Movie Soundtracks: Classical?

Robert · May 28, 2007, 03:23:42 PM

Quote from: James on May 28, 2007, 03:18:32 PM
you must be drunk, but then you like to watch cars go around in circles for hours, so im not surprised...

i explained that with this replie from earlier...

"Yes i do remember those Hitchcock instances, the use of music was integral to the actual character dialog, script and scene, it wasnt some tacked on later added background music. The Kubrick i remember, because I am a huge admirer of Bartok & Ligeti, their music means so much to me...so it just stands out instantly."

and even further explained with...

"in 'Rope' one of the main characters is performing the Poulenc on the piano, its apart of the scene, and the characters are surrounding the piano discussing this etc, it apart of the actual story...same applies to the use of Mozart in the Vertigo scene...where it is on the record player being spun, to "clear the cobwebs out" as one character states while Stewart is in therapy, sitting there in catatonia...this isnt tacked on, it integral to actual story, scene & dialog."

Go back a page and have a look...

http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,1096.100.html

what I seem to think your implying is that when its a composer your familar with you seem to remember the music.as well as the movie....normally if you do not know the composer you feel the music in the movie is insignificant......BTW I guess you found out I like to watch cars go around because I mentioned the Indy 500 yesterday. Its good to know your memory is good for that........just when I thought I was out, you keep dragging me back in......

Don · May 28, 2007, 04:44:42 PM

Finished watching The Queen; very disappointing film that was too low-key for my tastes. As for the music, it had no impact on me one way or another. I asked my wife what she thought of the music "nothing much".

So, what we have here is a poor movie with ho-hum music. That's what I call "art".

sound67 · May 28, 2007, 10:45:40 PM

Quote from: James on May 28, 2007, 03:57:30 PMI liked both the Mission and Vertigo, i barely recall the music though off hand....]

Quote
....i just was saying in vertigo, it had a scene that was about mozart's music, which was being played on the record player in the scene, as therapy for one of the characters...so the mozart wasnt disconnected and merely filling up space in the background, it was very much apart of the actual scene & characters dialog.

sound67 · May 28, 2007, 11:00:57 PM

Quote from: James on May 28, 2007, 01:13:41 PM
Yes i do remember those Hitchcock instances, the use of music was integral to the actual character dialog, script and scene, it wasnt some tacked on later added background music. The Kubrick i remember, because I am a huge admirer of Bartok & Ligeti, their music means so much to me...so it just stands out instantly.

Your lack of comprehension is quite amazing in itself. I gather even the usual "pizza crowd" at the mulitplexes has a more profound understanding of music in movies than you will ever have. Stravinsky saying that music expresses nothing no doubt agrees with you: Your words do not express anything either. In fact, I would be surprised if you lead a life that in itself has any expression, let alone meaing.

The integral function of music in films needs not be explained nor "proven". 100+ years of films with music in them provide ample proof. The genre's greatest praciticioners have always maintained that good film music must be good music first. And those who have managed to live up to this aim - and there are quite a few, many of them mentioned above - have produced music that became an inseperable part of the film it was written for and can stand up as concert music at the same time. For which, again, no further proof is needed. Not for people who have had an education.

Thomas

Greta · May 29, 2007, 12:10:16 AM

Quote from: Don on May 28, 2007, 04:44:42 PM
Finished watching The Queen; very disappointing film that was too low-key for my tastes. As for the music, it had no impact on me one way or another. I asked my wife what she thought of the music "nothing much".

So, what we have here is a poor movie with ho-hum music. That's what I call "art".

Don, I agree on both counts. I was also disappointed with Alexandre Desplat's music for The Queen, not least because he's really quite talented. He won the Golden Globe this year for his sensitive chamber music type score The Painted Veil and it's lovely.

But my two favorite scores of his are Birth and Girl With a Pearl Earring. Birth is a minimalist, mysterious, sophisticated effort, and Girl With a Pearl Earring is also written for chamber forces, featuring truly beautiful themes and fine orchestration.

