Film (movie) Music

[ezodisy]

What if we evaluated Tchaikovsky or Stravinsky solely by their ballets?

? They'd still be considered geniuses for these alone.

I would be interested to hear our more experiened users' thoughts on the integration of music into film. IMO this is largely the reason why most film music fails, whether or not the film music is "original".

I wouldn't mind an explanation about what makes "functional music" so inferior--according to sound67--if it actually serves its purpose within a film.

[sound67]

All film music is functional music in as much as it serves its purpose to support a film. It is the composer's talent that makes him able to forge the music in a way that it transcends its original function and can become an independent entity. And the better the composer, the better he is able to achieve both simultaneously. Which means that a score that is listenable when separated from the visuals serves its "function" as film scoring equally well, if not better, than a score that is deigned more along the lines of an "audio effect" and has no musical life. That's why a Jerry Goldsmith is a better composer than a John Carpenter.

Thomas

[sound67]

I think of another lovely film, Richard Lester's "3 musketeers" - with Michel Legrand's opulent score . Fun & poetry can be combined. It's a pity though the actors don't speak French....

It's also a pity that Legrand blew the entire music budget on the film so that his colleague Lalo Schifrin, who scored the sequel (which was shot simultaneously), only a had a tiny orchestra at his disposal - creating a slightly less opulent sound. 

Thomas

[karlhenning]

The fact that Kubrick rejected the alternate score clearly suggests it didn't meet his needs. And TIME has proven him right!!!!!     

Yes; one may, for whatever reasons he likes, regret that the original score was not incorporated in the end product;  but to take that partisanship to the degree of claiming that the flimmaker didn't know his business or his art, is de trop.

[sound67]

Yes; one may, for whatever reasons he likes, regret that the original score was not incorporated in the end product;  but to take that partisanship to the degree of claiming that the flimmaker didn't know his business or his art, is de trop.

That's not really the same as saying that it was a mistake to replace the original score, is it?

[karlhenning]

Actually, 99% of classical music was crap too. Fortunately, posterity has done much of the weeding work for us.

You exaggerate tendentiously;  the percentage is significantly less in the case of music written to stand on its own.

What if we evaluated Tchaikovsky or Stravinsky solely by their ballets?

It would not be entirely fair to either composer;  and yet, in both cases, the ballets alone would nominate them as among the greatest of composers.

[karlhenning]

That's not really the same as saying that it was a mistake to replace the original score, is it?

It's not the same, and I apologize if the exaggeration was unfair to you, Thos.  Still, while it is not nearly so far, I think you still go too far to call it a mistake.

[sound67]

You exaggerate tendentiously;  the percentage is significantly less in the case of music written to stand on its own.

It's also less as far as film is concerned. 

Thomas

[sound67]

It's not the same, and I apologize if the exaggeration was unfair to you, Thos.  Still, while it is not nearly so far, I think you still go too far to call it a mistake.

Hmmm. How then does it differ from saying that e.g. such and such a conductor was mistaken in adopting a certain tempo in a certain passage of a certain symphony?

Thomas

[karlhenning]

Hmmm. How then does it differ from saying that e.g. such and such a conductor was mistaken in adopting a certain tempo in a certain passage of a certain symphony?

Well, one possible point of difference is, the score may have a tempo marking which is a firm point of reference.

In many cases, in the sense of it being essentially an expression of opinion, no great difference, I suppose.

Edit :: typo

[karlhenning]

It's also less as far as film is concerned. 

Sure;  in my experience, though, &c. &c. &c. 

[sound67]

Well, one possible point of difference is, the score may have a tempo marking which is a firm point of reference.

Yeah, that's a difference. However, there are some that would argue that tempo markings, by way of "interpretation", may be disregarded. 

Thomas

[karlhenning]

And, to refer yet again to a difference, which to my mind remains a crucial, definitive difference, but which is frequently being ignored as Inconvenient, the composer has all the powers and responsibilities of structure when writing (say) a piano sonata — the composer is master of the composition.  For a film, the fellow furnishing the score provides a sonic element for some other guy's project, and all question of overall composition is a matter of the film, and under the control of the film-maker (if of anyone).

Thus (to justify my repeating this point), it is of necessaity going to be the case, that there will be a higher "success rate" in the realm of composers writing and managing the Composition themselves, than in the realm of providing The Sound Stuff for a film.  And when a film scorer is providing material for a high volume of movies in a short span of time, you have the perfect environment for an unusually high Piffle Ratio of a degree which has hardly been seen in classical music since the careers of Telemann and Dittersdorf 

[sound67]

And, to refer yet again to a difference, which to my mind remains a crucial, definitive difference, but which is frequently being ignored as Inconvenient, the composer has all the powers and responsibilities of structure when writing (say) a piano sonata — the composer is master of the composition.  For a film, the fellow furnishing the score provides a sonic element for some other guy's project, and all question of overall composition is a matter of the film, and under the control of the film-maker (if of anyone).

Which also reflects a "weakness" of film as a collaborative art in that often these decisions are made by people who are not musically erudite.

Thomas

[karlhenning]

Which also reflects a "weakness" of film as a collaborative art in that often these decisions are made by people who are not musically erudite.

Perfectly true, Thos.

Two people getting together to write a book, has always seemed to me a bit like three people getting together to have a baby.

(Not sure I have the Waugh quote entirely accurate.)

[Dancing Divertimentian]

Exactly.

Thomas

Err, now you're just being an ass. That passage you wrote isn't legible. And the blame lies squarely on you.

[sound67]

If you have anything to say about film music, feel free to let us know. 

[Dancing Divertimentian]

Yes; one may, for whatever reasons he likes, regret that the original score was not incorporated in the end product;  but to take that partisanship to the degree of claiming that the flimmaker didn't know his business or his art, is de trop.

Yes, and despite sound67's constant word-spinning that's essentially how I read him. Which is the root of our disagreement. 

And for sound67:

I'm not convinced that a filmmaker needs to be "musically erudite" to make quality cinema.

That's the distinction I think you're missing.

I'm out of time now, so more later...

[karlhenning]

I'm not convinced that a filmmaker needs to be "musically erudite" to make quality cinema.

A good point.

[sound67]

I'm not convinced that a filmmaker needs to be "musically erudite" to make quality cinema.

Quality cinema? Maybe not. Quality cinema with a quality soundtrack - if he chooses to get involved with the latter? Definitely.

BTW:

And the blame lies squarely on you.

Blame? How old are you - 11? 

Thomas