Is a record company justified in producing a score album if the material works fantastically in the movie but sounds bland by itself? For example, the first name that pops in my mind is Mark Snow. His X-Files TV work is some of the most evocative and inspired television writing of all time, but can be tedious to sit through on album. Thus, should a company produce a full score album?

My thoughts on this are mixed. I think that most scores should be judged solely on the basis of the CD listening experience if it's released as an album. It doesn't matter if it worked great in the movie: how does it sound divorced from the picture? If a label releases a soundtrack album, then they should expect the work to be judged as a standalone piece of music. Something like The X-Files would get a low rating from me (at least the soundtrack album). If it doesn't work by itself, a score album shouldn't be produced.

IMHO, if one wants to relive the movie, one should simply WATCH the movie. Soundtrack albums should be able to stand alone.

An exception to this, at least for me, is Jerry Goldsmith. To me, his underscore writing is just as inspiring to listen to by itself as in the film.

Another point of view is that the companies should release every score and allow the collector to pick and choose. I somewhat agree with this, but they could end up like Varese and take the money that could be used to buy extra minutes in their quality releases and spend it on another bland score that gets the same amount of CD time as the masterpiece.

Scores for film must serve the film, and if they happen to work ontheir own so much the better. I love to hear the different ways music can and cannot work.

NP -- GI Jane, Trevor Jones

Not at all intended to be hostile--but the very fact that you have an exception in Goldsmith is fair reason for any of us to have exceptions to any and/or every composer of our own individual choosing.

But I also realize that there are many people out there that probably love the availability of ... even though I could do without it.

I supposed in my own little world, just the scores I want would be released - in that case, FAMILY PLOT wouldn't still be unavailable (then again, I'm sure there are those that would rather not see that become corrected). Wouldn't that be grand?

Absolutely not.

When a composer signs on to create a score for a film, he composes something that works for the movie - and not what might "sell" afterwards. No one has the right to call a score bad, simply because it doesnīt stand well on itīs own for a release CD. Itīs simply not fair to the composer or his profession.

And, may I add, that what makes a score "listenable" for one individual, may not be the same for somone else.

SFT

But, SFT:
I agree that a composer should write a score solely to fit the movie, and it's simply an added bonus if it is a great listening experience. However, if I'm buying or have received an album to review, I'm only going to judge the listening experience, not the way it works in the film. The very act of releasing a soundtrack album IMHO makes a claim that "This is good music - it's good enough to release, and is a great listening experience."

Nevertheless, I understand what you mean about how which scores are released seems to be arbitrary. Sometimes it doesn't look like it's making any sense.

However, there is no objective way of making this decision.

I have no idea why James Horner can release eighty minutes of previously released material each film he does while bewitching scores such as John Williams Images and Carter Burwell's Waterland languish in unreleasedom. This, however, is my opinion, I find Horner's scores, while minimally effective in the film (as long as I don't pay too much attention to them) to be putrid listening experiences on their own.

On the other hand, I really get a thrill out of Michael Nyman's film scores, but there are plenty of people who find his music to be unlistenable.

It just speaks of the variation in opinion that really can't be quantified. It's one thing if it's a classic film and unreleased score (such as Bernard Herrmann's North by Northwest on Rhino, any Rozsa score), then you know your audience will be there, but judging whether to release an album before an audience has a chance to react to a score is difficult.

Williams gets long-running albums because he's a marquee name, for his Boston Pops work as much as his blockbuster movies, and he only does really big pictures. Or pictures that turn out to be big, like HOME ALONE, which was done around the same time as a movie that did much less well (but has a lovely score), STANLEY & IRIS. Anyway, he has that deal with Sony Classical now, the particulars of which I am not familiar with.

By the way, good news to some: Film Score Monthly's website just stated that -- along with some other scores -- Goldsmith's THE TWILIGHT ZONE and UNDER FIRE are going to be (re-)released on CD. Anybody still wanna shell out $ 275.- for a copy of UNDER FIRE?

quote:

---

Originally posted by JJH:
another Nyman fan? Is this possible?

---

I rather like what I've heard from Nyman, too. I've got a copy of a Nyman CD somewhere, which includes several short works and suites by him (with The Piano at the ending).

Film music released on a separate album SHOULD NOT be enjoyed as an appendix to the movie itself (I'll add a possible IMHO)! I have severe difficulties understanding those who listen to soundtrack albums as a reliving of the movie or a reliving of the MOOD of the movie. I think, to a certain degree, that these people are fooling themselves by thinking so and give far too little credit to the music itself. I'll agree, though, that - from a strict, academic FILM perspective - that the function of music in films is interesting.