Bogey · May 29, 2007, 05:08:23 AM

Quote from: sound67 on May 28, 2007, 10:45:40 PM

And about Bernard Herrmann:

http://www.amazon.com/Heart-Fires-Center-Bernard-Herrmann/dp/0520229398/ref=sr_1_1/102-7649884-1528104?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1180422888&sr=1-1

Thomas

I always use to see this for sale in the back of FSM Magazine, but it was in hardcover and a bit pricey for me to take a chance on. Now that it is in paperback I may give it a whirl.....thanks for pointing this one out Thomas.

sound67 · May 29, 2007, 05:16:42 AM

It's definitely worth a read. The best musician's biography I have read yet.

Thomas

Grazioso · May 29, 2007, 02:05:58 PM

Quote from: James on May 28, 2007, 02:10:44 PM
Yeah but a film goer doesnt have to understand how movies are made to enjoy them, just like experiencing any art, you dont have to know how its done do you, it is truly immaterial and that is where your major flaw is. For me, the concept and story ARE the crux of the whole thing, if you dont have that, nothing on earth will save it. You can have the biggest budget in the world. You can cast the most famous actors to play the parts, have the best cameras, the greatest editing team, a fancy composer...but if that script and story is jut crap all of that stuff wont mean a damn thing. Youre bringing to life, a waste of time. And most movies are this. No surprise.

Yes, one can enjoy art without understanding it, but how can you posit and compare the supposed greatness and depth of various kinds of music, as you've been doing? Does not such valuation hinge on an understanding of the things being discussed?

I understand that you place story first in how you appreciate film, but in doing so, you're reducing a complex and intricate art form to a book with moving illustrations or a recording of a play. But film is a comprehensive medium that is built from numerous component parts. Music is one of the key ways in which the story is told, one of the ways in which the filmmakers shape the audience's experiences. It creates expectations, elicits emotions, identifies or announces (extra-musical) themes, comments on the visuals or dialogue, and so forth and so on. Mute the next few films you watch to see and hear the difference.

A film does not stand or fall on story alone, by any stretch. You make it sound like editing, for instance, is some secondary matter, when in fact it's pivotal to creating the unique identity of a film. How a film is edited makes a world of difference in how the vast amount of raw material is distilled into a final audio-visual product. Action scenes, for instance, are largely the creation of the editing process. The pacing and focus of dramatic, dialogue-heavy scenes can shift dramatically depending on how they're cut.

Quote
i usually concentrate on the sonics too...the dialog or the sounds that are integral to the flick. I often just block out the music as its floating out and about in the background, sometimes you'll hear a catchy tune or perhaps a theme that sticks or what have you, but its not critical to following whats going on...

On the contrary, music is a critical part of what's going on--if you're appreciating the film as a film. The images, their ordering and integration and pacing, the sound and dialogue, and the music combine to create the entire audio-visual, intellectual-emotional totality of each moment. If you're just paying attention to and valuing the story, you're missing much of what's happening. That's like judging an opera exclusively on a recording, and one in which you don't understand the words, no less. It needs to be both seen and heard, and the text and story need to be understood in their context, to appreciate and judge it as opera.

sound67 · May 30, 2007, 01:08:33 AM

Don't waste your time on "James", he just declared his total ignorance not just of music in films, but of music altogether. He admits to not understanding the process, nor the medium, nor does he display any analytical pov on music in general.

Save your breath for people who deserve your attention, and let's get on with the subject ...

Thomas

sound67 · May 30, 2007, 02:24:04 AM

And in that spirit ...

