However, I think that it’d be interesting to analyze what characteristics make us recognize it so easily.

I think that composers follow this style, not only because it has a certain emotional effect. I think that they want to make you feel that you are watching a movie; they want you to feel exited about it. I have not listened to any film score (composed by a film music composer) that I could say “this doesn’t sound like film music”. Some characteristics I could think of (I know it varies from one score to an other, depending on the sort of the effect that the composer wants to create):

- It is music which is generally supported by an orchestra, or by instruments of an orchestra. Strings are probable the most used instrument.
- It is based on classical music composition techniques, and despite being similar to classical music, it is different on the style.
- It has tonal and modal harmonies.
- It is very melodic. You can always find a melody on a soundtrack.

There are more characteristics, but instead of keep writing and writing my opinion, I’d like to know yours.

What characteristics do you find? Why do you think there is a very concrete musical style in film music?

Rach.

Motion passed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rachmaninov:
- It is music which is generally supported by an orchestra, or by instruments of an orchestra. Strings are probable the most used instrument.
- It is based on classical music composition techniques, and despite being similar to classical music, it is different on the style.
- It has tonal and modal harmonies.
- It is very melodic. You can always find a melody on a soundtrack.

---

Ok, to take a serious answer....

I'd have to disagree with you.

There is plenty of music that fits the above characteristics and are NOT film scores. Similarly, there are plenty of film scores that fit NONE of the characteristics you mention.

I stand by my first statement as the 'authorative' response to this topic.

Dan

quote:

---

Originally posted by rachmaninov:
- It is music which is generally supported by an orchestra, or by instruments of an orchestra. Strings are probable the most used instrument.

---

That's true for more classical music than film music.

quote:

---

- It is based on classical music composition techniques, and despite being similar to classical music, it is different on the style.

---

How do you define "classical music"? If you use the term to refer to orchestral concert music, most film scores are much closer to classical "classical music" than many modern concert works.

quote:

---

- It has tonal and modal harmonies.
- It is very melodic. You can always find a melody on a soundtrack.

---

Try Goldsmith's POTA - it's atonal.

- underdevelopped themes.
the themes are stated openly, clearly and concisely. there are no long developments and variations.

The most obvious characteristic:
- film music has crappy sound relative to classical recordings of the same era.

There is a lot of diversity on film music, although it does have a style that links most of the scores. However, with so much diversity, is difficult to generalize.

Besides, I believe that the actual objective of film music is to make you feel, not to understand. Some things are not possible to explain with words, or with images, hence a score is essential for most films.

Being something sentimental rather than rational, it is difficult to explain it rationally.

Thanks for your comments.

Rach.

NP: Dinosaur - JNH

P.S. I will listen to Janacek's Sinfonietta and Goldsmith's POTA

quote:

---

Originally posted by SirT:
"There is only one definition of science fiction that seems to make pragmatic sense: 'Science fiction is anything published as science fiction.'"

---

To be honest, the quote, as "pragmatic" as it is, for the general reader I would tend to think that science fiction is a genre that depicts a possible FUTURE, whereas fantasy is the opposite genre that depicts that a possible PAST.

I have to agree with Dan. Music becomes film music when it's attached with a film. However, this classification brings gets even more problematic, as mainstream POP/ROCK/RAP songs now constitute film music as well when these musicians make songs exclusively for various movies. Speaking of which, a website just went up for the Daredevil soundtrack, and as suspected, it's full of rock bands. I am pretty certain that Revell won't be getting his own Daredevil site anytime soon.

quote:

---

To be honest, the quote, as "pragmatic" as it is, for the general reader I would tend to think that science fiction is a genre that depicts a possible FUTURE, whereas fantasy is the opposite genre that depicts that a possible PAST.

---

By that definition, Star Wars is clearly purely fantasy. But I agree that it is at least in part fantasy. The term "science fiction" is problematic anyway...science doesn't necessarily refer to the future, while much of what is called "science fiction" takes place in the future but really isn't about science at all.

And then there are movies like Contact...how to define those? Particularly since (as also stated in this movie), much of what's completely normal nowadays was scifi a few decades ago.

A large amount of Science Fiction has nothing to with the future or science (Alternate History for one and Dystopic fiction for another (1984)). The main difference between Science Fiction and Fantasy is that Science Fiction deals with what is possible, Fantasy deals with what is impossible.

There should always be an underlying basis of fact, no matter how fantastic the story. If there isn’t, then it is fantasy or at best, Science Fantasy. Fantasy can ignore any rule or physical restraint as long as it remains internally consistent. (If your guy has to have blue paint on his hands to cast spells, he and everyone else better have it unless the point of the story is to find some way to cast spells without blue paint!)

There are plenty of bad Science Fiction stories that fail the test by ignoring the logical consequences of the technology they introduce or the implications of what they posit. Star Trek comes screaming to mind by blithely ignoring nanotechnology, and the nastier side effects of transporter technology. This doesn’t necessarily make them Fantasy, just bad.

Dinko's aforementioned chopping and changing is a fairly constant characteristic. I'd add a certain sense of treading water in some scores, which often shows up the fact that they're only part of a greater whole.

In many cases, film music is almost pastiche. It feeds off pre-existing fashions without being too specific. It is neither fish nor fowl.

Much of it works within established parameters, and can sound quite conventional, even conservative, due to the nature of the movies themselves. I think that Herrmann's twenty-eight trombones, Goldsmith's PLANET OF THE APES and some of Goldenthal's works are the exception rather than the rule.