Yes, I must say that I was very surprised when I first logged on to the net a few years back and discovered that most film music enthusiasts loved film music ONLY AS RELATED TO THE MOVIE! I definitely thought it was the other way around. I myself got into film music by the way of MUSIC, not films, and so I see film music as just another music genre. Luscious Lazlo and myself seem to be the only ones as rigid as that, though.

Unfortunately, I don't have the time to go deeper into this right now, but I will return in august with a hard-hitting attack on over-complete, film-fetischistic expanded score releases (based on the notion of film music as a stand-alone listen). Wait and see.

"I have severe difficulties understanding those who listen to soundtrack albums as a reliving of the movie or a reliving of the MOOD of the movie."

I believe it is not a matter of understanding for you do comprehend the film-with-music "marriage" when it's a good marriage. It's actually a matter of your not relating to those who listen to the music for the reasons you cite. And I must clarify something about "reliving the mood." Since music in and of itself is the most emotional medium, when it is wedded to the medium of film it becomes that much more emotionally powerful, i.e. enjoyable. Yes, it can be enjoyed on its own without any viewing of the film. As you are aware, my only bone with those who are more into this kind of listening is that they do not make it clear that their criticism of a composer or score is from a CD standpoint. Considering that theirs is a decided minority among film music enthusiasts, it is all the more important to make this distinction if y'all want to avoid unnecessary confusion. And rancor. "Tastes great/less filling" and all that.

Well,

I think this issue is a little more complex than at first sight.

All music especially classical oriented music somehow tells a story. From the masters of yesteryear we have ballets, operas, etc. Everyone enjoys these compositions apart from the original settings they were composed for. Many who enjoy classical music today, don't have a clue why there were written and what story they originally told. The whole premise of Fantasia was to represent the music in a different way, whether with or without the composer's approval.

Now why should it be different with film music. Isn't film music just another extension of classical music? Just another way of telling a story through instruments? Whether music accompanies the dancing imagery of artist or it enhances the visual stimuly of moving picture isn't it just the same? Would Beethoven or Mozart be film composers today? I would wager yes.

So in essence whether you believe that film music cannot be taken away from the original movies, or whether you insist that they must be enjoyable apart from the film, it really is up to the individual. I mean, thousands of trailors have been underscored with music from other films.

And to the purist this is a most loathsome practice, a practice which has not been around forever but one which came about & has become the norm for maybe the last 10-15 years. Anyway, correct me but the music usually comes before the ballet whereas the music usually comes after the movie. The point is that choreography serves as an unnecessary adjunct to the enjoyment of the music and while the same can be said for music/film, the music's very being is nonetheless dependent on the film. That is not the case with the former...which is why something like Barry's Beyondness Of Things may be considered a bridge of sorts i.e. film music without the film--per Thor's "vision music." Skating routines choreographed to film music almost contradict the sequential factor but again, if it weren't for the movie the skater wouldn't have the music. Either way, there's nothing inherently wrong, per se, with a listen devoid of the movie experience. When you're having a film music discussion, however, it's always good to know the pulse of the group. And that goes for both constituencies.

Oh good God does that sound dogmatic and as if I haven't said that elsewhere. Forgive the repetition and finger-waving, time to go home and have a cold one. Cheers.

*********************************************

Here's the thread where Thor & I (among others) broached the subject--
http://www.moviemusic.com/mb/Forum1/HTML/002445.html

PS
In a related vein, here's something else to chew on--
http://www.moviemusic.com/mb/Forum1/HTML/003045.html

****************************************************

quote:

---

Originally posted by Howard L:
"I mean, thousands of trailors have been underscored with music from other films."

And to the purist this is a most loathsome practice, a practice which has not been around forever but one which came about & has become the norm for maybe the last 10-15 years. Anyway, correct me but the music usually comes before the ballet whereas the music usually comes after the movie

---

And to the purist this is a most loathsome practice, a practice which has not been around forever but one which came about & has become the norm for maybe the last 10-15 years.

Well, I like it and I would consider myself a purist to a certain extend.

Anyway, correct me but the music usually comes before the ballet whereas the music usually comes after the movie

True, but even ballets like "The Nutcracker", "Swan Lake" etc, were based upon stories. True, the composer had a lot of freedom as far as the mental construction of the story is concerned, yet he had to follow a story regardless.

Also, there have been terrific movies that used classical pieces "2001, /The Sting" to name a few. What about those?

I just think that music is interchangealbel for all music plays upon the emotion. A sad scene is sad, a dangerous scene evokes fear.Music, regardless for whatever reason it was composed, can be enjoyed apart from that reason.