Bernard Herrmann made many interesting remarks about the nature of film music and its importance for the film, as well as its limitations. In a lecture for the British Film Institute in 1972, Herrmann said:

QuoteIn spite of all new fashion and aesthetic theories, film is one medium that needs other arts, because it's a cooperative, mosaic enterprise, and the use of music has always been necessary even from silent days to the present day. People always ask me this question, "Why does a film need music?" Well, I'd like to say this: I've never met a producer who said to me, "I've just finished a film, and I don't need you!" They say, "You must come and see what you can do to help us!" ... Music is a sort of cement, or veneer, that finalizes the art of making a film .... I think that Jean Cocteau said once that in films, one is never fully aware whether it's the music that's propelling the film or the film propelling the music.
And I would like to say that many times directors who receive great credit and applause for the marvelgus scenes at the crucial time of recognition seem to forget the contribution that the composer has made to the film. I wish it were possible historically to see some films the way they were given to the composer, and if they were given to the world that way, whether they would be regarded with the same esteem ....
Today there is no mention of film music made by film critics in England or New York. It's completely ignored .... Nobody seems to mention whether it was good, tasteless, sensitive, evocative; either way, they've regarded the film medium as a free-for-all to have the most, the greatest vulgarity that the human race has ever achieved, perpetrated on the screen, with the point of view that it's music that'll make money, and nobody'll notice it anyhow! ...
I must make it very clear that all remarks made by me only refer to my own attitude. I have colleagues who would dispute everything I say, who would say film is a way to make a buck-never mind what the film is about .... Most of the film directors I've had the good luck and good fortune to work with have regarded music as something that had to be created with the film-but I have worked for people who regard music as just a sort of you-take-it-to-Harrods-gift-wrapping-department. In this case there is no latitude given to you, and the picture's not elastic, it's set ....
The art of writing a film score is fast becoming equivalent to having been a medieval enameler-you know, making beautiful jewelry. It's not needed anymore. Today they just hope for a pop song-nothing to do with the film, the actors, just get us a pop song, that's all! ... But I think that film music is an art, and that films need music-and music needs films. I think that composers who think it beneath them-I feel sorry for them, because they haven't had the chance. A composer with an attitude that radio or TV or film music is beneath him is doomed to oblivion. Real composers welcome any opportunity to write music.

The passage clearly reflects the composer's frustration over the then-fashionable "song scores" which had begun to replace standard instrumental scores in the mid-1960s.

His remark "I think that composers who think it beneath them-I feel sorry for them, because they haven't had the chance" can be applied to, surprise-surprise, Igor Stravinsky, the composer who wrote that music cannot express anything. In the 1940s Stravinsky badly wanted to compose music for films, but he failed so completely the first time he tried (the experience on "Commandos Strike at Dawn" is detailed in Miklós Rózsa's autobiography "A Double Life") he never tried again. He understood the movie-making process about as "well" as our dear own "James" does ...

In a letter to the London Times Herrmann also pointed out:

QuoteThe whole point I have been trying to make is that screen music is neither industrialized nor insignificant. Indeed the films and radio offer the only real creative and financial opportunities a composer has. He can write a film score for any musical combination and hear it immediately performed. Moreover the film gives him the largest audience in the world - an audience whose interest and appreciation should not be underestimated. A good film score receives thousands of "fan letters" from intelligent music lovers everywhere.

The passage I highlighted offers an argument that many film and television composers mentioned when asked about the "why" of working in films in interviews we conducted with them over the years for a film music journal. And neither denied the financial advantages either. Of course, to acknowledge the quality of the product it takes, as pointed out by Herrmann, intelligent music lovers.

Thomas

Grazioso · May 30, 2007, 03:43:44 AM

I'm not sure if this has already come up, but what of movie musicals? There you have a long-lived, (once) popular genre where no one can dispute the vital import--even centrality--of music.

Interesting quotes from Herrmann, though I can't find an inherent problem in song-scores, be they partial or full, original or taken from existing material, as long as the music advances the overall artistic aims of the film. Look at "Moon River" in Breakfast at Tiffany's, for a famous example. There you have a an extremely tuneful song that helps comment on/establish character and theme. Or look at how deftly Baz Luhrmann mines contemporary pop music (and a bit of Wagner) in his version of Romeo & Juliet--that's some of the smartest, most effective selection of pop songs to create specific atmospheres in a film that I can remember.

sound67 · May 30, 2007, 03:54:09 AM

Herrmann would not have agreed with Luhrman's use of songs, I'm sure, but "Moon River", in that it is actually a part of the music on-screen, as well as thematically integrated with the rest of the score, would not have bothered him.

