Simple reason? It's just plain good.

The psychological/philosophical reason? To feel and experience sensations that I would not ordinarily feel during an average person's life, and that would be mine. What do I mean by that? Here are some examples. How of us actually go into war and fight thousands and thousands of medieval Brits to obtain our freedom? How of us can yield the lightsaber and feel the Force flowing through us? How many of us can wear a cape and be faster than a speeding bullet? How many of us have had a Hollywood love story? And how of us actually faced a dinosaur? I think most of you understand my point. Now I am not saying that none of us ever will go through some of those things (if anyone can fly and possess the Force, PLEASE get a good Superman movie made!! Oh yeah, and save the world while you're at it...), but for people like me, chances are slim to none.

I can cry, laugh, get angry, become excited, be in love, be inspired, and basically feel what it's like (to the nearest authenticty) to be a character in a fantasy world. In a sense, film music brings to me the emotions that so many people and particularly cynics in society are devoid of. I feel extremely enlightened. The music takes away all my sorrows and worries and I become immersed in that musical state of mind.

At my funeral I wan´t to have "The Grand Finale" from Edward Scissorhands played... How morbid.

SFT

--Crono/Kyp
Writer/Director/Producer

What you are all responding to is the unique ability of music to touch emotions inside that no other medium has the power to evoke. It is not, however, unique to film music. It is at the core of all western art music (what we normally call "classical music"). The feeling you get when you hear those opening strains of STAR WARS or BATMAN or STAR TREK:TMP is the same feeling that a great Beethoven or Mahler symphony can evoke.

What is the difference then? (Here comes the controversial part . . .) The difference is that film music is slightly more accessible, more immediate, for two reasons.

First, you have a set of visual images (is that redundant?) to go with the music. When you respond to the theme from STAR WARS, you are not just responding to the music, but also to the grandeur of the whole 8 or 9 hour STAR WARS movie experience. The music conjures those feelings.

You may say, Yes, but sometimes I buy a score by Jerry Goldsmith or John Williams or Danny Elfman before I have even seen the movie, yet I still love it. That is because of the second reason, which is that film composers consciously write in a more listenable, visceral style, with less of the long term development and musical architecture that characterizes standard classical music.

That is the reason that many of you may have tried to listen to a classical piece, only to be disappointed that you didn't "feel" the same reaction. On the surface, the two styles seem to be similar, and indeed, they are. Film music is an outgrowth of the dramatic, romantic music that was written for most of the operas of the nineteenth century. However, those pieces take a little more understanding and patience to reveal their treasures.

Whereas, the appeal of movie music is much more apparent on the surface, after just one listening. If it sounds like I'm saying that film music is a little shallower than standard classical music, I guess I am. But I don't intend that to be the insult that it sounds like.

My point is that good music is good music -- film music is tied to the movie that spawned it (consciously or not) and it must reflect those emotions. Concert music (or "classical music" if you prefer) is entirely self-contained, requiring the listener to participate a little more actively in its development.

I agree with Jonathan. Film music is accessible. To put it very simply: it's a every-man's classical music.

Plus it doesn't hurt that alot of these classical CDs can be purchased for around 3 to 6 dollars and are usually 65+ minutes of music.

I listen to it because I just find it... so... brilliant. It must take tons of talent and skill to command such an intimidatingly vast amount of instruments, and make it translate emotions. People complain about how "Gattaca" had almost no instruments other than strings. Screw that, for lack of a better word. That soundtrack was great because it displayed the emotions of the film so powerfully.

Also, the soundtrack must translate the atmosphere and setting of the film. Soundtracks like "Sphere", "Blade Runner", "Dark City", and "Ghost in the Shell" did this perfectly and skillfully.

This is also why the only, well, "band-that-appeals-to-a-lot-of-teens" band I listen to is Nine Inch Nails. I turn on the radio, and hear an interview where the band, "Smashmouth", mentioned they created their latest album in one week. ONE WEEK??? Really. Smashmouth can kiss the movie-orchestra's ass. Such unoriginal garbage compared to a film score...

Yes, it's true that film music is easily accessible when compared to classical music. But the funny thing is, the only reason that classical music is less appealing to me is because of its length, and with impatient folks like me, it's quite difficult to sit through the whole passage waiting for some emotional cue. It's unfortunate that I have little patience....but that's me in general anyway.

One of the genres that I still listen to is contemporary jazz. I think we have brought this up before, so I won't go into details about it. But musicians like Dave Koz, Jonathan Butler, Pat Metheny, David Foster, and great legends like John Coltrane and David Sanborn have stirred up this genre of jazz that are short and sweet. This kind of music doesn't have to provoke some pre-set image in my mind, as I piece my own images to Ronny Jordan's "Tinseltown" or Pat Metheny's "Last Train Home."