely read posts on this board that favor option 1.

[Datameister 2,056]

Funny thing is when you listen to great film music before seeing the film, the image never reaches the heights of what your imagination can do.

Totally. That even happens with films I've seen...I'll typically listen to a good score much more often than I watch the film it was written for, so I end up being more familiar with the former. When I go back and watch the film after a while, I feel vaguely disappointed, because my brain has been running off with subtly different scenes and images, and reality can't quite compete.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Isn't it one and the same? If you like a score enough to purchase it, did it not enhance your viewing experience? Is it possible for a score to not do its purpose yet be good music? This is different than a bad film having a good score, because the music in a case like that is still enhancing the picture, but all other aspects of the filmmaking process don't hold up.

It's easily possible to write great and enjoyable music that's completely out of place in the movie it was written for.

Exactly. The "March from 1941" is a wonderful piece of music, but it would be detrimental to the film if it was placed behind Saving Private Ryan. Option 2 would still value it as a good piece of music, option 1 would not.

I"ve got to say, I'm surprised that nobody has voted option 1. I've definitely read posts on this board that favor option 1.

I would lean more to Option 1, but for me Option 2 is derived from Option 1.

[pixie_twinkle 48]

Option 2.

[Trent Hoyt 13]

I voted Option 1.

When I love a film the music means a lot more to me. However, I love film music and I listen to a lot of music to films that I have never seen.

[avalanche 0]

Option 2. I discovered a lot of this great music by hearing it in movies, but isolating it on disc, I'm able to fully immerse myself without the need for the film accompaniment.