In the wake of Simon & Garfunkel's "The Graduate" (a song score that worked), many producers started to place almost random songs in the background of their movies - with no dramatic, nor thematic connection to the film. It is Herrmann's thesis that a song score cannot provide adequate emotional and dramatic support for a motion picture - which I'm certain is true for about 90% of all motion pictures.

Thomas

Bogey · May 30, 2007, 04:25:08 AM

Quote from: sound67 on May 30, 2007, 03:54:09 AM
Herrmann would not have agreed with Luhrman's use of songs, I'm sure, but "Moon River", in that it is actually a part of the music on-screen, as well as thematically integrated with the rest of the score, would not have bothered him.

In the wake of Simon & Garfunkel's "The Graduate" (a song score that worked), many producers started to place almost random songs in the background of their movies - with no dramatic, nor thematic connection to the film. It is Herrmann's thesis that a song score cannot pürovide adequate emotional and dramatic support for a motion picture - which I'm certain is true for about 90% of all motion pictures.

Thomas

Or worse yet, are those "songs" that are written for the end-titles as they scroll by. My wife and I refer to them as "slow-jams".

I sit and wait for them to be over so that I will hopefully hear the actually "score" again to cap the film.

But I must admit, I love those cheesy "songs" that they used at the beginning of the Connery Bond films......."Frommmmm Ruuuuuuuuusia with loooooooooove....." er, um, sorry about that.

sound67 · June 01, 2007, 10:07:54 AM

The Bond songs are actually not bad - which is more than one can say for Barry's background scores.

The safest bet for beginners who want to listen to film music independently of the films and done by composers who primarily worked in that genre are the "classical Hollywood scores" by Korngold, Rózsa, Waxman, Friedhofer, Elmer Bernstein, etc. Miklós Rózsa in particular, since he preferred to underline the emotional or psychological center of a scene rather than the mimic the physical action and who worked along classic leitmotiv lines, provided music than holds up eminently well on disc.

Apart from BEN-HUR and the other epic scores already mentioned, LUST FOR LIFE, PLYMOUTH ADVENTURE, IVANHOE, KNIGHTS OF THE ROUND TABLE, THE LOST WEEKEND, and in more modern, Bartók-ian garb, his thriller scores for BRUTE FORCE, THE NAKED CITY, THE KILLERS & DOUBLE INDEMNITY all deliver the goods. Those more attuned to Americana will find pleasures in Copland's film scores, or Hugo Friedhofer's THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES.

Bernard Herrmann understood more about the connection of music and films than anybody else, and he was an ingenious orchestrator. But because he understood the function of music in a dramatic context so well, much of his music is functional. Some scores, usually the more emphatic or luxuriantly colored work well: VERTIGO may well be the prime example, but BENEATH THE TWELVE MILE REEF, WHITE-WITCH DOCTOR, CITIZEN KANE, THE SNOWS OF KILIMANJARO, NORTH BY NORTHWEST, THE SEVENTH VOYAGE OF SINBAD, THE THREE WORLDS OF GULLIVER or THE GHOST AND MRS MUIR are all great listening experiences without the films they were composed for.

Of the next generation, no one wrote more brilliant film scores than Jerry Goldsmith. PLANET OF THE APES e.g. is a fantastic, truly modern orchestral score, and there are many other examples.

Thomas

Mametesque · June 02, 2007, 02:58:11 PM

Bravo, Thomas (sound67). I've been debating whether or not to even get involved in this debate (argument?) and you've summed up my comments quite nicely with your last post. Rozsa, Herrmann, Bernstein and Goldsmith were exceptionally gifted composers that had a real knack for not only enhancing on-screen action, but creating full-blown sound worlds that complemented and often "filled out" the narrative space of the film. I would add John Williams, Ennio Morricone, Lalo Schifrin, and Jerry Fielding to your list.

With film music, I've always believed that orchestral "color" and the "sound" of, well, sound are two of the most important characteristics of the medium. These qualities convey the sound world of a film, give it its uniqueness. And the three aforementioned composers were excellent in providing colorful, orchestral landscapes to their film projects.

With film music, unlike classical music, the "art" is in the placement of music, its relationship to the images, and its ability to move a scene along, perhaps lifting it up dramatically, emotionally, comically. Take Goldsmith, for instance. Patton is a thirty-minute score, but remains one of the composer's most original, dramatic, and memorable. On the opposite end, Williams' score to Close Encounters blankets nearly the entire film, but breathes along with it, infusing it with that extra bounce needed to keep the brisk pace of the narrative. While some may prefer short scores to long ones, or music-only moments, or no music at all, it is very difficult (damn near impossible) to consider film music classical music.

Why would we want to, anyways? I've been a film score collector for nearly fifteen years and rarely confuse/combine it with my penchant for collecting classical albums. They're two different beasts. With film music, the joy is in the small moments: the one-minute ostinato, the fleeting melody that sums up the talents of a composer and the emotions of a particular film.

Bogey · June 02, 2007, 07:25:35 PM

Glad you jumped on board Mametesque. Any further insights you have to offer are quite welcome.

Thomas,
If I had to choose one film composer over all the others for a project it would have been Jerry Goldsmith (with Elmer Bernstein right on his heels). I believe this somewhat summarizes his abilities (from the web):

Goldsmith's abilities at being a musical chameleon served him well throughout his career and just as the decades before brought dramatic changes in style the 80's also saw further development and transformations.

and the word "chameleon" is used again:

By any measure, the loss of Jerry Goldsmith is incalculable. He influenced every composer who worked in Hollywood from 1960 on. Henry Mancini once said, "He has instilled two things in his colleagues in this town. One is, he keeps us honest, and the other one is, he scares the hell out of us." Last week, John Williams told Entertainment Weekly that he admired Goldsmith's "freshness" and "chameleon adaptability."

And I agree, the Planet of the Apes work is absolutely incredible the Main Title and The Hunt are two of my favorite cues ever. A ram's horn has never been used with more effectiveness. Did you enjoy his Alien work as well?

Morn · June 03, 2007, 07:44:30 AM

You probably don't realise the impact music has on a film until you're able to see the film without the music. A lot of what it does is subconscious, it gives you the emotional context of what you are seeing which majorly changes how you perceive an actors performance often without you being aware it is. Spielberg says his movies are static and dead without John Williams. If you don't remember the music it still affected you, and composers tend to aim for that, they want to change your perception of the film firstly and become a companion and commentary to the film if able.
Here's a youtube clip from a Herrmann documentary that effectively demonstrates this.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=oT16InmUlI0
Forward on to about 6:00, and you'll see a comparison of a scene from Torn Curtain without music and then with Herrmann's music.
Now when we're talking about background music. We're missing something really vital about the genre, something rather unique about it. Film music unlike 'pure music' is given context. There are characters to score, plot themes to deal with. An intelligent composer can do great unique things here and they are the ones who realise the true unique potential of the genre.
What film music does best is psychology. The music by benefit of the film has a strong and deep connection into characters soul. It's difficult to describe music with words, but this clip from vertigo opening titles should help, the music perfectly shows the spinning internal fear that vertigo is, this is psychological music. Spinning minimalist like music with bizarre chords. But it goes deeper than that even, note the music has an element of passion and yearning in it, and the main character throughout the film was driven by a mix of fear and passion. Herrmann has ingeniously captured the psychological element of the whole film.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=pz46qS38OgM
Now this is just a simple demostration. When you bring psychological music to a complicated screenplay and complex characters, that's when you get music that can be incredibly insightful. If you take careful note of the music when watching a film, and the composer is extremely talented who understands what psychological music is, you get to be an empath when watching the film.

I really think that film music is the most natural use of music there is, because the music is able to express more in this genre than any other.

Quote from: James on May 27, 2007, 08:28:06 AM
well, i disagree with a lot of what was said...most of it is highly derivative etc., never truly profoundly moving i find and i dont take it all that seriously, despite all this disagreement though & moving on... it can be fun

Here I would disagree completely and suggest that maybe you have not investigated the genre to any depth, to find the golden ingenious stuff amongst all the poor quality fluff that's out there.
Film Music has an extremely large amount of profoundly moving music. It goes to what I said above, it's very human music because it deals with psychology.
Here try listening to this, this is from the mission, Ennio Morricone is scoring the psychological connection to god and the beautiful natural scenery that the missionaries have. There is a reason Ennio Morricone won the lifetime achievement award last year.

http://60.242.91.75/The%20Mission:%20The%20Falls.mp3

Morn · June 03, 2007, 10:16:13 AM

Prokofiev and Mahler. These are 2 composers who works I think match the best of film music.
I must admit I primarily listen to film music, and listen to so called art music because of it's similarity to it.

I gave a sample track of Morricone's music, I don't think music gets more profound than that.
But I have a few more clips to show you. (hopefully lead you to getting the full score

)
http://60.242.91.75/wuthering%20heights.m4a
Alfred Newman, A classic romance theme Wuthering Heights.
http://60.242.91.75/Julius:End%20Title.m4a
Alex North from The Agony and the Ecstacy. The pope having lead the papal states to war has lost and knows he will shortly be executed, but more importantly his dream of making the church powerful again has failed, this cue scores sadness and despair.
http://60.242.91.75/The%20Untouchables%20(End%20Title).mp3
Ennio Morricone, The Untouchables. The incredible thrill of victory over the incredibly evil Capone.

Film music is about very human emotions and conditions. It tells you what it is like to experience things you don't get to. It's often a portal into other peoples lives. I think I can classify a lot of it as profound and life changing.

sound67 · June 03, 2007, 01:32:21 PM

Quote from: James on June 03, 2007, 08:59:11 AM

As I pointed out earlier, John Carpenter's Halloween is a prime example of that, and thats why its considered one of the most successful in the genre of film music. But despite this does it compare with transcendant levels found in Bach? Does Berrmann's Psycho or Vertigo compare with Bartok's String Quartets or Concerto for Orchestra? Does any film score compare to those levels of profundity ? I think not.

thats a big claim.

one that i have yet to hear...and ive heard most of the highly regarded ones! fun sure, entertaining yes, but truly profound & life changing? and no one is denying that certain scores are milestones within film music, but very few are, a lot of them rip of copland or ravel or etc, formalic....and film music at its most successful compared with art music's greatest heights? nah, i still stand what i said earlier, it never comes close...people here can point me to a bunch of books but it still wont change my opinion of that. I have to hear it!

and there are many excellent & highly entertaining films that dont even use orchestras or acoustical instruments at all.....they simply use a lot of popular music, or next to no music at all etc. And in many films the background music is largely mixed lower than the more important sonics, like dialog, sound etc...throughout the duration of the film....

James, you know nothing, and you are nothing. Your (by your own claim) uninformed "opinion" accounts for nothing.

And, also, by your own - rather cretinous - admission, you don't take films "too seriously" and thus didn't study it. Your "opinion" is worthless since it is "founded", if that indeed is the word, on lack of knowledge and understanding.

Again, let's not get sidetracked by this utter twit.

Thomas

Grazioso · June 04, 2007, 03:40:04 AM

Quote from: James on June 03, 2007, 01:57:35 PM
oh stop it, youre hilarious....ive heard many of the major film scores, in fact, i do own many of them (or have at some point), i just dont hear the same level of profundity in film music that many of the big claims in this thread purport. sorry. in otherwords, to put it bluntly, its not in the same league, at all.

Because you don't hear it--and apparently refuse to study film music carefully in its proper context--doesn't mean the profundity isn't there.

Movie Soundtracks: Classical?

Robert

Don

Greta